The Advocacy for a Palestinian State: A Path to Israel’s Security
Photo source: Reuters
In a recent meeting with the foreign ministers of the 27 European Union countries, the head of European diplomacy, Josep Borrell, made a significant declaration. He proposed that the creation of a Palestinian state is the best way to ensure Israel’s security. This statement was not made in a vacuum; it comes amid ongoing conflicts and escalating tensions in the Middle East, particularly between Israel and Palestine. The idea, however, is not a new one, but it has elicited renewed interest and debate in the current political climate. A core aspect of the Israel-Palestine conflict is the question of Palestinian statehood. A two-state solution, with Israel and Palestine co-existing independently and peacefully, has been suggested and supported by various international bodies, including the United Nations, as a viable resolution to the conflict. However, the road to such a solution has been fraught with difficulties, mainly due to disagreements over boundaries, the status of Jerusalem, the return of refugees, and security issues. Borrell’s statement is a reiteration of the European Union’s standing position towards the Israel-Palestine conflict. The EU has always been a strong advocate of the two-state solution, believing that it ensures the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and statehood, while also providing Israel with a definitive solution to its security concerns.
The rationale behind Borrell’s assertion is straightforward. The establishment of a Palestinian state would provide a clear demarcation of territories, thereby reducing the room for territorial disputes. It would also mean that both entities are recognized as legitimate and sovereign, reducing the drive for violent resistance and fostering a more peaceful coexistence. Furthermore, the creation of a Palestinian state would defuse the demographic time bomb that threatens the Jewish state. Without a separate Palestinian state, Israel faces the prospect of either becoming a binational state and losing its Jewish majority or retaining control over the disputed territories and facing international criticism for denying Palestinians civil and political rights. Moreover, a Palestinian state would help de-legitimize and undercut the narrative of extremist groups that exploit the ongoing conflict. The current state of affairs is a breeding ground for radicalization, with extremist factions using the plight of the Palestinians to further their agendas. Providing Palestinians with a state of their own would remove a significant grievance, thus diminishing the power and appeal of these extremist groups. However, critics argue that the creation of a Palestinian state, in the current circumstances, might not necessarily lead to peace and security for Israel. They cite concerns about the potential for the new state to be used as a launching pad for attacks on Israel, particularly if it falls under the sway of extremist groups such as Hamas. To address these fears, advocates for a Palestinian state, including Borrell, emphasize the need for guarantees of Israeli security as part of any agreement. This could include international oversight, demilitarization conditions, and robust security cooperation between Israel and Palestine. The proposal for a Palestinian state as a means to ensure Israel’s security, as put forward by Josep Borrell, is a reiteration of a long-held perspective. It’s a complex issue that has drawn both support and criticism. However, the essence of his argument is that the only durable resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict lies in political solutions that respect the rights and meet the needs of both Israelis and Palestinians. Only then can a lasting peace, which ensures Israel’s security and affirms the Palestinians’ right to statehood, be achieved.
By Cora Sulleyman
