An Unjust Cause

In theory, the idea of two states for two peoples makes perfect sense. The Jews are the indigenous people of the land, the only people existing today whose language, culture and religion developed in this land and who had an independent national existence on it for hundreds of years. Arab-speaking peoples are truly indigenous only to the Arabian Peninsula and their presence in the Levant is a result of Islamic Arab imperialism of the past millennia.

On the other hand, one can fairly ask is there no expiry date to the Jewish claim to ownership of the land? And at some point, shouldn’t the descendants of the Arabs who conquered and occupied the land attain the rights to remain there? Can’t the two communities find a way to live alongside one another in mutual respect and cooperation?

However, the unjustness of the Palestinian cause today is not the product of theory, but rather of events and decisions that have been made by this movement since its inception. It comes down to the question of agency. Do the Palestinians carry responsibility for their actions and decisions over the past century or not? Justice means granting a party it’s just desserts; it is inextricably connected to choices and actions; ignoring the consequences of a party’s actions cannot serve justice. The problem with the Palestinian national movement today is that whatever the justness of its claim to political independence was a century ago, its actions since then have made it the national movement least deserving of an independent state in the world today.

The Criteria for Independence

The idea that every politically self-aware group of people around the world has an absolute right to an independent state is a dangerous fiction. No political group has an absolute and eternal right to exist as a fully independent state. A world of independent nation-states is an ideal, certainly as opposed to a world of multi-ethnic empires, but its implementation around the world is dependent on the nation’s ability to function as an independent body politic and the extent to which its cultural uniqueness can only be maintained in the framework of full independence.

Numerous national political groups today exist with levels of autonomy that are less than a fully independent state, including Kurds, Catalans, Saharawis, Tibetans, Baluchis and Puerto Ricans to name a few. There are literally thousands of unique language groups with various levels of coherent political identity in the world, but the vast majority maintain their political identity within the framework of a larger state, with various arrangements and levels of regional autonomy.

Full political sovereignty is an outcome that must be earned, not an absolute right. Perhaps some may become states in the future, others may not. It depends of their willingness and capability to build viable pre-state governing institutions, develop some basis for a productive economy, maintain a level of national unity between various factions with the movement, and demonstrate that they can join the community of peaceful nations who seek to coexist with their neighbors and respect borders.

The pre-independence Jewish national movement achieved all of the above amidst unimaginable challenges and was therefore deserving and capable of founding its state. In contrast, the Palestinian national movement has not achieved even one of the above, despite have the most favorable conditions and international assistance that has been offered to any national movement in history.

The Palestinian Authority (PA), which is meant to serve as a pre-state political establishment, is corrupt and authoritarian and has minimal support among the populace that it governs. It has virtually no productive economic sectors and exists on the basis of generous funds from other countries and international organizations. Fundamental aspects of statehood are provided for it by Israel including tax collection, roads and water infrastructure, as it is not capable of performing these tasks on its own.

The Palestinian populace is split politically into at least two factions who have been at war with each other for over two decades, the Fatah-dominated PA in Judea and Samaria and Hamas in Gaza. Even within the PA governed regions, national unity is minimal, whereas tribal, regional loyalties are primary. The only concrete political goal that seems to unite all Palestinians is not their own independence but the rejection of the State of Israel.

Even if the Palestinian national movement attained internal unity, its national identity is low on the cultural uniqueness that would serve as a justification for having an independent Palestinian state. Being predominantly Arab-speaking and Sunni Muslim, Palestinian culture is not distinct from the broader Arab Muslim cultures in the region including Jordan, Egypt, Syria, the Gulf States, and parts of Iraq. Has a distinct, local version of this Arab-Sunni identity formed over the past century in the land of Israel? Perhaps. However, as far as cultural uniqueness is a factor in favor of political independence, the Palestinian claim here is weak compared to many other independence movements around the world. The Palestinian National Charter, adopted by the PLO in 1964, reflects this clearly in its opening statement: “Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.” There are currently 22 independent states who share the language, religion and culture of the Palestinians.

