Palestinians pray next to the bodies of their relatives who were killed in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza Stirp, at the Al Aqsa hospital in Deir al Balah, Gaza Strip, Sunday, June 2, 2024. (AP Photo/Abdel Kareem Hana)
By SIR RONALD SANDERS
IN the ongoing discourse on international relations and human rights, one of the most enduring and complex issues is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Recent developments indicate a shift in the international stance towards this issue, particularly regarding the recognition of statehood for Palestine. This evolution in policy underscores the global community’s attempt to foster a balanced approach towards achieving a two-state solution — a vision that has eluded numerous peacemakers over the years.
Historically, the majority of the world’s nations have recognized Israel as a sovereign state since its establishment in 1948. However, recognition of Palestinian statehood has been contentious and uneven, with significant geopolitical implications. Now, as of May 2024, 146 countries have officially recognised the State of Palestine.
The stance of powerful nations, particularly those in the West such as the United States (US), the United Kingdom, Canada, and key European Union members like Germany and France, has often been influenced by their own political and strategic interests. These countries have historically aligned with Israel, often citing the need for any recognition of Palestinian statehood to come through direct negotiations between the parties involved. This approach, while pragmatic in its aim to ensure peace through mutual agreement, has also been criticised for perpetuating an imbalance in negotiating power, which in turn has affected the dynamics of international diplomacy concerning this issue.
Recent statements from leaders like French President Emmanuel Macron, who expressed openness to recognising Palestinian statehood at a “useful moment”, signify a potential shift in this longstanding policy framework. Such developments are vital as they highlight a growing recognition of the need for a more equitable approach in addressing this conflict.
The recognition of Palestine as a state is not merely a symbolic gesture. It has profound implications for the rights of Palestinians in international law, their ability to engage in diplomacy, bargain in trade and investment, and pursue legal actions internationally in protection of their territory and autonomy. This move could pave the way for more balanced negotiations, potentially leading to a sustainable peace agreement.
However, the path to peace is fraught with challenges. Recent escalations in violence and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza have underscored the dire consequences of prolonged conflict. Statements from global leaders and actions by countries in recognising Palestine reflect an urgency to address these issues comprehensively.
Israel’s security concerns and the historical context of its geopolitical stance must also be acknowledged. However, the Israeli government’s actions, often described as measures for national security, have significant repercussions for the peace process because in Gaza they have crossed the line, in the view of many, that demarcates legitimate action in defence of national security.
The actions of the Israel army in Gaza, acting on the instructions of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has brought the accusation of genocide into sharp focus. In a powerful essay in the New York Review of Books, Aryeh Neier, quotes the historian, Raul Hilberg’s argument that “the elimination of a people is ‘a step-by-step operation’. First comes defining the group, then expropriating its resources, then concentrating its members in one place, and finally annihilating them”.
In his essay, Neier concluded that “Israel is engaged in genocide against Palestine in Gaza”. There is, he says, “a sustained policy of obstructing the movement of humanitarian assistance into the territory”.
He went on to say that he believed that “Israel had a right to retaliate against Hamas for the murderous rampage it carried out on October 7”, but he also said that “to recognise this right to retaliate is not to mitigate Israel’s culpability for the indiscriminate use of tactics and weapons that have caused disproportionate harm to civilians”. He draws attention to the words of Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, “I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals, and we act accordingly.”
I cite Neier because he is a Jew and a survivor of the holocaust against the Jewish people in Nazi Germany. He cannot be accused of being antisemitic. Further, his work at Human Rights Watch (HRW), which he co-founded in 1978, is globally respected.
The repercussions of Gallant’s actions extend far beyond the tragic loss of 36,000 lives in Gaza. Despite clear warnings from its closest allies against missile strikes on densely populated areas, these advisories were ignored, leading to an attack on Rafah where over 46 civilians were killed — an incident Netanyahu later termed a “tragic mistake”, but did not halt the military action. This disregard for allied counsel and the resulting civilian casualties have precipitated a severe humanitarian crisis.
The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reports that the intensification of hostilities and the evacuation orders by Israel “have displaced more than 940,000 people from Rafah” in May alone. That number is greater than the entire population of Barbados and six independent countries in the Leeward and Windward Islands of the Caribbean. There is, the UN says, “the unconscionable prospect of a man-made famine”.
Recent charges by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Israeli and Hamas leaders for alleged war crimes, and the claims by US President Biden that there is “no equivalence” between them illustrates the complexities of balancing justice, accountability, and national interest.
President Biden’s position, along with the broader US policy, will play a critical role in determining the trajectory of the peace process. To gain support from the international community — where 146 nations advocate for the recognition of Palestine as a state — the US approach must be, and must be seen as, balanced and fair. This commitment to impartiality is essential for upholding the global consensus on the necessity of fairness in resolving this conflict.
The international community must foster an environment where both parties can negotiate as equals, unencumbered by the disproportionate influence or preconditions that have historically skewed the peace process.
Only through a genuine and balanced dialogue can the long-standing aspirations for peace in the region be realised.
• Responses and previous commentaries at www. sirronaldsanders.com. (The writer is Antigua and Barbuda’s Ambassador to the US and the OAS. The views expressed are entirely his own).
Comments
Porcupine 3 months ago
The very idea of a rules based international order, as well as, any consideration of real democracy would include taking into consideration the will of the world's people. The UN has been shaped and used by the US as a bludgeon to further its own hegemonic goals and desire for world domination. When a country's leadership uses the phrase full-spectrum dominance, and spends over a trillion dollars annually to seek its objectives militarily, that country should be held to account and ostracized by the world community. Mr. Saunders, if the US gave Barbados to the Jews, what would you say? The history of the state of Israel is really not that complicated to those who read, and are fair-minded. Britain "gave" Palestine to the Zionists. A country where the Palestinians had been living for perhaps a few thousand years. This is all well documented. The Original Sin was committed by your beloved west, leading to the expulsion by terror and murder of 750,000 people. This isn't ancient history, Mr. Saunders. Those of us who were "educated" in the west, such as yourself, I suspect, have been poisoned by the Zionist propaganda from childhood. Hasbara, yes? October 7, if one understands, and respects, international law, was a legal resistance to the open air concentration camp which Palestinians have been held captive in for far too long. Reasonable people understand this and feel this. The Zionists have poisoned the world with their rewriting of history and outright and continuous lies. Israel cannot be trusted. We should protect all people of all faiths. However, Israel has no right to exist. The world should reconsider this error the west made. Clearly, there is no connection, historical or genetic, of the Jewish people and Palestine. Simple DNA tests would confirm this. The Palestinian people had nothing to do with the German Holocaust of the Jews, gypsies and other non Aryan people. They do not deserve to suffer because of the west's mistakes. Your attempt at fairness and diplomatic consideration fell far short of justice and impartiality, Mr. Saunders. What if the Brits had "given" the Jews Barbados? As many Jews the world over are saying loudly and clearly, there is no connection between Judiaism and Zionism. Obviously, Mr. Saunders, you are well aware of the danger to your career were you to mention these truths..
Sign in to comment
OpenID