Recognizing 'Palestine': right or wrong?

This week Prime Minister Mark Carney announced that Canada would be recognizing a "State of Palestine." Carney, in this statement, explains what this means for the ongoing critical situation in that troubled part of the world:

Recognising the State of Palestine, led by the Palestinian Authority, empowers those who seek peaceful coexistence and the end of Hamas. This in no way legitimises terrorism, nor is it any reward for it. Furthermore, it in no way compromises Canada’s steadfast support for the State of Israel, its people, and their security – security that can only ultimately be guaranteed through the achievement of a comprehensive two-state solution.

The Palestinian Authority has provided direct commitments to Canada and the international community on much-needed reforms, including to fundamentally reform its governance, to hold general elections in 2026 in which Hamas can play no part, and to demilitarize the Palestinian state. Canada will intensify efforts to support the Palestinian Authority’s implementation of this reform agenda, on which progress has already been made. With our international partners, Canada supports the development of a credible peace plan, democratic governance and clear security arrangements for Palestine, and the sustained, large-scale delivery of humanitarian aid into and throughout Gaza.”

This is a carefully worded statement from the Prime Minister's Office representing an attempt to forestall criticism that Canada is giving into terrorism. Whether this attempt will succeed in satisfying the critics remains to be seen, but there is reason for doubt.

Two years ago, only months before the 7 October Hamas attack and kidnappings, I penned a blog series that I labelled Israel's precarious democracy. I've not updated it in light of more recent events, but my overall conclusion has not changed. As I see it, there are really only three possible alternatives for Israel to pursue with respect to the Palestinian Arabs:

1. the status quo: Israel maintains control of the occupied territories and continues to exclude their inhabitants from the rights of citizenship. But, as I wrote at the time, "it entrenches systemic injustice in that it sees as many as 5 million Palestinian Arabs kept indefinitely in a subordinate position with no political rights."
2. a one-state solution: Israel annexes the occupied territories outright and enfranchises its residents on an equal basis with existing Israeli citizens. A likely consequence of this is that Israel would cease to be a Jewish state, something which Israeli Jews are unlikely to accept. Given the sorry fate of Lebanon's experiment in power sharing amongst differing faith communities, even a large Jewish minority within the boundaries of the former Mandatory Palestine would have reason to fear for its own survival.
3. a two-state solution: the former British Mandate of Palestine is partitioned into two states, Israel and Palestine, in accordance with the United Nations' original proposal in 1947. Where the borders would be drawn would be up for further negotiation.

As I indicated at the time, each of these alternatives carries risks for virtually all parties to the ongoing dispute, particularly to the notion of a secure Jewish homeland. Whether Canada's recognition of a State of Palestine advances a move towards peace is open to question. I have three thoughts on this.

First, the Prime Minister's statement is careful to avoid expressing support for Hamas, a terrorist organization which cares nothing for the Palestinian people and is committed to genocide against Israel and Israeli Jews. If anyone can claim to represent Palestinians, it is definitely not Hamas. Good for Carney. Yet it might have been wiser to place conditions on this recognition, particularly the release of the remaining hostages by Hamas, even though the Palestinian Authority has no control over that organization.

Second, the PM is responding to abuses on the Israeli side, including its displacement of the people of Gaza and the continual harassment of West Bank Palestinians by Israeli Jewish settlers. Such actions make a two-state solution difficult, if not impossible, to implement. In so far as he acknowledges these factors, he properly recognizes Israel's responsibility in prolonging the crisis.

But, third, the PM's statement avoids addressing the internal dynamics of Israeli politics, albeit for understandable reasons: in one sense they are none of our business. However, given the factors I pointed to in my blog series, I am not sure that we can afford to ignore the structural incapacity of Israel's political system to come to terms with Palestinians and with its own neighbours. To be sure, these neighbours bear historic responsibility for the never-ending conflict besetting the region for the better part of a century. However, Israel's electoral system, the resulting fragile coalition governments, its lack of a written constitution, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's considerable deficiencies as a leader have all played a central role in exacerbating the crisis.

Is a two-state solution feasible at this point in time? Is it the best of the three options I mentioned above? I personally think that it is probably the best that we can hope for, but so many obstacles have arisen from both sides to make it increasingly difficult to realize. Which leaves a dilemma for Canada and other countries hoping to improve the situation on the ground. While we might justifiably conclude that the two-state solution is the most feasible one, I do wonder whether Canada's commitment to this might effectively tie our hands, whereas stepping back and retaining a more flexible posture might have been the better part of wisdom.