Finally, the Charter of the United Nations calls on all its members “to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors,” and member states commit to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” It should be clear to anyone that a Palestinian state, should one ever arise, would not be a peace-loving state. Palestinian identity is bound up with a rejection of the right of the State of Israel to exist and it has never ceased to back up this demand with action and the refusal of the PA leadership to recognize the right of Jewish independence.

Are there individuals among the Palestinian populace who would be willing to live in peace with Israel? Perhaps. But until now, even the supposedly moderate political faction, Fatah, which operates the PA institutions, cannot bring itself to condemn the massacres of October 7^th. Even when Israel will complete its goal of eradicating Hamas’ governing power in Gaza, the fact remains that a majority of the Palestinian populace in Gaza supports Hamas’ goals; whatever criticism that exists toward the movement lies in the realm of tactics alone. So too, a majority of the PA populace in Judea and Samaria also supports Hamas. And if one looks closely at the surveys, it is clear that the majority do not believe in the legitimacy of the State of Israel. The Palestinian national movement has not shown that it intends to practice tolerance and live together in peace with its neighbors but rather precisely the opposite, it would be born into a state of war of eradication against Israel.

None of this should not be surprising when considering that the Palestinian national movement is founded in the violent rejection of Jewish independence in any borders. The first political leader of what later came to be called the Palestinian national movement was Haj Amin al Husseini. Husseini was appointed the mufti of Jerusalem in the 1920’s and greatly contributed to the riots and massacres perpetrated against the pre-state Jewish communities in that decade and in the 1930s. During World War II, Husseini travelled to Germany to ally himself with Hitler and lead the drive for the extermination of all Jews across the Middle East. Husseini is still seen as a national father of the Palestinians society, and their only criticism of him is that he promoted the war against Israel in 1948 which ended in the ‘Nakba’- disaster of Israel’s victory. Given this history it should be no surprise that Palestinians overwhelmingly support Hamas’ genocidal mega-attack and the PA diplomats celebrated it.

An Identity of Perpetual Victimhood

No other national movement has been given greater offers for a state on a silver platter and repeatedly refused. This fact supports the argument that the Palestinians do not actually want a state. A people whose highest aspiration is their own political independence do not pass up the opportunity for a state when it is offered to them, whether it meets all their expectations or not. For this precise reason, the Jewish national movement, ie. the Zionist movement, accepted the UN partition plan in 1947, despite it being much less than what the League of Nations Mandate had originally accorded them. Following more missed opportunities to move toward statehood in 1979, in 1995, the Palestinians rejected generous offers of full statehood again in 2000, and again in 2008.

What kind of independence movement passes up multiple offers of independence? The only logical conclusion is that the Palestinians have no substantive reason for demanding independence beyond denying Israel’s right to exist. The project for Palestinian statehood is in essence not a national independence movement at all but rather a movement of violent and political resistance to Jewish independence in any form.

One of the reasons for this is that whatever Palestinian national identity exists is built on an ethos of perpetual collective victimhood. If they were to attain an independent and a materially prosperous existence, they would have to cease seeing themselves as victims, but would then be left in a deep crisis, having nothing left to their collective identity. The Palestinian national movement developed in reaction and opposition to the Zionist movement. If not for Zionism, no part of the Arab Muslim Middle East would consider the local Arabs of the land of Israel a separate national entity. Indeed, even after Israel’s founding the Arab states continued to refuse to recognize the claims of their Arab brethren. Egypt’s Nasser dreamt of a greater Egypt which would control the entire region from its borders to Iraq. Syria’s Assad believed the land of Israel to be part of greater Syria. Jordan occupied Judea and Samaria for 19 years and never considered that the Palestinians should have their own state. Israel has a substantive identity without the Palestinian national movement, but the Palestinians would have no unique political identity without Zionism.