OP-ED: Recognizing a ‘Palestine State’
By ALAN SMASON
The other shoe dropped this morning. Or, should it be said more precisely, the other three shoes dropped.
Palestinian flags fly in Ramallah on the West Bank in 2014. (Photo by Alan Smason)
In a coordinated announcement, the Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney officially recognized a “State of Palestine.” A video from United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Stramer soon followed acknowledging the same and, a short 15 minutes later, a similar announcement was issued by Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.
As of this morning, three of the largest English-speaking countries other than the United States have now joined the ranks of countries that officially recognize a State of Palestine on paper.
All of the prime ministers decried Hamas, the terror organization that has been running the affairs of the Gazan people since 2007 and who initiated the October 7, 2023 attacks against Israel. While each recognized Hamas still holds 49 living and dead hostages, it was the intent of the three leaders to bring pressure to bear on Israel presently in the midst of its ongoing military campaign in Gaza City and to advocate for a “two-state solution.”
The problem with this proposition is there is only a possible two-state solution on the West Bank, where the Palestinian Authority under the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas, runs the show along with the tenuous support of the State of Israel.
The situation in Gaza is far more murky. Hamas rules through the ruthless intimidation of the Palestinian people who live in Gaza and are the avowed enemies of Israel and the political enemy of the Fatah Party to which Abbas belongs. Were there to be a coalition government with Abbas, he would be a man marked for assassination. There is no leader in Hamas or a living Palestinian who represents a true path forward to peace in Gaza.
As of today, 151 of 193 member nations – or 78% – of the United Nations recognize a State of Palestine.
So, what is the real upshot of these three recognitions? On paper, nothing really changes.
Israel continues to wage its campaign against Hamas as thousands flee Gaza City and even more are put at risk due to the dire sitation of lack of food, supplies and humanitarian relief. The Israeli response has been to declare war on Hamas at all costs. Hamas has made it clear that its intention is to remove a Jewish state from the Levant. Every inch of land Israel occupies is illegal, according to Hamas’ founding document. It makes as much sense to bring Hamas to the bargaining table as to attempt to engage a charging rhinoceros in a scholarly debate.
Israel knows the only true key to peace is through strength and, unfortunately, until a leader emerges from the disarray in Gaza, there is little prospect they will cease their military strikes.
Giving status as a state to Hamas, a band of terrorist guerrilla fighters, seems to be a reward for being unproductive in the peace process. Hamas has refused to return the Israeli hostages over which it has control and will not engage in meaningful talks with Israel, taking every opportunity to oppose measures that would dial back Israel’s military campaign. The more brutal Israel is in its war against Gaza, the more world opinion will turn against them, the Hamas leaders seem to suggest and, indeed, they now have the U.K, Canada and Australia officially opposed to Israel, at least on paper.
This is not a new situation for Israel, which literally sprang forth from the power vacuum left by Great Britain in 1948, when it announced plans to vacate its Mandate of Palestine. Israel, bolstered by recognition from the United States, fought a war for independence that lasted more than a year and a half. Challenges to its authority have resulted in wars from its Arab neighbors in 1967, 1973 and two intifadas orchestrated by Hamas in Gaza and by Fatah in the West Bank.
Once again, the United States seems to be Israel’s only true supporter in the wake of these latest diplomatic moves.
We can only hope this new year of 5786 will offer better solutions at diplomacy than these specious recognitions of non-existing governments.
