The State of Israel received its original name as the “Jewish State” (of Palestine) by Resolution 187 of 1947, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly within the framework of what was then called the “question of Palestine.” At the same time, said Resolution established the “Arab State” (of Palestine). This second founding act has gone completely unnoticed by public opinion, with serious consequences in international politics and in the formation of popular mentality regarding the recent history of the Holy Land. For many years and even more so now due to the “conflict” in Gaza, the international community has demanded the creation of an “Arab State” that is the result of a negotiation between two historical adversaries. However, very few know that the “Arab State” is not a future. The “Arab State” was born although it died on the same day of birth. Both “biological” events were not the subject of a contract but the consequence of acts beyond the control of those we know today as Israelis and Palestinians.
Palestine is the story of a confusion. Let us look at a perverse synecdoche: that of taking the part (“the Palestinians”) for the whole (“Palestine”). Turn on the moviola: in the reality of 1947, everyone (the Arabs and the Jews) lived in historical Palestine and the Jews (the later Israelis) were as Palestinian as the Arabs. At this point there has been and is a gross mystification: the Palestinians – according to this self-serving version – will be the legitimate (and only) owners of the territory of Palestine, on which they would have built, before the massive arrival of the Jews, and at some point nebulous time, an autonomous political community.
It is a fantasy. We had to wait until November 1947 for an Arab State to exist in Palestine. The region, until December 1917, was part of the Ottoman Empire. On the indicated date, the British army dispossessed the Turks of their territory. Since then, the United Kingdom de facto occupied Palestine. Five years later, the League of Nations granted a mandate over Palestine to the occupying power. By the way, almost no one knows that, prior to November 1947, there was a massive emigration to the Jewish settlements of Palestine of Arabs from Egypt, Syria… Much greater than the emigration from these countries to “Arab Palestine.” It is not very difficult to understand the reason. Palestine’s Jewish economy, more developed than that of its Arab neighbors, provided greater employment opportunities and higher wages. Who arrived first? The Celts or the Iberians?
Resolution 181/1947 created two States, but only on paper. Before its effective constitution, the United Nations had established a transition period that would last, at most, until August 1, 1948. The United Kingdom would continue to administer Palestine and would gradually withdraw its troops until the definitive evacuation of the territory (before, as We have seen, August 1, 1948). As their Army gradually withdraws, the British would hand over the administration of the evicted territory to a commission of five representatives appointed by the UN Assembly and supervised by the Security Council.
Part II of Resolution 181/1947 outlined in detail the borders between the two States and their borders with their neighbors. He also drew the borders of the city of Jerusalem, subject to a special international regime. The borders will be operational at the moment of the declaration of independence of the two States. For her part, independence would take effect two months after the total withdrawal of Her Majesty’s Army from her (in any case, never later than October 1, 1848).
The United Kingdom failed to comply with the November 1947 Resolution. There was no withdrawal from the gradual territory of Palestine. Abruptly, the British army left the region on May 15, 1948. A day earlier, David Ben Gurion had proclaimed in Tel Aviv the independence of the “Jewish State” and claimed its sovereignty within the borders established in Part II of the resolution.
What happened to the “Arab State”? On the same day that the British left the region – May 15, 1948 – the armies of Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq entered Palestine with the intention of expelling the Jews from the territories that had been given to them. Assigned to the UN. The war lasted until 1949, the year in which, on successive dates, Israel separately signed armistices with the aggressor states on the island of Rhodes. Perhaps some unwary person thinks that the “brothers” of the Palestinians will help them establish the “Arab State” envisaged in 1947. Oh, disappointment! While the Jews rounded out, in the heat of battle, their sovereignty over the areas of Galilee and the Negev attributed to the Arabs of Palestine, Jordan annexed the “West Bank” (the present-day West Bank). The expansionist ambition, at the expense of the Palestinians, of the Hashemites led them to replace the original name of their State – Transjordan – in 1950 with the current name of Jordan. Gaza was not awarded to the Palestinians either. Although Egypt, unlike Jordan, did not annex the Strip, it replaced the British as the administrative power here. By his own decision, naturally. In this way, Egypt and Jordan stole from the Palestinians what the UN had recognized them. Israel did not prevent the birth of the “Arab State” of Palestine. The cousins and brothers of the Palestinians prevented it. They killed the newborn in the crib.
