+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Palestine statehood bid: is about rights or separation?

Last week, Maen Rashid Areikat, the Palestine Liberation Organization’s ambassador to the U.S., was quoted by USA Today as saying total separation is needed between Palestinians and Israelis.

The statement came during a press conference on the Palestinian statehood bid sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor in Washington. Areikat’s exact statement was, “I believe, as a first step we [Israelis and Palestinians] need to be totally separated”

Notable neoconservatives such as Elliot Abrams quickly fired off a response arguing that Areikat’s comments were examples of anti-Semitism in action. Areikat was forced to step back from his comments, telling the Huffington Post’s Joshua Hersh, “Under no circumstances was I saying that no Jews can be in Palestine.”

Instead of perpetuating the accepted rhetoric that the two state solution is running out of time and separation is a natural remedy to the problems endemic to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Areikat and the entire Palestinian leadership are in a position to reformulate the conflict narrative to highlight the rights based nature of Palestinian thinking.

However, Areikat’s statements reflect the stale thinking pervasive inside the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank. The narrative of separation, the oft cited claim of two states for two peoples, is not realistic at the present moment given the entrenchment of Israel’s occupation in the West Bank. Most Palestinians are aware of this and while they argue that statehood is their legitimate right, they also understand that their constant deprivation of rights is the core of their grievance with Israel and, by extension, the Palestinian leadership.

Given their fight for political survival and legitimacy, not to mention the looming economic crisis in the West Bank, it is unlikely that the PA/PLO will take the bold moves necessary to challenge Israel’s dominance over the Israeli-Palestinian narrative. Instead, we can expect more simplistic and unrealistic statements like Areikat’s comment on separation.

If the United Nations statehood bid fails, which is increasingly likely given that the United States has promised a veto in the Security Council, the PA might soon be dealing with a fed up and financially strained population. The proliferation of young activist movements inside the West Bank and Gaza, armed with the social media knowledge necessary to challenge the Israeli-Palestinian narrative in the hearts and minds of international civil society, might just lead a movement of civil disobedience which will bring the rhetoric of the conflict closer to reality.

**This post was written last week but due to technical difficulties with our hosting it is only being posted now.**

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. Hostage

      Clarification: In the headline and story, Palestinian Ambassador Maen Areikat says he was referring to Israelis, not Jews, when he stated that “it would be in the best interest of the two people to be separated first.”

      So that’s really as uncontroversial as saying Canadians and Americans should live on separate sides of their border.

      Reply to Comment