the pity of irony

Palestine and Taiwan

Irony is perhaps one of our most common conditions in the contemporary era. I try being tongue in cheek when I raise it, perhaps too often, as the run of the day news can be so hard but today has evolved differently from my plan this morning.

Actions create consequences.

I intended to write today about former President Trump’s furious attack on Judge Juan Marchan yesterday. The irony did not escape me: the former president attacked the judge because of ‘where he’s from’, among other reasons. The ironic part is that the jurist was born in Bogotá, Colombia. He is a naturalised American, of course.

Former President Trump’s much more favoured Colombian-born jurist is Judge Aileen Cannon of the classified documents case in Florida. Daughter of an North American father and a Cuban mother, Cannon was born in Cali, the third largest city in that South American nation.

Perhaps I am the only person who finds this wickedly ironic since Trump’s statement was a vague handwave towards blaming ‘the other’. I suspect those of you who support him unquestionably would tell me I am mixing things up but both judges, in fact, were from the same place. I doubt anyone else noticed that.

A much greater irony occurred today with far deeper implications. Three European governments—Norway, Spain, and Ireland—announced their intention to recognise the independence of the Palestinian state. These are not radical governments as Orban’s or Kim’s are. This announcement puts that Palestinian state, whatever its ultimate name or form of government structure, on a par with Botswana, Singapore, Canada, Myanmar, Switzerland—and Israel.

This a long way from making Palestinian statehood a guarantee but it is an initial move that I suspect will earn support from other some countries.

Recognition is one of those iron clad ideas that international law needs to function as it has since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. To achieve recognition as a nation-state, the new state must meet three conditions. A government of some sort must have jurisdiction over the land in a specified territory to show it is governing. The government in the jurisdiction must provide services allowing people to live in that specific land. Other states must recognise publically the proposed nation-state meets conditions one and two. Once met, a nation-state can be seen as legitimate under international law and equal in name to other similar entities.

This is the status by which states get a seat in international governmental organisations such as the United Nations, if it is recognised by a majority of the members of the General Assembly where other nation-states sit. The Security Council doesn’t veto or support membership in the overall body; the General Assembly does.

This is a crushing blow to Netanyahu and many in Israel. I say many because there is a portion of the Israeli population supportive of the Palestinians getting their own state in a ‘two state’ solution for the century-long tension over the narrow body of land in what Jews govern as Israel and Palestinians claim was their land before creation of the Jewish state.

The tension over a Palestinian state is not new at all. War began as soon as Israel declared independence 14 May 1948, sending most Palestinians fleeing. Then the Palestine Liberation Organisation under the late Yasser Arafat between the early 1960s and his death at the beginning of this century claimed to represent Palestinian interests. Negotiations between the PLO and Israel were interspersed with wars in 1967, 1973, and 1982. Additionally Palestinian rose against Jewish rule of the West Bank in the late 1980s and a second intifada a generation later. The skirmishing between successive organisations bred distrust by both sides while assuring the perimeter of Israel was constant bombarded by rockets and terrorism. In 1977, Jewish settlers, increasingly extreme themselves, began relocating from Israel proper into the ‘occupied territories’ Israel has occupied since June 1967, maintainging the area cetnral to Jewish security and historic rights.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has served multiple terms as Prime Minister on the notion of his ability to assure invincibility of Israel against Palestinian attack. Instead, the 7 October Hamas attacks on Israelis was the largest and most coordinated murder of Jews since the end of World War II in Europe but was hardly the only effort by Palestinian radicals to undermine Jewish security.

Some Israelis see Palestinians and Hamas synonymously violent aggressors while others see the Palestinians hemmed into the hellhole of Gaza as victims of being in the wrong place for decades. Netanyahu’s pledge to eradicate Hamas at the cost of those women and children who have no where to go nor any resources has been hard a lightning rod at home and abroad for those who believe the Israelis are replicating their own history of the world forgetting a people defenseless because of their ethnic background. Netanyahu’s detemination to move into Rafa, against public pressure by President Biden, was a casue for this action because it seemed to ignore Palestinians viewed as caught in the middle without hope.

