Self-determination for the Palestinians?

A total of 164 countries voted at the United Nations on Dec. 15 in favor of a resolution affirming the Palestinians’ right to self-determination. Israel opposed the resolution. In my view, as a member of the Likud Conference, this position warrants some reconsideration.

In the past, I served as secretary and spokesperson for the Likud leadership in the Knesset. One important lesson I learned was the value of restraint: to avoid reflexive responses, and instead, carefully examine alternative perspectives and the possible consequences of each course of action.

"Rather than engaging in a confrontational posture toward much of the international community, Israel might consider emphasizing this widely known demographic and historical reality"

Israel has a neighboring state where a large majority of the population—often estimated at around 80%—identify as Palestinian. That state is the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

Rather than engaging in a confrontational posture toward much of the international community, Israel might consider emphasizing this widely known demographic and historical reality. If Palestinians understand themselves as a distinct people, it follows that they are entitled to self-determination in a state in which they form a clear and stable majority.

A brief historical context may be useful. The State of Jordan emerged in the aftermath of competing French and British interests in the Middle East. Faisal, the emir of Damascus, was forced by France to leave for Baghdad; therefore, his brother Abdullah was left without a territory to govern.

Abdullah gathered 200 camels and followers from the Hashemite tribe in Saudi Arabia and set out to establish his rule in Damascus. The British, seeking a pragmatic solution, ultimately decided, under the leadership of Winston Churchill, to allocate 76% of the Mandate territory east of the Jordan River to Abdullah, thereby creating what became the brand-new state: the Kingdom of Jordan.

"It was only in the early 1970s that a separate Palestinian national narrative was created"

Contemporary accounts of these negotiations reflect the ad hoc nature of state formation in the region. Some 76% of the area, which was designated by the League of Nations to be a national home for the Jewish people, was delivered to the Arabs, known today as Palestinians.

Until the Six-Day War in June 1967, the prevailing understanding among the local population and local leaders was totally different from today’s discourse. On Dec. 1, 1948, prominent figures from the area later known as the West Bank convened in Jericho and appealed to King Abdullah to extend his sovereignty over them and to formally annex the territory to Jordan. At that time, there was no demand for a separate Palestinian state and little emphasis on an independent right to self-determination distinct from Jordan.

It was only in the early 1970s that a separate Palestinian national narrative was created. In this context, Zuhair Muhsin, a senior figure in the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), stated in a March 31, 1977, interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw that Palestinian identity had developed as part of the struggle against Israel. This observation, made several years after the Six-Day War, highlights the relatively recent evolution of Palestinian national self-definition.

"A common concern raised in response to this argument relates to Israel-Jordan relations. In my assessment, such relations would likely remain stable"

This historical background may also help explain why, for many years, “progressive” international activists never demonstrated against Jordanian occupation of Judea and Samaria prior to 1967.

From this perspective, Israel’s recognition of Palestinian self-determination in a state where Palestinians constitute an undisputed majority could shift elements of the international debate and challenge some prevailing assumptions within progressive political movements.

A common concern raised in response to this argument relates to Israel-Jordan relations. In my assessment, such relations would likely remain stable. They have traditionally been grounded in shared strategic and security interests, rather than in deep popular affinity. Historical precedents, such as King Hussein’s conflict with the PLO and King Abdullah II’s actions against Islamist movements, suggest that Jordanian policy has consistently prioritized internal stability and regime security.

In an era of intense global media propaganda and rapidly formed false antisemitic public narratives, Israel must intensify its struggle over international public opinion.

© JNS