A Palestinian View: A conducive environment for unilateral Palestinian action

When Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon embarked upon a unilateral strategy that saw Israel consolidate its occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and withdraw from Gaza Strip settlements but put the Gaza Strip under a tight siege, it left the Palestinian side with a difficult political dilemma.

Israel's unilateral strategy essentially signaled the end of any serious Israeli efforts toward a two-state solution. It frustrated Palestinian and international efforts to pursue bilateral negotiations as the means by which to arrive at an agreed-upon solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Israeli unilateralism also marginalized the Palestinian leadership and contributed to the radicalization of Palestinian society.

In response, Palestinians have proposed two strategies: the first is to also abandon the internationally-agreed two-state solution process by refusing to continue with the interim period and the Palestinian Authority that was its product; the second is to unilaterally declare an independent Palestinian state on the 1967 borders in line with international legality.

That latter strategy was tried before by President Yasser Arafat, who used it as a tactic to pressure the Israeli side. He set a date for a declaration and even established a commission of legal experts to start drafting the constitution of such a state.

The most recent initiatives in this direction, however, are very different because the players, the circumstances and the political environment are very different.

The initiative of Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister, has caused a lot of controversy and been described as a unilateral Palestinian strategy. The initiative defined itself as, "the program of the 13th government of the Palestinian National Authority. The program, which sets out our national goals and government policies, centers around the objective of building strong state institutions capable of providing, equitably and effectively, for the needs of our citizens, despite the occupation." According to Fayyad, the initiative is necessary whether the peace process succeeds or fails. In the latter case, it would provide an alternative.

There are two underlying notions behind this approach. The first is to create facts on the ground of a kind that ready Palestinians for statehood. That includes the building of institutions, social and economic development, improving services, creating reliable security services and encouraging and strengthening popular and legitimate efforts to resist the Israeli occupation, especially in the form of illegal Jewish settlements in occupied territory.

Secondly, preparing Palestinians for statehood also seeks to consolidate international support not only for a Palestinian right to independence, but also for Palestinian readiness for statehood.

Indeed, the widely recognized success of the Palestinian government over the past few years in several spheres is lending credence to Fayyad's plan. At the same time, Israeli intransigence on settlement expansion is generating sympathy for the Palestinian position.

The international climate is significantly different from the time Arafat tried his own unilateral approach. A few months ago Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, said that if the peace process was leading nowhere, the international community should consider recognizing a Palestinian state under a UN resolution even without Israeli consent.

Hence, growing international frustration with Israel combined with general recognition of the efforts of the Palestinian government, including by the United States, creates a promising environment for Fayyad's initiative.

And even if the initiative has been dismissed by some Israeli leaders and criticized by others, a positive international reaction to it can send an unmistakable message to Israel.

- Published 7/9/2009 © bitterlemons.org

This column is re-printed with the permission of bitterlemons.org