Palestinian Statehood: What Weak Arab Diplomacy Teaches Us About Formal Recognition

-Analysis-

CAIRO — Following Spain, Norway, Ireland and Slovenia’s formal recognition of Palestine as a state, some called for Arab countries to do the same. Yet, it is common knowledge that Arab countries have long recognized the State of Palestine. These calls, therefore, show the importance of the European step and the need for Arab countries to go further.

I have met many Palestinian researchers at conferences and seminars in Arab capitals in recent years. And they all — even those loyal to the Palestinian Authority or the Fatah movement — said that Arab recognition of Palestine as a state had become a pro forma issue.

An important issue in the past, it has not been built upon — as demonstrated by the succession of Arab–Israeli normalization agreements, and the inability of Arab countries to stop Israeli settlements or to pressure Israel to enter final stage negotiations with the Palestinians.

A Palestinian diplomat at the Palestinian embassy in Cairo told me years ago that Arab recognition of the Palestinian state has become a “necklace” that every country wears to fool its people into thinking that it supports Palestinian rights. While a Hamas-affiliated researcher said recognition “seems, in essence, to oppose another Palestinian vision that believes in liberation.”

As for those who advocate the one-state solution adopted by leftist and nationalist Palestinian forces, they see it as a future obstacle on this path.

Gaza-Jericho Agreement

Arab recognition of the State of Palestine came immediately with the Palestinian Declaration of Independence in 1988. But subsequent policies, speeches, documents, agreements, protocols and statements, have gradually emptied that recognition of its content. Now, it is nothing more than papers.

Proclaimed by Yasser Arafat in Algiers, Algeria, the declaration outlined a Palestinian state based on “natural, historical and legal rights” that is established on Palestinian land with Jerusalem — meaning the whole of Jerusalem — as its capital.

The Gaza-Jericho Agreement in May 1994 established only limited Palestinian self-rule in the West Bank and Gaza Strip for five years. The agreement led to the establishment of the Palestinian Authority.

Spain, Norway and Ireland designated Jerusalem as the capital of both Palestine and Israel.

Of course, Israel did not comply with the provisions of the agreement — especially the withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip — and was slow in implementing the protocols related to the economy, which attached the Palestinian economy to its Israeli counterpart. Israel also did not join the final stage negotiations on water, Jerusalem and sovereignty.

In contrast, the Oslo Accords stipulated the Palestine Liberation Organization’s recognition of the State of Israel on 78% of the historical land of Palestine. And although Palestine was subsequently recognized by 146 of 193 UN member countries, the General Assembly did not approve Palestine’s accession as a member state until May 2024.

Under the Oslo Accords, the Arab countries engineered their recognition. Some undermined it to be in line with the vision of a faction of Palestinians, on the grounds that the PLO was the one that went down this path, or that the interests of some Arab countries with Israel required this kind of recognition, or that any departure from this path would anger the United States and the West, which sponsors Israel and has strong ties with most Arab regimes.

Worldcrunch Extra! 

Elsewhere in the press • Writing in Egyptian daily al-Shorouk last month, Gamil Matter questioned the future of Arab regimes, following the way the Gaza war has been handled.. “The gap has widened again between the ruling elites on the one hand and the majority of Arab peoples on the other hand regarding methods of dealing with the Palestinian issue,” he said. “Once again, we fail to change the position of the West, especially the United States, on the conflict. Once again, the popularity of Arab political elites is affected, and the stability of their country is threatened.” —Elias Kassem (read more about the Worldcrunch method here)

​Notes on the seriousness of recognition

Is there a difference between the recognition by Spain, Norway, Ireland and Slovenia, and the previous recognitions? Is the European step more advanced than those taken by the Arab countries? There are several important distinctions:

• While the Arab countries have demanded that East Jerusalem be the capital of a Palestinian state, Spain, Norway and Ireland designated Jerusalem as the capital of both Palestine and Israel.
• All four European countries said they recognised a Palestinian state based on borders established before the war in 1967. They also recognized that those borders may change in any final settlement, and conditioned their recognition on the changes being agreed upon by all parties. This partly means that the borders of the Palestinian state are not fixed but can be expanded if talks lead to that. This is, of course, governed by the power on the ground in light of the Israel-Hamas war.
• The European recognition is a major step in bringing the Palestinian cause and the Palestinian state back to the international table, in line with the political consequences of the Oct. 7 attack. Arab countries had been normalizing relations and agreeing to security cooperation with Israel. The so-called “Deal of the Century,” which Israel agreed to because it serves its interests, calls for a “solution to the Palestinian issue” through direct negotiations, in which the issue of the “Palestinian state” is not the goal of negotiations.
• While Arab parties have talked of a “demilitarized Palestinian state,” the four European countries did not exclude the Palestinian state’s right to arm itself. They recognized it as an “independent, sovereign state,” which implies an acknowledgment of its right to monopolize the formation of armed forces.
• The European countries understand their important roles in ending the Israel-Hamas war. Spain and Norway made strong contributions to the peace process that began in the 1990s, with the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991 then the Oslo Accords, mediated by Norway. The two countries are serious about making the “Peace Project” a success and have contributed to its launch. Their recognition comes as the Arab Peace Initiative — which links the normalization between Arab countries and Israel to the declaration of a Palestinian state as part of a final settlement — became void.
• The European recognition puts strong pressure on Israel and exceeds pressure from Arab countries. That is reflected in the scale of Israel’s outrage: it called the move infringement on “Israel’s sovereignty and security” and a “reward for Hamas”; recalled its ambassador to Madrid; and prevented the Spanish consulate in Jerusalem from providing services to Palestinians in occupied territories.
• While two Arab League summits held — in Riyadh and Manama — since the war started did not mention “genocide in Gaza,” Spain’s Defense Minister Margarita Robels used this expression, and it was echoed by ministers from the Spanish left.
• The Arab countries’ recognition of the Palestinian state has become a mere recognition of a “Palestinian Authority” that has become incapable of even governing the occupied West Bank. The Arab countries did not take into account other Palestinian proposals calling for the liberation of all of Palestine, or voices calling for a “one-state solution.” They have limited themselves to the Palestinian Liberation Organization as it is the only legitimate representative of the Palestinian people; they prefer to deal with the Palestinian Authority, created by the Oslo Accords, which is a matter of dispute among Palestinians themselves.

Bridging the gap

With these distinctions in mind, many have reminded the Arab countries of their recognition of the Palestinian state, in an effort to restore its effectiveness — and to bridge the gap between the moment it was announced, when Palestinians rejoiced, and the current moment, when they are disappointed with the Arab regimes.

“Once again, we fail to change the position of the West, especially the United States, on the conflict.”

It is time for Arabs to once again assert themselves on the ground.