Cristian Paez
Introduction
The modern-day borders of the Levant, a region covering Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, and Turkey to a certain extent, has its roots in the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 that was signed between Great Britain and France, which roughly defined the spheres of influence in the region against the backdrop of the Ottoman Empire’s imminent collapse. Although an outline, it spurred a series of signed treaties that laid the foundation for establishing mandates and protectorates that would later become sovereign nations.
However, their representatives failed to consider the woven tapestry, which is the composition of the many ethno-religious groups that inhabit the region. As a result, differing ones, such as Christians and Muslims in the religious sense for example, were forced to coexist together under one state despite their contrasting beliefs. Although the mandating control of Great Britain and France allowed for a period of relative stability, as the right to self-determination was respected in the wave of decolonization in the 1950s and 60s, the Levant would see its diversity betray itself, with many conflicts ensuing in subsequent decades. It is not the immediate fault of the people or the governments that have had to witness this, but instead the fault of the men who carved up the map over a century ago, which is still in use today. Therefore, to resolve these regional conflicts, one may turn to partitioning existing states as a potential solution.
Rationale for Partitioning
The grounds for redrawing borders, like the partitioning or creation of states, vary between these countries, yet they share some similarities. For the states of Israel and Palestine, the grounds for partitioning would look to satisfy their respective claims in the region, as both Jews and Arabs regard it as their ancestral homeland through an affirmation of historical and religious precedent. On one hand, Jews believe that the Land was promised to them via a covenant made by Abraham with God. As explained in the Torah, the covenant is shared amongst Abraham’s descendants, starting with his first-born son Isaac and grandson Jacob, who are attributed as the common ancestors of all Jews.
Advocates or supporters of Palestinian nationalism, however, rely on the natural course of history that, in a way, delegitimizes the existence of the State of Israel, as after the Jews were slowly depopulated and expelled from the Land of Canaan during the first millennium A.D, the Arabs took their places. The early Muslim conquests of the Levant from the Byzantine Empire in the mid-600s cemented their presence, as Jews were rendered as a mere ethno-religious minority shortly after. From that point until the first aliyah (ascent in Hebrew) in the mid-19th century, the ethnic makeup of the region went virtually unchanged, as from the seventh century until the 1940s, Arabs were dominant numerically in Palestine. Even so, for the many generations of Arabs rooted in the region, Palestine was their homeland. Due to this ethnic placement, the refugee crisis that ensued after the establishment of the Jewish state was seen by supporters of Palestinian nationalism as unjust and as a violation of the human rights of Arabs, as they were displaced from what was their home for thousands of years by others who considered the land to be theirs as well.
Therefore, either a clarification of borders or the creation of separate states for Israelis and Palestinian Arabs could calm tensions between them. For Palestine, it would address the current challenges that the region faces on the international stage, such as its quest for recognition as a sovereign state. Such a plan would uphold its right to self-determination, ensuring territorial contiguity and economic viability, allowing for the establishment of a functional and sustainable Palestinian state. With defined borders, it would enhance its political legitimacy and thus allow it to fully and effectively engage in diplomatic negotiations. Definitive clarity could also bring an end to ethnic tensions and political instability in both Israel and Palestine, where there have been many injuries and casualties as a result of wars such as the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict that started this past October.
In the case of Lebanon, the redrawing of borders and partition would offer a solution to address political instability, as well as issues such as its “failing economy, rampant corruption, insufficient infrastructure, and increasing poverty.” Currently, the country’s government is held together by an unwritten confessionalist power-sharing agreement known as the National Pact, established in 1943 and reaffirmed in the 1989 Taif Agreement. According to the Taif Agreement, the President, Prime Minister, and Speaker of Parliament, for example, would be a Maronite Christian, Sunnite Muslim, and a Shi’ite Muslim, respectively. This sectarian system of government, which has historically allocated political power and representation based on religious affiliation, has been the source of tension and conflict and resulted in events such as the 1975-1990 Lebanese Civil War. Such differences in opinion have also led to legislative deadlocks, shown in the central government’s inability to combat state problems, such as the liquidity crisis in 2019 and the Beirut explosion in 2020. These issues have given political analysts reason to believe that Lebanon is on the brink of becoming a failed state.
