History does not move in a straight line; rather, it proceeds in a winding way at times, rising and falling. What matters is how the players benefit from its opportunities.
The Keir Starmer government in Britain has decided to recognise the Palestinian state in September and has set conditions for that recognition – or for withholding it, meaning taking a middle-ground stance. This direction came due to pressure from a significant proportion of Members of Parliament belonging to the ruling Labour Party.
Several of the new Israeli historians agree that, were it not for Britain, the state of Israel would not have been established, and were it not for America, it would not have continued. Among these historians is Avi Shlaim, in his book The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arabs published in 2000.
Britain is the author of the Balfour Declaration and had the mandate to manage Palestine from 1920 to 1948.
Recognition of Israel as a state came from America just 11 minutes after its declaration. British recognition, however, was delayed until the end of 1949. At the time, the opposition in the British House of Lords was based on several points, including that it was inappropriate to recognise a “theocratic” state, a refusal to recognise a state established through war, and fears of deterioration of the relations of Britain with the Arabs. Nonetheless, the British government did not let the objections stop it from recognising the state, though it was delayed.
It is as if history is repeating itself in reverse: immediately after Keir Starmer’s announcement of his government’s intention to recognise the Palestinian state, 43 members of the House of Lords protested against it, even though the promise was conditional. Among the arguments presented by the Lords was that recognising Palestine encourages Hamas to continue threatening Israel’s security, that one should not recognise a state with undefined borders, and that it lacks a unified government. The latter brings us back to the recurring issue that the Palestinian division and rivalry among factions is a “killer” of any progress in the cause – and no one wants to listen. The leaderships’ self-interest is prioritised over the massive sacrifices of the Palestinian people.
Some still talk about “time” as being capable of delivering justice to the Palestinians. These people point to demography, claiming that the Palestinian population will, over the coming years, surpass that of the Israelis. But this is not true, according to both demography and geography. Estimates say that by 2040 there will be around 12 million Israelis and about 10 million Palestinians, as the average Palestinian population growth rate is 3.5%, while the fertility rate among just the Haredim (the ultra-Orthodox Jewish group) exceeds six children per woman.
If we consider the geographical capacity to accommodate population growth, Israel covers about 22,000 square kilometres, whereas the West Bank and Gaza together cover only 6,000 square kilometres. This means the Israeli land can relatively accommodate population growth – unlike the Palestinian land.
Despite this, transfer remains a constant Israeli political idea. Therefore, part of the genocidal message being given in Gaza today – and in the West Bank as well – is to expel Palestinians from their land and terrorise them so that they flee.
The main idea in all of this is that the window of opportunity currently open for the Palestinians is a narrow one, both in terms of time and practical action. It must be used to achieve statehood. The calls from several Arab countries urging Hamas leadership to abandon obstinacy, selfishness, and illusions are an attempt to seize this opportunity. If it passes, it will be a disaster greater than any before.
[by Mohammed Al-Rumaihi in Asharq Al-Awsat]
Compiled and translated by Faizul Haque
