Self Determine: Palestine, “Colonialism,” And The Two-State Solution
On January 8th, 1918, President Woodrow Wilson delivered a speech to the U.S. Congress outlining principles for peace that would be used in negotiations to end World War I. Wilson’s Fourteen Points contained the seeds for a global organization that would secure the “political independence and territorial integrity [of] great and small states alike" and “adjustment of colonial claims based on the principles of self-determination.” In an article responding to this speech, Theodore Roosevelt stated:
“If the League of Nations is built on a document as high-sounding and as meaningless as the speech in which Mr. Wilson laid down his fourteen points, it will simply add one more scrap to the diplomatic waste paper basket. Most of these fourteen points...would be interpreted...to mean anything or nothing."
It is not hard to see whose views were more realistic. While the League lasted less than 30 years, its successor, the United Nations, and Wilson’s progressive dream have reigned over international relations for over 100 years with, at best, mixed results. His dream of a world in which morality, collective security, and the right of self-determination replaced Imperial interests, power politics, and empire ran into the stark reality of difficult questions such as “who’s morality,” who enforces the peace, and who gets self-determination?
The answers to the first two questions only became issues as the empires of the victors began to fracture and the ineffectiveness of the League of Nations became apparent. “Morality” at the outset meant the morality of those involved in dictating peace terms, the Western European empires, and Christian morality.
Peace was to be enforced by “the moral force of the public opinion of the world” and if that failed economic sanctions.
That these failed to prevent re-armament and the start of the Second World War did not stop the major powers following World War Two from trying again with the United Nations, nor has it prevented public opinion and sanctions from remaining critical to Western foreign policy today, nor of Christian morality remaining the standard by which we in the West (progressives aside) determine the rightness of a political solution.
The principle of national self-determination, often joined at the hip with democracy, remains one of the pillars of Western foreign policy and one that creates far more issues. While the idea of self-determination is attractive, implementing it proves to be difficult as we see in many areas around the world including Crimea and Gaza.
What’s more, “the legitimatization of the principle of national self-determination has led to an increase in the number of conflicts within states” with at least half of the wars waged near the end of the 20th century involving groups claiming that their right to self-determination had been breached by the states from which they seek to separate. The principal issues making self-determination such a thorny issue include the conflict between it and state territorial integrity and the definition of “a people.”
Self-determination vs. Territorial Integrity
The 2014 Crimean Status Referendum provides a real-world example of the difficulty in balancing self-determination against state territorial integrity. Unlike greater Ukraine, Crimea has a majority Russian population.
The referendum, which took place during Russia’s annexation of Crimea, gave voters a choice between rejoining Russia as a federal subject or restoring the 1992 Crimean constitution and Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine. The results, which were overwhelmingly in favor of rejoining Russia, were stained by allegations of fraud and were illegal under the Constitution of Ukraine which required any territorial changes to be approved by a referendum of all citizens of Ukraine.
Despite these allegations, independent surveys conducted by Gallup, Pew Research, and other polling organizations found that the majority of Crimean residents were satisfied with the results, thought they were accurate, and “believed the government of Kyiv should officially recognize the result of Crimea's referendum.” What conclusion can be reached by this other than the aspiration of national self-determination is much easier than implementing it in real-world conditions?
Defining “peoples”
Determining what constitutes “a people” is an equally difficult task for a very simple reason, there is no legally recognized definition of “peoples” under international law. Various suggestions have been put forth of course including one by The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) which endorsed what has become known as the “’Kirby definition’, recognizing as a ‘people’ a group of persons with a common historical tradition, racial or ethnic identity, cultural homogeneity, linguistic unity, religious or ideological affinity, territorial connection, or common economic life.”
However, even with this definition which appears clear, there are issues. For example, how long is a “common historical tradition?” Focusing on Palestinians, historians differ as to when a Palestinian identity first emerged, with some arguing it first emerged in 1834 as a result of the Peasants' revolt in Palestine while others say it didn’t appear after the creation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) during the 1960s. Without a legally recognized definition, we are faced with a tough question, who decides?
Territorial “Ownership”
Self-determination is further complicated when “ownership” of a territory is contested, and the history of the area is complicated. Even accepting that “a people” require a territorial connection, it is still possible for several “peoples” to be connected to the same land. What then? The progressive focus on “settler-colonialism” bypasses this problem by labeling the most recent arrivals as settlers who oppress the “original owners” of an area.
This simple approach makes identifying the “good guys” and “bad guys” easy but neglects the complexity of the historical situation. Using Palestine as an example, progressives would have us believe that the Israelis are the oppressors and the Palestinians the oppressed and therefore entitled to self-determination. However, an examination of the history of the region complicates matters. Palestine has been governed, by a myriad of powers as this graph clearly demonstrates:
Resorting to the progressive settler-colonialism approach to self-determination brings this to mind:
Providing historical context does not provide the simple solution that many desire but it does brush aside the statement “we were here first.”
Where do we go from here?
Resolving real-world issues is more complicated than “intellectuals” would like to believe.
Providing definitions and aspirational goals is simple, implementing them in real-world situations is not. An understanding of this is particularly important given recent protests in support of the Palestinian people and the news that the UN’s International Court of Justice is to “hold hearings on the legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian-claimed lands.” Should the court rule that the Israeli occupation is illegal it will find itself in a difficult situation as the ruling will not be binding and the UN lacks the means to enforce it. This means it will need the cooperation of the Israelis if there is ever to be an independent Palestinian state. Without concrete assurances that a repeat of the October 7th massacre will not reoccur, this seems unlikely.
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author's own.
 | A guest post by
|
Though not American nor in the US, nor have any sort of connection with Israeli/Palestinian issue, I enjoyed reading your piece as it well put a major and important aspect of it into context. Context is often what is missing from the BIG issues we've faced especially recently, including covid. Context can include history and precedents, but most over-reactive people don't really care unfortunately. But there are those who will appreciate context, so thank you.