European nations long ago became concerned about the Palestinian cause. The 1993 Oslo Accords, a mediation hoping to ease this tension, sealed what was supposed to be a peaceful future following months of secret negotiation between the Palestinians and Israelis in the Norwegian capital. I doubt too many people remember it today. Certainly Hamas does nothing to honour its provisions and Israel continues preparing to clear out the Gaza city of Rafa at all costs. Iranian-supported Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon continue menacing the northern portion of the Jewish state as if nothing had happened in 1993. In short, thirty-one years after the Rose Garden ceremony, things are status quo ante.

These three members of Europe are making a dramataic statement by recognising Palestinian statehood. They are clearly and unequivocally rejecting Netanyahu and the Israeli majority (as I understand it) continuing to demand Jewish control over the whole of the land under question as a security need above any other—period. For some Israelis, the ‘two state’ solution is the only logical answer but the anger, the fear, and the memory of the conflict is difficult to ignore.

I can’t imagine the decisions to recognise Palestinian statehood were easy discussions within their own political systems but Norway, Ireland, and Spain are all participatory political systems. Public protests over treatment of Palestinians has been broad across Europe. This choice can hardly be seen as the Chinese authoritarian system pushing a position upon the citizenry.

South Africa has for months pushed for condemnation of Israeli actions in the international fora. Perhaps that is easy to understand in light of its own history of Apartheid but condemnations of Netanyahu’s absolute unwillingness to discuss a ‘two state’ solution proliferate around the world. Coming the same week as the International Court of Justice issued arrest warrants for Hamas leaders and the Israeli Prime Minister, Israel is under much more pressure now than are the Palestinians who launched the original horrific attacks.

The Biden administration opposed the decision in Madrid, Oslo, or Dublin but recognises, as sovereign states, they choose their own paths. Biden seeks a two-state solution but he does not believe these states should offer the Palestinians a unilateral position of statehood in exchange for ending the attacks on Israel. Based on the negative response that the U.S. president had to the arrest warrant for Netanyahu, I am confident we will continue our support, with some cautions about how far Israelis go.

But here is the other irony of this situation: none of the states mentioned here recognise Taiwan, either. It’s easy to say that Israel is closer to the European neighbourhood, that Europe has Ukraine to worry about while we can and should handle China, and the like. But, if we become too publically annoyed, it will only increase tension at a time when we have many issues upon which the alliance and friendships rest. i also supspect this is only the beginning of the global ‘defections’ on the ‘two state’ solution but time will tell. The Palestinians are hardly organised so the effect will be symbolic but still worrying for Israelis.

This also makes clear how Taiwan’s hopes for global support is extremely unlikely, sitting today without recognition of any state more important than Paraguay (and eleven others of extremely small diplomatic prowess). Taiwan’s unique relationship with the United States under our Taiwan Relations Act means that recogntion is not the only method by which a people can get support from a major nation. But, the pitiful state of the island’s international relationships is noteworthy at precisely the time that the Palestinians, controversial with Hamas and Hezbollah as constituents, are attracting more diplomatic support for their position than is Taiwan.

An irony indeed.

Thoughts on this question are welcome. I know it a controversial one across the board but one we need step back to see as it unrolls. I hope you will chime in.

Thank you for reading Actions Create Consequences today and any day you do. Please feel free to circulate the column if you find it valuable. Thank you to the subscribers who commit resources to motivate me daily.

The Blues were back today but I leave you with another picture I was thrilled to get.

Be well and be safe. FIN

‘Recognition of Palestinian Statehood a Rubuke to Israel, if Largely a Symbolic One’, NewYorkTimes.com, 22 May 2024, retrieved at https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/22/world/israel-gaza-palestinian-news