The Evolution of the Acceptance of a Palestinian State

With Benyamin Netanyahu agreeing to a Palestinian State (albeit one that meets his specifications), and the European Union's Javier Solana calling for a Security Council resolution to recognize a Palestinian state by a date certain, the idea has now become commonplace. Even here in the US, it is a near "article of faith" to project a two-state solution as the only acceptable outcome to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Because this has not always been the case, it is useful to trace the evolution of this acceptance in our political discourse -- recalling, as we do, how difficult it was just a few decades ago to support Palestinian rights.

In the late 1970's I founded the Palestine Human Rights Campaign. We were a coalition that included Arab Americans, African American civil rights leaders, representatives of major US churches and prominent peace activists. We defended Palestinian human rights victims (of torture, imprisonment without charge, and land confiscation), opposed all violence and supported two states. Despite winning broad public support, we were shunned by Washington's political establishment. Even a coalition of progressive groups (the Coalition for a New Foreign and Military Policy) rejected our application for affiliation because some members said our pro-Palestinian agenda would be divisive and detrimental to their work. We also incurred threats and harassment, and, in 1980, my office was fire-bombed.

Ten years later in the lead up to the 1988 presidential contest, my Institute led a national campaign ("Statehood Now") calling for recognition of Palestinian self-determination. Working with a diverse coalition, we ran and won delegate slots to ten state Democratic Party conventions seeking to pass resolutions in support of Palestinian rights and a two-state solution. With the help of allies in the Jesse Jackson for President Campaign, our resolutions passed in all 10 states. In Maine, for example, our resolution called for "...the right of Israel to exist within secure and internationally recognized borders, and the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and an independent state," while in Texas it read "...Any settlement must respect and insure the safety, self-determination and right to exist within secure and internationally recognized borders of both the Israelis and Palestinians." (Other states included: California, Illinois, Iowa, and Washington.)

Armed with these victories, we went to the Democratic National Convention seeking to amend the Party's platform to include recognition of Palestinian rights. The language we sought to insert called for "mutual recognition, territorial compromise and self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians." The Dukakis Campaign vigorously opposed our efforts, but with Jackson's support, we persisted in having our language debated -- the first time (and, I might add, the last time) the issue of Palestinian rights was debated from the podium at a political party's convention.

The 1990's witnessed the Madrid Peace Conference and the Oslo Accords, but still no formal recognition of a Palestinian State. The best George H.W. Bush could do was to slightly upgrade the language of Camp David calling for "legitimate Palestinian political rights." Clinton moved the language further, supporting the Palestinians' "right to live as a free people, determining their fate on their own land." It was left to then First Lady Hillary Clinton to be the first to actually speak of a Palestinian State -- as she did in 1998. Her husband's Administration quickly made it clear that her remarks were not policy. When, toward the end of the Clinton Administration, Yasser Arafat, becoming frustrated with Peace Process' lack of progress, threatened to unilaterally declare a state, the reaction from Washington was firm and threatening.

It was not until January, 7th 2001, in the closing days of his term, that Bill Clinton spoke of a Palestinian State, making him the first US president to do so.

In 2002, following Israel's reoccupation of the West Bank and its near total destruction of the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority, President Bush committed his Administration to a two-state solution. But he did so in, what I called at the time, "a perfectly bizarre speech," calling on the Palestinians to first establish a working democracy before they could have their state! During the next six years, US policy discussion changed with official acceptance of a two-state solution becoming widespread. Sadly, however, all this time that the concept was gaining acceptance, the reality in the West Bank and Gaza was deteriorating making the realization of that now accepted goal more difficult to achieve.

We are now in the 43rd year of the occupation. The landscape of the occupied lands has been dramatically transformed: a half million settlers reside there; a network of settler only roads, coupled with an intrusive barrier wall, has cut the territory into cantons; Jerusalem is burgeoning with settler colonies and is cut off from the West Bank; and the long physical and now political separation of Gaza from the West Bank has made unity of Palestine's parts more difficult.

We are now in the Obama era. The president has committed his Administration to an outcome of two states which he says is in the national interests of the United States. Even in the early months of his term, he has demonstrated a commitment to balanced pressure and active engagement toward achieving the goal of two states.

