Several countries have made moves to recognize Palestinian statehood. What do these announcements mean practically for Palestinians and are these declarations coming too little too late? Jadaliyya co-editor Noura Erakat joined NPR's All Things Considered on Thursday, 25 September, to discuss this critical question.
Transcript
ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: In the last week, many countries have taken a step that Palestinians have wanted for decades.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
PRIME MINISTER KEIR STARMER: The United Kingdom formally recognizes the state of Palestine.
SHAPIRO: British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he was acting, quote, "to revive the hope of peace and a two-state solution." French President Emmanuel Macron echoed that message, speaking at the U.N. through an interpreter.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
PRESIDENT EMMANUEL MACRON: (Through interpreter) We must do everything within our power to preserve the very possibility of a two-state solution.
SHAPIRO: Several other European countries have also recently recognized Palestine. So have Canada and Australia. To talk about whether this step can make a meaningful difference in the lives of Palestinians, Rutgers professor Noura Erakat is with us. She's a human rights attorney and author of "Justice For Some: Law And The Question Of Palestine." Welcome.
NOURA ERAKAT: Thank you for having me.
SHAPIRO: What does international recognition of Palestine actually mean in practical terms for Palestinian people today?
ERAKAT: International recognition under international law means very little, especially for Palestinians who, in 2012, were recognized by a majority of the General Assembly to be nonvoting members of the United Nations. So international recognition at this stage actually means less than symbolism because those very states, one, are late to recognize Palestine per their legal obligations, but also they're doing it at a time when they're continuing to support Israel's genocide through the provision of arms and cover.
For example, the U.K. is one of the most significant weapons providers to Israel, and they should be imposing an arms embargo at this moment. France, for its part, has said that it won't recognize necessarily the arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu by the ICC, and has provided him airspace to fly over it. So at the same time that these countries are late to the game to recognize Palestine as a state, they're also part and parcel of the problem that continues to remove Palestinians from their lands in order for settlers to be able to take their place.
SHAPIRO: Let me just recognize - you referred to genocide. It's a legal term. While Israel has been accused, it has not been convicted. And also, you mentioned the ICC. I want to note that's the International Criminal Court.
You said that this is less than symbolism, that it is not going to have a positive impact. Could it have a negative impact? Because Israel has reacted with anger, saying that there has to be immediate countermeasures. National security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has talked about possibly annexing the occupied West Bank. Do you think this could ultimately create a backlash that leaves Palestinian people worse off?
ERAKAT: Let me start by saying that I do think the one positive thing that comes out of this is that for the first time, we're seeing European nations, you know, coalesce, consolidate their efforts in order to confront longstanding U.S. policy, which is to provide unequivocal support to Israel in its systematic human rights abuses and crimes against humanity against the Palestinians. The negative effects that you indicate, which is the backlash by Israel, should really concern everybody. That Israel is responding to its crimes that it's committing - the war crimes, crimes against humanity on the ground. You say alleged genocide, but many scholars and institutions have said that it was genocide - have responded to that by promising to commit more crimes through the annexation of the West Bank, which is the acquisition of territory by force.
And so here we have exactly what the problem is, which is a context in which Israel has been able to act with impunity, and rather than respond to this moment of international mobilization, has basically told the international community, we're going to do even more and even worse, and there's nothing that you can do about it.
SHAPIRO: You express this hope that Europe speaking loudly with one voice, along with other countries like Australia and Canada, can build momentum to some positive outcome for Palestinians. Can that happen as long as the U.S. remains a strong supporter of Israel, even if Israel and the U.S. become more isolated on the international stage? Can there be meaningful change for the lives of Palestinians as long as the U.S. continues to allow the Israeli government a free hand?
ERAKAT: The U.S. is certainly the primary obstacle to an outcome - to a multilateral outcome and an international resolution to the Palestinian condition of unfreedom. But the U.S. was also the last domino to fall when it came to protecting apartheid South Africa. So we have seen in the past that though the U.S. may be the primary objector, it isn't necessarily going to be the final determinant of whether or not a people are able to prevail in their liberation struggle.
SHAPIRO: In the introduction, we heard European leaders say one reason they chose to recognize a Palestinian state is in order to protect the possibility of a two-state solution. Given the facts on the ground right now, from the devastation in Gaza to the expansion of settlements in the occupied West Bank, do you think there is still a path to that outcome?
ERAKAT: Ari, you know, the - I think the two-state solution as a label is so misleading because Israel has been admitted into the United Nations as a state since 1948. The Palestinian Liberation Organization recognized Israel in 1993. So when we say two-state solution, you're basically saying, is it possible to establish a Palestinian state? But for Palestinians, that possibility is setting us up to live in a police state without sovereignty. It's another way of encaging Palestinians, where we will be overseen by a Palestinian police force that is beholden to Israeli interests. We will be forced to demilitarize and not allowed to have a state where we can even exercise our own electoral agenda.
So not only on the ground do we have our land that has been made noncontiguous and settled by settlers, but also, in the configuration that's planned in the New York Declaration, we will not have meaningful sovereignty. At this point, those states that want to preserve anything should preserve their legitimacy, should preserve the international order and human rights by abiding by the ICJ decision that said not to recognize Israel's unlawful presence in the occupied territories, which means boycott divestment sanctions, which means abiding by the ICJ decision that said that there is plausible genocide, which imposes upon them a duty to prevent genocide, not merely to punish. Meaning right now, they should be imposing an arms embargo.
There's many ways that the international community can act, rather than distracting us in this moment and not offering Palestinians the liberation that they deserve, that they need - that all people need, not to set a precedent here in Palestine that can be replicated elsewhere.
SHAPIRO: We've been speaking to you as a professor, a scholar, an author, a human rights lawyer, but as a Palestinian, as a Palestinian American, how do you feel seeing these world leaders say, we recognize the state of Palestine?
ERAKAT: As a Palestinian, my heart is very broken that a genocide can continue, that Palestinian babies can be slaughtered and there is a debate over whether or not that's OK or how it should be done better. As a Palestinian, I'm so frustrated that rather than take aim at the oppressive systems that placed us in these conditions, like prolonged military occupation, apartheid and genocide, that we are made into a problem to be resolved. We are not the problem. These conditions that oppress us are the problem and should be what the international community targets to destroy, rather than allowing us to be the target of destruction.
SHAPIRO: Professor Noura Erakat of Rutgers is author of "Justice For Some: Law And The Question Of Palestine." Thank you so much for speaking with us.
ERAKAT: Thank you for having me, Ari.
SHAPIRO: And just for a bit more context on the genocide question, Israel strongly rejects accusations that it has committed genocide or crimes against humanity in Gaza. It says it is fighting a war of self-defense against Hamas. And yet, earlier this month, a U.N. Commission of Inquiry found Israel had committed genocide in Gaza.