Size Doesn’t Matter, But Politics Does

In a recent debate with the Emergency Committee for Israel, over the upcoming Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, the lobby J Street fell back on the old cliché of calling for a “viable” Palestinian state. Because of the lack of certainty or consensus on what would constitute a “viable” Palestinian state though, “viability” is merely a code-word for even more Israeli territorial concessions.

“Viable” really means “bigger” — to the extent that a Palestinian state can possibly get bigger (which it really cannot). On the other hand, Israel can get smaller and end up with borders even more difficult to defend. For instance, one could decree that in order to be “viable”, a Palestinian state must be geographically contiguous, which would concretely mean that Israel itself would be cut in two.

Everybody wants a hypothetical Palestinian state to be “viable”, but fortunately, viability is not that much a matter of size.  And if size is the key to viability, then it’s time to reconsider the very idea of a Palestinian state.  For instance, Luxembourg is viable. So are Lesotho, Swaziland or Kiribati Island. But the Soviet Union wasn’t viable (which is why there is no longer a Soviet Union) — and that wasn’t because it was too small.

Admittedly, Luxembourg would not be alive for long if it declared war on its most powerful neighbor. But Luxembourg went through periods of war during which it was occupied and came out of it alive. As for the Soviet Union, it invaded most of its neighbors but perished.

There is no paradox there. The mistake often made is to think that the viability, or the prosperity, of a nation depends on given factors such as its size, its location, the natural resources in its soil or the fertility of its land. In fact, many nations have prospered for exactly opposite reasons: because they had nothing, they had to make themselves viable.

Hong Kong was essentially a rock in 1948. Israel wasn’t very “viable” that same year, especially when it was being invaded by all of its neighbors. The Republic of Venice was originally a swamp crowded with refugees which had nothing but fish in terms of natural resources.

What makes a nation prosper is essentially the dynamism of its people, a good administration, a stable political system and good relations with its neighbors. People matter more than geography.

The Soviet Union made its own people apathetic, its administration was a disorganized waste of resources, its political system was one of the most oppressive in ages and its relations with its neighbors were characterized by expansionism and paranoia, plus very bad diplomacy during the 30’s.

Small countries such as Luxembourg have to rely on luck to a certain extent – for instance, it’s better if a state like the Soviet Union is not one of their neighbors – but even so, they can survive and prosper by being careful and by making it useless to wage war on them. Switzerland went through WWII without a scratch and Finland managed to preserve its independence in 1945. Survival is sometimes possible in the worst conditions.

Obviously, there is no easy recipe for prosperity or stability. During the 20th century, the Chinese people have prospered first as a diaspora or in mini-Chinas such as Taiwan or Hong Kong, and only then in their mother country when it decided to emulate these small models. For a while, it seemed that the Chinese fared better under a foreign authority. The same could more or less be said about the Irish.

Palestinians have fared quite well as a diaspora, equally well under the Israeli occupation from 1967 to 1987, and not that well at all under the Palestinian Authority. Since they don’t seem to want to remain under Israel’s authority in any way, statehood looks like the way to go, but sincere peacemakers should not take that as the final truth. Making things work should be their priority, not creating another independent state that may well fall into civil or foreign war the minute it is proclaimed, as has happened in so many other places.

These basic truths are probably not welcomed by those people who think that a Palestinian state, created through Israeli territorial concessions and more foreign aid, will be the solution to the Middle East conflict. In reality, there wouldn’t be much of a difference between such a state and the current situation. If the Palestinians want to live in any kind of viable entity, they will have to create it by themselves.