The political battle for acceptance of a Palestinian State has been won. Supporters of two states must now assess the circumstances which define the current reality on the ground. The old battles are just that -- old battles. There are now new challenges to face. What confronts us now is how, given where we are, we can realistically achieve the goal for which many have struggled for decades, and that is a secure, independent, contiguous and viable Palestinian State.

Comments

[EileenWhiteRead]

Thanks, Jim. One of the most reasonable analyses I've heard in many months. What do we do next?

[MemoryAlpha]

Example:
Why it is not possible to live in peace with Israel while Israel is allowed to break international laws and human rights standards with reckless abandon.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/20/israeli-settlers-set-fire_0_n_240987.html

[AngieMom57]

The title says it all! Now I will read the rest of the posting ;-)

EVOLUTION not Revolution!

[misaacm]

The Palestinians want to destroy Israel more than they want their own state. They had their chance in 1949 and in 2000, but said no. Most Israelis would relinquish the West Bank for actual peace, but as the Palestinians have shown in Gaza, they don't want land for peace, they want land for a better shot at the Israelis. Until they can prove otherwise, don't expect much progress.

[MemoryAlpha]

Observation:
Denying Palestinians the right of return guaranteed under international law has been the problem for the past 60 years.

Statement:
Israel cannot "bargain" its way out of its obligations under international law.

[Tzippi]

They can return to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Qatar, Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. There are loads of Muslim countries. Pick one.

[TJCole]

James; had the Palestinians adopted the proven tactics of Dr. King or Gandhi or Jesus of Nazareth they would have had their State 30 years ago..!

[MemoryAlpha]

Query:
Did Israel?

[TryToBeFlexible]

King or Gandhi maybe, but Jesus is a mythological figure, who never really existed.

[Pema]

apparently many people posting here have a lack of understanding, there is no arguing with them, they have a jaded view.
real stories need to be told so people have an understand of what it is like to have your home stolen, your family shot, and set adrift in a heartless world.
Dr Zogby I appreciate so much your committment and leadership, you are a beacon for all people of goodwill.

[AngieMom57]

Co-singed!

[Darwin256]

mat3,

"How come there was never any concern then for the Palestinians to have their own country?"

There was concern then and before then. Perhaps this will help answer your questions:

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story413.html

[mat3]

Went to the link and still don't get it. Why was Egypt controlling Gaza and Jordan controlling the West Bank prior to 1967. Why weren't the Palestinians?

[MemoryAlpha]

Observation:
We already have a document that sets a path for reasonable, honest solution.

Documentation:
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/league/peace02.htm

Alternative:
Grant the Palestinians their long delayed right of return. Grant universal citizenship. Put the matter of Israel-Palestine up to a referendum. Embrace democracy.

[Darwin256]

I was hoping you had seen this post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/16/foxman-obama-putting-too_n_235937.html?show_comment_id=27317960#comment_27317960

[MemoryAlpha]

Reply:
I have.

Gracious Reply:
Keep up the good work!

[ModernTimes1]

Small disarmed peaceful state alongside Jordan Egypt and Israel. Or nothin'.
To date majority of choices since late 19th Century indicate unwillingness Of Palestinian Arabs to coexist with any state in the Middle East.
Time for some more mature thinking... or nothin'

[Darwin256]

Given Israeli brutality I'm not sure "disarmed" is a reasonable request.

[BubbaC33]

If the Palestinians want a state it should be acceptable for it to be demilitarized.

[ModernTimes1]

It is not an issue of reason. It is a fact that no other path to state is available.

[GZLives]

One man's brutality is another's self defense

[Tzippi]

Israeli's brutality? Who kidnapped Olympic athletes and killed them? Israel?

[ModernTimes1]

There's only one path open to Palestinian statehood. Complete and total renouncement of violent means of achieving that statehood. One would've hoped that 60 years of crushing defeats would've taught Palestinian leaders the futility of that path.

[ModernTimes1]

The acceptance of Palestinian statehood rights coincided with Arafat's acceptance of non-violence solution to the conflict. But Arafat reneged on (or never meant to carry out) that commitment. With everything taht followed since.

[MemoryAlpha]

Recommendation:
Read some actual history on what happened. Israel has never honored Palestinian sovereignty. Under the Oslo negotiations, colonization of the West Bank was intentionally accelerated by Israel to "change the facts on the ground."

[mat3]

Who controlled the West Bank prior to Israel seizing it in 67, and why wasn't it already a Palestinian State. Same for Gaza.