In June 1967, Israel occupied Gaza and the West Bank. Years later he colonized them. The “West Bank” continues in the same situation. In 2005, Israel left Gaza and dismantled its settlements in the Strip.
In 1993 the Oslo Accords (I and II) were signed. In short, Israelis and Palestinians gave themselves five years to negotiate a permanent and definitive agreement that would lead to the creation of a Palestinian State. Until then, a provisional entity – the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) – would lead the interim self-government of Gaza and the West Bank.
Last week, the President of the Spanish Government, Pedro Sánchez, toured the Middle East. In Jerusalem he met with his Israeli counterpart, “Bibi” Netanyahu. The Spaniard, in his capacity as president of the European Union, discarding diplomatic uses, harshly criticized Israel’s military intervention in the Gaza Strip. Sánchez accused Israel of flagrantly violating international humanitarian law. I am not going to go into the matter here, but International Humanitarian Law is not the work of Saint Francis or Rabbi Hillel (of whom Jesus of Nazareth popularized his famous parable of the two cheeks). It is an order that regulates obligations and duties for the disputing parties. One of the main ones is not to hinder the enemy’s actions by interfering with the civilian population. If Sánchez is interested, he recommends reading Additional Protocol I (1977) to the Hague Conventions (1949).
He who warns is not a traitor. Before his departure for Israel, Sánchez threatened Netanyahu. He warned him that if, once the invasion of the Gaza Strip by the Israeli army was concluded, he did not reactivate negotiations to resolve the conflict with the creation of a Palestinian State, as established by the Oslo Accords of 1993, “his” Government would recognize Palestine.
Without a doubt, Sánchez’s street language will yield political returns among men and women of good will (although good will is a category on which there is no unanimous agreement on what it means). Above all, it is a magnificent publicity for her second book (“Tierra firma”).
But perhaps it is not idle to object to Sánchez’s position on the atrocious events that are convulsing the entire Middle East as a whole, beyond the violent disputes between Israelis and Palestinians. Firstly, some confusion would be avoided if Sánchez carried out a demarcation and marking action. In whose name does he say what he says? In its own name – that of Spain – or in the name of another and compromising the European Union, which I am not aware of has granted special power for lawsuits to, through Sánchez, sue against the State of Israel? Sánchez is fickle. In Madrid he said that he would recognize “a” Palestinian state. In Jerusalem he was very critical of Israel but said nothing about the future of the region. Finally, in Rafah he recovered the Madrid speech and clarified that, if the European Union does not take action on the matter, he will put things in their place. Bravo! It is no longer necessary to pay a lawyer and a solicitor to file a demarcation and boundary action that has become unnecessary. But – as I said before – does it have powers from the European Union? Do you realize that you have violated international law, since the Oslo Accords, endorsed by the UN, prohibit third-party interference? Is our Captain Thunder aware that he has opened Pandora’s box?
Regarding the substance of the matter, I would ask Sánchez if it is not contradictory to link the negotiations established by the Oslo Accords with an eventual and unilateral recognition of Palestine by the Kingdom of Spain. By the way, and with the Oslo agreements on the table, what does “Palestine” mean for Sánchez? The great novelty of the Oslo Accords was the mutual recognition as legitimate interlocutors of the State of Israel and the PLO (from which the ANP emerged). Since 2007, the Hamas organization, an irreconcilable enemy of the ANP, has ruled the Gaza Strip. Does Sánchez consider Hamas a legitimate interlocutor in the face of the founding of a Palestinian State? Please tell us, Don Pedro.
And, above all, how do you recognize something that does not exist?
THE NAIS IS OFFICIAL EDITOR ON NAIS NEWS