Time for Israel to recognize Palestine?

(JNS) — Another week, another country recognizing a Palestinian state. In the past 12 months alone, Norway, Ireland, Spain, Slovenia, Armenia and Mexico have joined more than 140 others already recognizing Palestine. France may be next, as it plans with Saudi Arabia to cohost a United Nations summit on the topic of Palestinian statehood.

But symbolic nods of recognition don’t help anyone. Is there any agreement on what the country of Palestine looks like? Who governs it? Where are its borders? And does it matter whether Israel is on board with the program? Maybe it doesn’t, but at the very least, we should probably let Israel know where we’ve decided to draw this new country. After all, it may impact Israel and its borders.

So, let’s think big and bold. Let’s give the Palestinian people the country they yearn for. But let’s be clear about what we’re offering when we announce we’re recognizing Palestine. That way, we can all be on the same page, whether we all like it, or not. So, how about the following proposal:

Israel unilaterally withdraws from Gaza and all areas of Judea and Samaria that do not contain a majority concentration of Jewish residents. Basically, that amounts to some 94 percent of the territory and means that Israel would uproot dozens upon dozens of Jewish towns and villages and resettle the residents elsewhere. 

In exchange for the six percent that Israel would retain, the country would be required to relinquish equal areas of land near Arab villages and transfer the property from Israeli to Palestinian sovereignty.

Jerusalem would be divided between Israel and Palestine and the common religious areas would be administered independently. No one would have sovereignty in the holy basin containing sites sacred to Jews, Muslims, and Christians, including the Mount of Olives and the City of David. This area would be jointly governed by five nations: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, and the United States.

East Jerusalem would be the capital of Palestine, and the country would have contiguous tunnel access between the “West Bank” and Gaza. This must be fully controlled by the Palestinians, despite passing beneath the State of Israel. An international fund would be established to compensate the Palestinians for their many generations of pain and suffering. 

And finally, the definition of national sovereign governance is “the monopoly on legal use of force” in a particular territorial space. To fulfil this essential requirement, Palestine must have a strong and effective police force, provided with everything needed for law enforcement.

What are the chances Israel would ever agree to such terms? Could we ever expect Israel to give up so much of its own land to a Palestinian state with such expansive power and territory? Are all these declarations in support of Palestinian statehood just an exercise in fantasy and futility?

Yes and no. Let’s start with the yes. Would Israel agree to such terms? Well, guess what? It actually did already. Beginning with the Oslo accords, Israel gradually stepped away from controlling various parts of the disputed territories, allowing autonomy and Palestinian self-governance as well as law enforcement authority. 

Such tangible relinquishments of power were accompanied by steadily increasing offers of land and other instruments of Palestinian statehood. The unparalleled proposal above was made by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in his 2008 Realignment plan.

Ultimately, however, the answer is no. Why? Not because of Israel, but because of the obstinacy of the Palestinians. In 2008, Abbas received Olmert’s plan and asked for time to study it, after which he would return with an answer. Sadly, he never returned. Why not? 

Because, as we all now know: “From the River to the Sea” is what the Palestinians want. They’ve never come back with a reasonable counteroffer because the only acceptable country of Palestine is a one-state solution, where Israel ceases to exist.

Oh, they’ll tell you that they have plans that Israel refuses to countenance. But they’re talking about the return of millions of descendants of Palestinian refugees who fled (either by choice or otherwise) during Israel’s War of Independence in 1948. It goes without saying that should that many Palestinians seek Israeli citizenship, they would drive the Jews into the sea, simply by strength of numbers.

So, what exactly are these countries recognizing when they extend unilateral recognition to Palestine? Are they endorsing a negotiated two-state solution based on compromise, borders, mutual recognition, and peaceful coexistence? Or are they validating a claim to all of historic Palestine, including Tel Aviv and Haifa?

Every time another nation-state recognizes Palestine without demanding the Palestinians recognize Israel in return, it reinforces the fantasy that statehood can be achieved through pressure and strong arming, rather than compromise. It sends a message to Palestinian leaders that they can say “no” to every Israeli offer and still be rewarded. It encourages the belief that the world will do the job of erasing Israel on their behalf.

Recognition isn’t just a matter of justice or solidarity. It has consequences. It shapes expectations. And right now, the message being sent is: Forget hostage negotiations. Forget ending terror and incitement. Forget recognizing a Jewish state. Just wait, play the victim, and the world will hand you a state anyway – no compromises required.

And that’s why Israel gets upset. Not because it opposes a Palestinian state in principle, but because it opposes a Palestinian state built on fantasy — one that makes no concessions, accepts no legitimacy of the Jewish state, and continues to educate its youth for the eventual return and takeover of Israel.

Israel doesn’t need to be told to get with the program. It wrote the program. It offered the withdrawals. It removed settlements. It put a map on the table. The question is whether the Palestinian leadership is ready to stop chasing maximalist dreams and finally say yes to what they claim to want. 

Until then, every symbolic recognition of Palestine that ignores the security, historical, and existential concerns of Israel is not a step toward peace. It’s a step toward rewarding violence and prolonging a tragic conflict.

Daniel Friedman is the assistant professor of political science at Touro University.