A briefing in World Politics Review considers the impact of the growing mass of states in South America that are recognizing a Palestinian state. The trend started on December 3, when Lula officially recognized Palestinian independence. Since then, Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, Guyana, and Uruguay have followed suit. Peru and Paraguay are rumored to be next.
Israel’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor responded that Brazil and countries like it had “never made any contribution” to the peace process and such unilateral declarations were counterproductive. An op-ed in the Miami Herald calls the tactic “wishful thinking.” The article is infused with reference to international law, citing, for example, the Oslo Accords, which calls for a two-state solution through negotiation. Circumventing negotiations and unilaterally declaring a Palestinian state is thus outside the bounds of international convention. Of all the arguments that can be mustered on Israel’s behalf I find this one rather curious. What standing do Israel’s settlements have in international law?
America’s response to these developments has oscillated. At first State Department spokesman PJ Crowley echoed the Israeli line. But a month later, while declining to comment for the United States on Chile’s recognition of Palestinian independence, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Arturo Valenzuela parsed the issue: “Negotiations are so complex that the fact that the recognition wasn’t conditioned to specific wording will help the [peace] process along.” Unlike Brazil and Argentina, Chile did not reference Israel’s 1967 borders when recognizing a Palestinian state. Valenzuela’s statement could be seen as tacit U.S. acceptance of unilateral declarations of Palestinian statehood so long as there is leeway on boundaries.
Unlike in 1988, when over 100 states recognized Palestinian independence, this movement might have serious implications. It is not hard to imagine Brazil championing a UN resolution declaring a Palestinian state in 2011. Given the sting President Obama received after failing to get a halt to West Bank settlements last year, the U.S. might well dally to use its UN veto on Israel’s behalf in order to wring concessions from what has turned out to be an unapologetically hawkish Netanyahou government.
On December 3 Brazil may have started the first diplomatic dilemma of 2011.
