Instead of voting to recognize Palestine, vote against occupation

Opposing Israeli settlements is not necessarily a vote for Palestine.

The British Parliament’s non-binding, purely symbolic vote to recognize the “State of Palestine” on Monday was not as significant as the debate that preceded the vote (read the full transcript here). Several media outlets noted conservative MP Richard Ottaway’s speech, a longtime Israel supporter who expressed genuine indignation with its latest announcement of more settlements as the reason behind his yes vote. As John Cassidy at The New Yorker put it, “for any true friend of Israel, Ottaway’s words will be hard to ignore.”

In fact, Ottoway sounded more like a spouse who has suddenly discovered that his partner has been cheating on him all these years, and is now in a state of utter shock and betrayal:

The annexation of the 950 acres of the West Bank just a few months ago has outraged me more than anything else in my political life, mainly because it makes me look a fool, and that is something that I resent.

That staunch allies of Israel are finally openly criticizing its policies is noteworthy. However, Ottaway’s words reflect that his vote to recognize “Palestine” was not a vote for Palestinian independence or justice, so much as a vote against Israeli leadership, for whom the notion of a Palestinian state is the bane of its existence. As Ottaway noted:

Under normal circumstances, I would oppose the motion tonight; but such is my anger over Israel’s behavior in recent months that I will not oppose the motion. I have to say to the government of Israel that if they are losing people like me, they will be losing a lot of people.

I don’t know what he means by “normal’ circumstances or where he has been for decades as Israel talked peace while directly acting against it. The fact is, Ottaway’s vote was meant to stick it to Israel for making him look like an idiot. Not because he necessarily cares about Palestinians or has any clue what a Palestinian state that he symbolically opted to recognize would look like.

Hundreds of Palestinians gather to watch the speech by Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas in the bid for Palestine's "nonmember observer state" status at the United Nations, projected on the Israeli separation wall in the West Bank town of Bethlehem, November 29, 2012. Hours later, the UN General Assembly voted 138-9 in favor of the upgraded status for Palestine, with 41 nations abstaining. (Photo by: Ryan Rodrick Beiler/Activestills.org)
Hundreds of Palestinians gather to watch the speech by Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas in the bid for Palestine’s “nonmember observer state” status at the United Nations, projected on the Israeli separation wall in the West Bank town of Bethlehem, November 29, 2012. Hours later, the UN General Assembly voted 138-9 in favor of the upgraded status for Palestine, with 41 nations abstaining. (Photo by: Ryan Rodrick Beiler/Activestills.org)

After all, the last thing Palestinians need right now is symbolic recognition; even actual recognition in the Oslo Accords didn’t do anything for them. What they need are concrete steps – the end of Israeli control over their lives, which is why Abbas is turning to the UN to demand Israel end the occupation by 2016 and withdraw from the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Before this happens, there can be no solution, since any forms of negotiation will necessarily take place in a dynamic in which Israel still has lopsided control and thus leverage.

Ottaway’s motive for his vote is highly problematic – not only because he admitted it is more about his own ego than the reality on the ground for those living here, but because it propagates the bogus dichotomy that being “pro-Israel” necessarily means being “anti-Palestinian” and in this case the inverse: that being “anti-Israel” means being “pro-Palestinian.”

This zero-sum dichotomy was created in order to pit Israel’s right to self-determination directly against that of Palestinians, forcing the world to decide between them. And it has been cultivated with great devotion by the hasbara industry and Israeli advocates in the West for decades – exemplified most prominently by AIPAC. Being pro-Israel means supporting the government, supporting settlements, not asking difficult questions and never, ever advocating for Palestinians.

Today the Netanyahu government is pushing that dichotomy harder than ever – taking the issue back to the 1980s, when Palestinian statehood was still taboo and settlements weren’t occupying as much land.  It is why the Israeli peace camp has pushed so hard all these years for a two-state solution and why groups in the U.S. like J Street have made it their motto that being “pro-Israel” means being “pro peace.”

A vote against Israeli settlements is not necessarily a vote for a Palestinian state. But it should be a vote against Israeli occupation, which continues to colonize Palestinian land and resources and violates their basic human rights. During the debate, many MPs expressed the simple but critical notion that opposing settlements and favoring the idea of an independent Palestinian state does not mean being “anti-Israel.” But their vote was misguided.

What they should have voted on is an end to Israeli occupation and settlements, while legislating ways in which they can stop being actively complicit in it.

Related:
World’s delayed reaction to Gaza war kicks in
British Parliament recognizes Palestinian state in non-binding resolution
Labour MPs: Vote yes on Palestinian statehood

Newsletter banner 6 -540