[ModernTimes1]

Fact: Palestinian Charter EXPLICITLY clearly recognized Jordanian ownership of West Bank and E. Jerusalem until 1967.
Fact: Israel took Westn Bank from Jordanians, not Palestinains.
Fact:Palestinian Arabs suddenly discovered it was theirs when Israelis took it from Jordan. Not before.
Too late.

[wyldthings]

I talked to a Palestinian young man about 35 years old. He is catholic not Muslim and he informed me how in 67 and 73 the Jews invaded Egypt and Saudi Arabia. He also told me how the U.S has invaded the same Countries. I have read history and I've always seen that Jews have been recorded as inhabitants of Jeruselm so I can not figure out how the Jews are stealing the land.

[oldgeek1]

better go back and read an accurate account of what happened in 1967 and 1973 and who started what. Just a hint Israel was attacked on their highest holy day, Yom Kipper.

Facts are a bitch.

[MemoryAlpha]

Observation:
Accounts of 1967 show that Israeli incursions into their neighbors territories started well before even their "pre-emptive strike" on Egypt's air force.

[a6intruder]

It just might be easier for the Israelis to recognize a Palestinian State if the Palastinians would recognize the Israel State, eh?

[Baltotoast]

It might be easier for the Palestinians to recognize the Israeli's if the Israelis stopped killing so many Palestinians

[ModernTimes1]

Pals. don't have to recognize Israel. Israel as a powerful and wildly successful state can very well live without it.
Whereas Palestinains without Israeli good will and recognition will remain a nothing. Like Kurds.
While the world, including many Arab states are getting tired of supporting the bottomless money of Palestinian corruption and astonishing mismanagement of its resources.

[a6intruder]

Put down the Kool-Aid bottle. You've been listening to Jimmy Carter agin, haven't you.

[DC]

Interesting, I've heard the same thing on the street. But why isn't the IDI on the table?

Not to sound too cynical, but could it be because it is viable? And implementation of it would destroy other agendas on both sides?

[oldgeek1]

I find the ever present discussion of a Palestinian state confusing. For all the talk that has never been a real objective of the Palestinians nor the Arab States. Most There major middle east power houses have done little in terms of economic aid and development focused on helping the Palestinians which would have enabled them to grow, prosper and create there State from within.

The approach has been to use violence, express hatred to Israel who will be neighbors of the Palestinians regardless. The Oil Rich nations have done "NOTHING" to help the Palestinian cause other than wag their finger. Jordan has certainly done little nor has Iran, Iraq, Kwait, etc.

The Arab Nations have a history of sitting back and doing little to help people who they pretend to care about. Lebanon was allowed to be destroyed from within and the so called Middle East powerhouses doing nothing but faking concern.

Mr. Zogby, put pressure where it belongs, first with the Palestinian people who need to promote the health, education and welfare of its people regardless of if they have their own flag nor not. The lack of their own state is a poor excuse for the abuse of people and the fault for that Mr. Zogby is not with Israel.

[Darwin256]

When someone steals your land you tend to fight back.

I congratulate the Arabs for fighting back.

[mat3]

Who controlled the Gaza Strip and West Bank before the Israelies? How come there was never any concern then for the Palestinians to have their own country?

[Glacial]

How exactly does one help the Palestinians from the neighboring states, when to do so would mean sneaking past the Israeli troops that stand at the borders?

Israel has not exactly been welcoming to any humanitarian aid to Palestinians, you know, imprisoning anyone who tries to bring food or medical supplies to Gaza, including our own former Rep. McKinney, for an excellent example.

And I thought Israel did a much more thorough job of destroying Lebanon in 2006 from without.

[oldgeek1]

Gosh, am I that old that I remember the Palestinians were refugees from Jordan when they were expelled from?

I am sorry that apparently I am old enough to have lived through the history and educated enough to actually read books, dumb me.

Lebanon used to be the jewel of the banking center of middle east, Lebanon was torn from civil disorder way before 2006 when some jerks who did not have enough internal trouble started to lob misissles across the boarder.

[Baltotoast]

Actually your comment is highly ignorant of the facts on the land.

Jordan, for example, has done an enormous job of integrating the Palestinians into their society, both culturally and economically. Many of the Gulf states commerce operates on Palestinian brainpower.

Those who stay in the camps do so out of protest. The could assimilate into Arab society easily, if they chose to.

Beyond that it is difficult to follow the logic in your comment.