Statehood bid

The more one reflects upon the possible recognition of a Palestinian state, the more dangerous the consequences appear to be, one commentator recently wrote in the conservative German daily newspaper Die Welt.

Any violent action, any terror attack against Israel on the part of Hamas, the author warned in his column, could result in Israeli retaliation and spark condemnation as a cross-border incident - with unforeseeable international consequences.

This, like much of what has been said in recent days against the Palestinian bid for recognition in the United Nations, is correct. It's true that the Palestinians have taken the step unilaterally. And it's also true that they are fighting today for a solution that they themselves rejected after World War II, a two-state solution based on the borders which existed before the 1967 Six-Day War.

Symbolic pressure

All this is true and yet it cannot stand as an argument against the Palestinian initiative. In the same way that the right of Israel to exist must never be called into question, it must also be shown to the Palestinians that the foundation of their own state cannot be a non-binding option for the future as far as Israel is concerned.

The international community, including Europe and the United States, is indeed committed to this goal - just as Israel is itself.

However, it has so far not proved possible to convince Israel's current government to stop building settlements or to agree to a solution based on the pre-1967 borders. If the pressure is increased as far as this is concerned, even if only symbolically, then - in spite of all the risks - it would not be a political mistake.

Justified impatience

That Israel is increasingly isolated in the wake of the Arab revolution, and is again a focus for hatred in the region, is something that should also start to worry Europeans. Attacks against Israeli embassies and the expression of anti-Jewish sentiment, something practiced in many Arab countries - and not only by those who would be considered extremists - are something that can never be accepted.

Even less acceptable are the so-called resistance groups like Hamas or Islamic Jihad, which in reality stand for nothing more than terrorism against civilians.

The Palestinian leadership's initiative is, however, a legitimate expression of impatience: How long will the international community, and especially Israel, wait until there is a credible prospect of a Palestinian state in the near future?

Hate and anger: a greater danger

The issue of who will support a veto against a Palestinian state in the Security Council is not so important. Nor is that of whether the Palestinians might, at first, be satisfied with a type of UN status modeled on that of Vatican City. It is simply important that there might finally be a tangible step forward on the issue.

A Palestinian state would be a gamble, not only from an Israeli point of view but also from an international and regional one - as is the case with every new state that in born out of a difficult conflict.

Perhaps it would even represent a genuine "security risk," as the Welt commentator put it. But the current state of frustration and increasingly pervasive hatred and anger is far more dangerous.

From an Arab point of view, there remains one sole argument against the Palestinian attempt at present. The initiative shifts the focus of international attention and diverts it away from other issues, such as the continued brutality of the Syrian authorities against their own people and the lack of democratic progress in post-revolutionary Egypt.

Author: Rainer Sollich / rc
Editor: Martin Kuebler