0
Shares
Pinterest Google+

The latest fuel that has been added to the Israeli-Palestinian fire is murmur of Netanyahu’s newest demand: for the Palestinians to recognise Israel as a Jewish state. The latest fan that has exacerbated the reactionary flame has been the response of the international community: the Arab League claims that the demand is an aberration from the ‘peace negotiations’, and the Israelis deem that a lack of recognition would signal the Palestinians are not serious about peace.

What is new about this demand and this reaction I hear you ask. Nothing…bar a trivial link that 1993 was when the film Groundhog Day was released, and it was also when the first real set of broad negotiations were agreed in Oslo. Sadly for humanity, whilst Bill Murray was able to break away from the time loop, our diplomatic leaders have not been able to do the same. And thus, we have the same demands, the same responses, and the same stalemate being propagated/denied/articulated.

Back to reality…I want to look at one of these ‘same responses’ – ‘we will not recognise’

The recent huge furore in Eastern Europe provides great context to this response being employed once more, outside of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Putin is backing the referendum that will be held in the Crimea next week, and the U.S has declared they won’t recognise the annexation if residents of the region vote to leave Ukraine.

On a slight deviation, this talk of a referendum is also something to focus on given that there is at least some half-hearted attempt at democracy on the cards.

Why have the Americans taken this stance?

I personally think – and do remember I’m no Russian/Ukrainian/legal jargon expert – it’s simply a case of not wanting to recognise something that is anathema to Western policy.

Yes, the Russian intervention in the southern peninsula of Crimea is indeed a violation of the Ukrainian constitution and international law, but backing a referendum is simply backing ‘a general vote by the electorate on a single political question which has been referred to them for a direct decision’. Basically backing democracy (albeit in devious means).

Putin’s desire to create a post-Eurasian union, which many believe is a disguise for combining all the post-communist countries and ultimately resurrecting the former USSR, would be all the more strengthened with the Crimea on his side. Naturally a return of one-half of the Cold War arena would scare the living daylights out of America. So hey, why not whack in some human rights chat to veil American realism, supersede said self-interest above what the Crimean people actually want and who they want to be a part of – much like Scotland is being given the chance to do – and then give the totally unheard line of ‘we will not recognise’ just to cement alleged Western strength and intent. Yes international community, I’m sure Putin is absolutely fooled.

Not.

He must be aware of the non-existent implications of the phrase ‘we will not recognise’. Why? Because history dictates that this means nothing more than recognising by default of not doing anything about it.

Let’s return back to our old friends, Israel-Palestine, to appreciate why this is the case. America and the international community at large have declared that they do not recognise:

– the annexation of Eastern Jerusalem by Israel
– the Israeli declaration in 1980 that all of Jerusalem, both its Eastern and Western sanctions, was its undivided capital
– the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements

Whilst Jerusalem hosting no foreign embassies, and the fact that the West considers East Jerusalem as Palestinian Occupied Territory, is indicative of the international community not recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, this does not negate how the status of the city remains to be one of the key sticking points of the ‘peace negotiations’. The similar case can be seen in regards for the settlement building. It means nothing.

Thus, Putin knows that whilst he will be repudiated and criticised by the international community, and his actions not recognised, he will be allowed to continue – just like in the Israeli-Palestinian situation. The NATO factor and the threat of WWIII makes the option of language rather than action an even more attractive option for the West…and Putin’s mannerisms over the last couple of days seem to show he is aware of that.

We all laugh at the recycled, reused, repeated chat-up lines that are frequently advertised by Facebook/Instagram/god forbid a genuine friend (see http://www.gotlines.com/lines/funny.php if you wish to have a wee lol)…does the international community not realise that violating leaders also do not respond to recycled, reused, repeated statements?

Author

  • Meera Kotak

    Meera is a final year History student at UCL, with a personal interest in the Middle East and specifically the Arab-Israeli Conflict. She was first exposed to a basic history of the origins of the crisis in high school, and has been able to develop her understanding in greater depth at University, keeping up to date with the issues in the interim by way of general research and attending talks and lectures in the City.

Previous post

Scaffold, not Talks: The State of Politics in Pakistan by Aamir Aziz

Next post

Uganda's Anti-Gay Law Is An Affront To African Values, Not A Part Of Them