Palestine: To statehood, or not to statehood

Then there is the murky water, where public opinion says support the bid, but diplomacy says do not (United Kingdom, Australia).

As far as international law goes, it is already on the side of the Palestinians. The separation wall? The military occupation? The racist application of laws against Arab Israelis inside Israel proper? The inequitable distribution of water in the West Bank? The expansion of settlements into East Jerusalem? The ongoing blockade of Gaza? Despite all these factors, it’s not legitimate now but the international community remains largely silent.

“We will negotiate about settlements, refugees, water, and borders,” said Ambassador Abdulhadi.

“We are going to the UN to tell our story.”

Peled said that the reality of one state as the only practical solution was Israel’s own doing. In the context of the ever-expanding settlements in the Palestinian West Bank: “The question begs; if we are talking about a two state solution, where is the other state going to be?”

Of course Peled’s view of a secular one-state with Palestinians and Israelis living together in peace in not popularly embraced (yet), but he points to South Africa by way of example: “Apartheid didn’t end because whites suddenly decided it was time to be nice to blacks,” he says and notes the “very strong” feeling that there must be a designated Jewish state, “Extremists, and many Israelis more broadly, are not going to be convinced Palestinians have a right to live on their land, they’re just going to have to live with it.”

He’s right. Two states might be the politically correct solution to peace in the region, but because of Israel’s behaviour in the occupied Palestinian territories, they’ve created a world where two states is only workable on paper and perhaps at the diplomatic table for the UN. In the region, the two state solution creeps toward its imminent death with every new West Bank settlement.