When the international community descends on Manhattan next month for the annual session of the United Nations General Assembly, one issue will loom exceedingly large on the collective agenda: the intention of France, Britain and Canada to imminently recognize Palestine as a state, absent significant changes in Israeli policy.
Predictably, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is seizing the moment. The aging autocrat, now in the 19th year of his first elected term, is reportedly considering plans to unilaterally declare statehood, with Turtle Bay as the backdrop.
That may not happen, but the larger trend line is unmistakable. More and more countries are embracing the idea of a Palestinian state and doing so without requiring the accountability and transparency envisioned by the international community some three decades ago, when the Oslo Accords process began. That promises to be a massive problem because under current conditions, “Palestine” would end up being a political and strategic threat to the region and the Palestinians themselves.
The first reason is resources. Despite its military offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Israel is nevertheless committed to supporting the Palestinian population there. It still provides extensive supplies of fuel for Gaza electricity generation and hundreds of thousands of gallons of water daily, while humanitarian supplies have surged in recent weeks in response to growing reports of Palestinian hunger.
A Palestinian declaration of statehood would fundamentally change matters. With the creation of “Palestine,” Israel would no longer be under any obligation to provide for the well-being of the Palestinians. That responsibility would fall to the new Palestinian government, whoever that might be.
Mr. Abbas clearly hopes it will be him, but the polls suggest otherwise. After nearly two decades of misrule, he and his regime are wildly unpopular. In its most recent poll, the Ramallah-based Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found that only 1 in 5 Palestinians is satisfied with Mr. Abbas’ performance as Palestinian Authority president and an overwhelming majority (81% of those polled) want him to resign.
By contrast, support for Hamas, though diminishing, remains comparatively robust at 43%, despite the widespread misery inflicted by the Islamist group on Gaza’s captive population.
That means a future Palestinian government could very well turn out to be radical and Islamist, both in form and in substance. Should that happen, it would virtually guarantee “Palestine” would become an international pariah immediately upon its creation. Despite the grandiose rhetoric, Western countries would have difficulty tolerating the risks of engagement with such an entity. (The international isolation of today’s Taliban government in Afghanistan provides a useful case in point.)
Then there is the question of state responsibility. Under customary international law, states have an obligation to prevent hostilities that originate inside their borders from harming neighboring nations. That’s a tall order for a future Palestinian government because the Palestinian Authority has for years rewarded terrorism against Israel, and Hamas remains steadfastly committed to the destruction of the Jewish state.
Any violations of this standard after the creation of “Palestine” would have dire consequences. International law would allow the aggrieved country to retaliate with economic, political or even military measures, as Israel undoubtedly would. If the Israeli response is military in nature, the rules of engagement would be different as well. Rather than applying heightened standards for the protection of civilians, as the Israel Defense Forces currently do, international instruments such as the Geneva and Hague conventions would broaden the definition of combatancy to encompass all those who take up arms. The predictable result would be a further expansion of Israel’s already extensive military engagement in Gaza.
The recent declarations of support for Palestinian statehood emanating from leaders in Paris, London, Ottawa and other places are clearly intended to signal displeasure with Israeli policy. However, if those leaders were serious about helping the Palestinians, they would recognize that the creation of “Palestine” now would be something akin to a disaster foretold, and they would instead focus on improving Palestinian governance to create an entity that might eventually do what Hamas and the Palestinian Authority won’t: provide for both Palestinian prosperity and Israeli security.
