The recognition by the French parliament of the independence of the Palestinian state on the 2 December was certainly not unexpected. It is even difficult to call it an “alarm bell” signalling serious problems in the so-called ‘Middle East settlement’. It is really yet another step by the international community into the dense thickets of diplomatic absurdity from which it will be incredibly difficult, if not altogether impossible to get out. The madness which has continued for not years but decades has gripped more and more countries, creeping up on the most serious decision-making centres in the world of big politics. France is not Antigua and Barbuda, who recognized Palestinian independence three years ago, with all due respect to this island state.
The absurdity of the situation is off the charts and begs the polemical style of the pamphleteer but I will try to isolate a rational kernel to this unfolding process as far as I understand it. In which direction is the situation developing? What is pushing European parliamentarians to the obviously absurd recognition of a non-existent political formation? Ultimately, what does this sweeping gesture of buying cheap populist support at the cost of others mean in practice? What will change in the Middle East in the wake of this historic decision?
Perhaps we should start with the fact that Palestinian independence has been recognized by more than 130 countries and this process started a long time before even the creation of the Palestinian national administration. As far back as 1988, the state was proclaimed by members of the Palestinian National Council. It is significant that the preceding session of this body, calling itself an executive body, took place more than ten years earlier, and Palestinian independence was declared in Algeria. That is to say, it was a purely symbolic step, not meaning anything in practice. The National Council did not control a single square meter of territory.
Furthermore the claims of the independence fighters were pretty bold - their official policy document, the Palestinian Charter, at that time, in principle, denied Israel's right to exist. Despite the fact that the non-existent state led by a bunch of terrorists in exile claimed the entire territory from the Jordan to the Mediterranean, many countries immediately, literally on the day of the proclamation, began to officially recognize it.
During the first year of the spectral non-existence of Palestine, it was recognized by more than 90 countries. First in line, naturally were the Arab and Muslim states, as well as the Soviet Union and its socialist satellites. Let me remind you, by the way, that formally in the USSR there were three subjects of international law: the RSFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and the Byelorussian SSR. Thus, for Russia, Ukraine and Belarus an independent and sovereign Palestine has officially existed for more than fifteen years. Other post-Soviet countries (with the exception of Armenia and the Baltic States) have taken this step after gaining their independence.
Thank God, this symbolic gesture not only did not prevent countries from establishing and intensively developing quite favourable relations with Israel, but also does not automatically mean, as we shall see later, support of the further promotion of the idea of the chimeric sovereignty of the non-existent Palestinian state.
In the 1990s, the progress of the triumphal march of Palestinian independence in the imagination of the international community has stalled, despite the Oslo Accords, which created the Palestinian Authority, and gave hope for a swift resolution to half a century of conflict, according to the formula of "two states for two peoples." The supply of natural Asian-African allies has been exhausted, and the international community was slow to announcethe recognition of Palestine, with a few exceptions such as the new states appearing on the territory of the former Yugoslavia.
As it turned out, for good reason.
The Israeli-Palestinian negotiation process, which, as intended, in a few years was to conclude with the creation of the new state, reached a dead end on a range of issues - the future borders, the status of Jerusalem, questions on the right to return to Israeli territory of those who consider themselves refugees. The Palestinian side was not ready even for the slightest compromise, and the Israeli side gradually exhausted its limit of goodwill gestures.
The second intifada, the actual rejection of the Palestinian National Administration of state building, the coming to power of Islamist extremists in Gaza, the disintegration of the autonomy into two independent enclaves, and finally a complete folding of the negotiation process put an end to optimistic expectations of the appearance of a "New Middle East". Since the beginning of the "Arab Spring" and the immersion of the entire region into bloody chaos, international attention has been distracted from the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,which seems insignificant in scale in comparison with ongoing events.
Having neither the chance to build a viable autonomous quasi-state structure, nor hope for new gifts from Israel, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas asked for support fromthe shady subjectivity of the UN. As you know, two years ago, the General Assembly voted in favor of changing the status of Palestine in the UN. It is characteristic that Ukraine did not support the Palestinian bid, unlike Belarus and Russia. Actually, over the last five - six years Ukrainian diplomats have consistently supported Israel in all the significant UN votes. This position is rare, but not unique - the Czech Republic behaves in a similar way. This is the good news: in practice, the declared recognition of Palestine may not mean anything.
The announcement of the Palestinian application and the voting itself in the UN moved international recognition of Palestine forward. Several Latin America countries and now Western Europe have joined the Palestinian fan club of African-Asian and Eastern European countries that formed twenty years ago.
On 30 October the Swedish government recognized Palestine. This Scandinavian country has become the first state of the European Union, to dare to take this step. Now France has joined the society of lovers of ephemeral states.
As a rule, when commenting on the motives of French parliamentarians, experts emphasize the desire to win and retain political popularity, including electoral, in the ever-growing Arab-Muslim segment of society. This is certainly true, but in reality, as always in politics, the context is much wider. Incumbent President Francois Hollande and his ruling Socialist Party earn points on this popular (due to the traditional pro-Palestinian sympathies of the left-wing press and the intellectual elite) and absolutely safe foreign policy front.
Sympathy for the Palestinians, fuelled by the tear jerking news reports of the last few months, normally accompanying any escalation of the conflict are indeed widespread in French society, not only in the Arab-Muslim sector. Against the background of such very real problems as international pressure, including from the United States and neighbors in the European Union, in connection with the supply of Russian "Mistrals", Palestinian independence is an issue which can be used painlessly to show their independence and to confirm the subjectivity of their foreign policy.
Why does Israel who twenty years ago announced the creation of the Palestinian state, today protest so strongly about the recognition of it by the international community?
In actual fact, it is all extremely simple. The Oslo Accords and the subsequent agreements were to establish a Palestinian state as a result of bilateral negotiations. Today, Palestinians are demonstrating an unwillingness to reach any agreement with Israel want to put pressure on it with the help of the UN and other countries around the world, deciding their own problems at the expense of others. The irresponsible steps of European diplomats appear especially cynical against the background of attempts of Mahmoud Abbas to agree on a united government with Hamas - a terrorist group, still declaring the necessity of the destruction of Israel.
In essence, the international community is diligently reducing the already shadowy chances for progress of a peaceful settlement of the conflict to zero.
As the Israeli representative to the UN, Ron Prosor,rightly said recently, "every European parliament thatvoted for the unilateral and premature recognition of a Palestinian state, gives the Palestinians exactly what they want - sovereignty without peace." It's hard not to note the validity of his statement: "Giving them sovereignty on a silver platter, you reward unilateral actions and deprive Palestinians of any motivation to negotiate, to compromise or to renounce violence."
The triumphal procession of virtual Palestinian independence on the European continent is one of the factors that have consistently and irreversiblyburied the long deceased peace process deep below the ground. Many in Israel with a light heart would be willing to bid it “good riddance” if the conflict had a more realistic solution than that theorized according to the formula of "two states for two peoples." But, unfortunately, at the moment it doesn’t. And this means prolonging the usual already impossible situation for Israel for an eternity.