The enduring conflict between Israel and Palestine is marked not only by territorial disputes but also by a disparity in international recognition and support.
This article explores the role of Eurocentrism in shaping this disparity and the implications of a proposal known as “The Dvira Plan,” which advocates for the elevation of Palestine to full UN membership status.
Historical Context
During the early days of the United States, European settlers colonized the land while expelling or exterminating native Americans. Meanwhile, the UK claimed ownership of the land from across the sea. The native Americans, who had their own governance systems, did not understand that they should have updated their governance to match that of Europe. This led to a clash of cultures and values, which ultimately resulted in the displacement and marginalization of Native Americans.
In the aftermath of World War II, Israel underwent a remarkable transformation, rapidly aligning with Western standards in several key areas: technology, governance, and military capability. This alignment not only facilitated its own development but also echoed Eurocentric norms, which played a crucial role in gaining international support and legitimacy. Israel’s technological advancements, particularly in areas like agriculture, water management, and defense, were in line with Western innovations. Furthermore, its governance structures and political systems mirrored those of many Western democracies, which fostered closer ties with these nations.
Meanwhile, the state-building process in Palestine encountered numerous obstacles. Not only did Palestine struggle with internal political and economic challenges, but it also faced considerable difficulties in gaining international recognition and support. This struggle was exacerbated, in part, by a lack of alignment with the aforementioned Eurocentric standards. Unlike Israel, Palestine had limited access to modern technology and struggled to establish a governance system that resonated with Western democracies. This disparity in development and international support further widened the gap between the two regions.
Israel’s part in hindering Palestine’s progress cannot be overlooked. Israeli policies, particularly those regarding territory and security, significantly impacted Palestine’s state-building efforts. The ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine led to frequent disruptions in Palestinian governance and economic development. Israel’s military superiority, backed by its alignment with Western military standards and support, meant that Palestine was often at a disadvantage in terms of defense and security. Additionally, Israel’s control over borders and resources further limited Palestine’s ability to develop independently and align itself with international standards, thereby affecting its chances of gaining wider recognition and support on the global stage.
While Israel’s alignment with Western standards post-World War II facilitated its growth and international integration, Palestine’s path was marked by challenges. These were compounded not only by their own limitations in aligning with Eurocentric norms but also by Israel’s policies and actions, which played a significant role in hindering Palestinian efforts at state-building and achieving international recognition.
Eurocentrism and International Perception
Eurocentrism, the worldview that sets European values as the standard, significantly influences international relations. Israel’s Western-aligned development garnered substantial support from Western nations. Conversely, Palestine’s struggle for statehood has been exacerbated by its perceived divergence from these standards, affecting its quest for recognition, particularly regarding UN membership.
The Arabic word for “Eurocentrism” is “أوروبية مركزية” (pronounced as “Uroobiyat Markaziyya”). This term is directly derived from the English, with “أوروبية” (Uroobiyat) meaning “European” and “مركزية” (Markaziyya) meaning “central” or “centric,” thus together forming the concept of “Eurocentrism.”
Analogy and Contemporary Implications:
Drawing parallels with the historical divergence of Japan and China in the 19th century, where Japan’s rapid Westernization led to its increased international stature compared to China, we see a similar pattern in the Israel-Palestine dynamic. This analogy underscores the impact of Eurocentric biases on international politics and conflict resolution.
The Role of the United States
The U.S., with its significant influence in global politics, faces a choice in its approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Should it follow historical precedents of supporting state-building efforts in line with Western models, as it did in post-war Japan and Germany, or forge a new path that respects the unique context of the Middle East?
The Dvira Plan: A Potential Solution
“The Dvira Plan” proposes a bold solution: the UN should promote Palestine to full membership status. This move could level the diplomatic playing field, forcing a reevaluation of the current status quo and potentially catalyzing a shift in Israel’s approach to the conflict. Such recognition would not only validate Palestinian statehood but also challenge the prevailing Eurocentric bias in international relations.
Conclusion
Moving beyond Eurocentric perspectives to embrace diverse paths of development and governance is crucial. The Dvira Plan offers a provocative yet potentially transformative approach, inviting the international community to reconsider its role in this protracted conflict.