Palestinians have national identity, want sovereignty
By Dana El Kurd
International affairs expert
There are several types of justice claims that challenge the international order, such as recognitional justice and historical injustice claims. When actors feel unrecognized in their sovereignty — either because they challenge the notion of state sovereignty or believe they have not been accepted as fully part of the state system — this can erode the international order and its legitimacy. Similarly, when groups feel there has been historic harm done to their ancestors that has not been fully rectified, this can be corrosive to the international order.
The Palestinian national cause is an injustice claim that fits both in certain ways: a case where injustice occurred in the past and is ongoing, thus making it both a historical and contemporary harm.
Moreover, Palestinians have a national identity and desire statehood. Their recognitional justice claim is not on the basis of rejecting the concept of state sovereignty, but rather that state sovereignty has not yet been extended to them. Famously, and with a good deal of criticism, Yaser Arafat declared that the Palestinians were “not Red Indians,” in an effort to demonstrate that the Palestinians were a unified people with a national sovereignty claim.
Despite this emphasis over the years, the United States and its allies have never taken Palestinian sovereignty claims seriously, instead trying to resolve the issue with diminished versions of recognition: at the most, self-governance and at the least, a marginally improved subsistence.
Now the US, actively espousing a liberal international order, has ignored the Palestine issue, and has eroded its own legitimacy across the global south as a result. This has sparked a great deal of backlash against the liberal international order on the part of Palestinians and their Arab/regional allies, as well as a bandwagoning in active pursuit of the erosion of an American-dominated world system. The result is the increased likelihood of conflict. Thus, ongoing injustice against Palestinians should be seen as corrosive to the international order, and should be addressed rather than dismissed.
Sovereignty isn’t limited self-governance
The compounding tragedy of the United States refusing to apply the same principles across the globe is the fact that America is uniquely positioned to exert pressure, deescalate, and intervene in a political negotiation — given not only the scope of American power but also its ties to the parties involved. As Sarah Parkinson reminded readers in a recent article in Foreign Affairs, this is not outside the norm of American foreign policy: President Ronald Reagan, during Israel’s bombardment of Lebanon, demanded the Israeli leadership stop shelling Beirut. This was later credited for the “moderation” of Israeli behavior by both Israeli and American media.
But by forfeiting that role and that leverage in their insistence on “bear hugging” Netanyahu, the Biden administration not only condemns thousands of Palestinians — and people in the broader region — to avoidable death, but also condemns the rest of the world since the guardrails for international conflict, however problematic and selectively applied, are completely removed. The actors empowered in this vacuum have no alternative vision for the world, except an order where might makes right.
Israeli government officials argue that the presence of Hamas in Gaza as a security concern cannot be tolerated. This is especially the case in the wake of the October 7 attack. Thus, they have repeatedly articulated that their objective is to eradicate Hamas entirely. But as analysts point out, a war of this scale and scope — and worse, the reoccupation of Gaza, which seems to be in progress — cannot accomplish the task of securing Israeli safety, or the goal of eradication.
Instead of continuing to ignore the Palestine factor, policymakers should address root causes of the ongoing violence, which includes the continued lack of a political future or sovereignty for Palestinians. It is important to note here that sovereignty does not mean simply limited self-governance, such as exists in pockets of the West Bank (as easily overturned as that self-governance might be). Sovereignty means people having actual control of their lives and their environment, and shaping a governance structure that reflects the people and is accountable to them.
Policymakers must address, head-on, Palestinian national claims for sovereignty and let go of the assumption that the status quo can persist, either through marginal improvements to Palestinian living conditions or extreme coercion. Such an assumption will not achieve security for anyone, including Israelis. Thus, nothing less than foregoing this assumption, and changing course, will begin to resolve this long-festering conflict — a conflict that has upended the dreams and lives of too many in this region for far too long.
The full article first appeared on the Foreign Policy Research Institute.