The concept of a partition is not new to Lebanon. In its civil war, the country was divided roughly along sectarian lines amongst various groups and actors, such as Christian militias, Hezbollah, Israel, and Syria. In the present day, those divisions can be seen clearly, with the Shi’ites being concentrated in the south and in the Bekaa Valley, the Sunni in rural Akkar and Iqlim al-Kharroub, and in the coastal cities of Beirut, Tripoli and Sidon, the Druze in the Chouf mountains, and the Maronites on Mount Lebanon. Each of these groups, along with other ethno-religious minorities such as the Greek Orthodox community, have their own distinct cultural identities and as a result have demanded greater autonomy at some point in modern Lebanese history.
Implementing a partition plan would look to serve the best interests of the parties involved in this case, as it could address historical grievances and satisfy the desires of previously mentioned autonomy. The separation would also allow for the opportunity for differing groups to govern themselves independently, each according to their needs and wants. With representation ensured, law-making in these new countries would move more smoothly, as deliberation would now only depend on political biases and not necessarily on religious identity, which has been the root of polarization in Lebanese politics. On another note, it could also mitigate the influence of non-state actors through the reconfiguration of power dynamics in the process of creating new countries. A key name lies in Hezbollah, which has close religious and political ties to Iran, taking advantage of recent political chaos to assert its ideological agenda. Such a decision would rest on the people, but the probable answer to the Lebanese question can already be formulated for them when their future is balanced against either the death of their country or ensuing war.
Syria's civil war, which has lasted since March 2011, has highlighted not only ethnic but also political divisions in its society. A variety of opposition groups, such as the Salvation Government, ISIS, and Kurdish separatists, for example, have fought against the historically Alawite-dominated Ba’athist government. As a result of the conflict, about half of Syria’s pre-war population has either been displaced or sought refuge abroad.
In terms of partitioning, Syria is similar to Lebanon in that it is not unfamiliar with the idea. The country already has been de facto partitioned before by the opposing forces of the aforementioned civil war. However, Syria differs in its distribution of power, where there is no political group that represents the many domestic factions that exist, and none that could control the territory militarily and politically.
In the case of Syria, the partition plan would allow for different ethnic and religious groups that live in the country, such as the Alawites, Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, and Christians, to be separated and govern themselves. Although the situation is different and relatively less complicated in comparison to neighboring Lebanon, the plan would allow those nations to implement laws and policies best suited to their preferences, as they won’t be hindered by clashes rooted in identity that impede legislative decision-making.
The creation of a separate Alawite State, for example, would also give the current Syrian government the incentive to continue under Bashar al-Assad. The Baathist party would base itself in Latakia, which would allow for the rest of the population to be relieved of an authoritarian government. With possible intervention by the United Nations, Syrians could be the exercisers of democracy for the first time since the 1960s.
A partition would primarily benefit Kurds, who have been seeking their own nation since the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire over a century ago. As the largest ethnic group in the world without a state, a redrawing of borders could satisfy their aspirations, as it could accommodate their demands for self-determination and address long-standing grievances. In turn, this plan would lead to the recognition of their own distinct cultural identity and give it legitimacy in the international world.
Hypothetical Plan
The redrawing plan would be divided into three parts, and its terms are as follows:
A. Israel and Palestine
The proposed borders for this sub-region would be based on the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (which was never implemented) and the data collected from the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine or UNSCOP. The only changes that would made to this, however, would be the following:
The addition of land from just north of Ashdud to Jaffa, to Palestine, as to not make the latter an Arab enclave in the Jewish state.
Any other land transfer that would both correspond with the Green Line and the enlargement of Palestinian territory, such as in Acre.
The corpus separatum in Jerusalem would no longer be an international zone, but would be under Jordanian authority as a protectorate, as the ruling Hashemite family are already primary custodians of the city’s holy sites.
B. Lebanon
In accordance with religious lines, two new countries and one city-state would be created in the partition:
A Christian state would take on the territory where Maronites and Greek Orthodox Christians have a majority. Its population would also include Druze, who are inside the current Mount Lebanon Governorate.
A Muslim state, which would take on the rest of the country, where it would be inhabited primarily by Shiites and Sunnis, with Christian and Druze minorities.
The plan would also result in:
The establishment of a Beirut protectorate, which would be administered by France, given its historic influence, where all religious groups would coexist.
The ceding of territory that is predominantly Sunni to Palestine in the south and Syria to the east, given that their populations are composed of a Sunni majority.
C. Syria
Likewise, the country would be partitioned along religious, but also ethnic lines, in respect to influential minorities such as the Alawites and Kurds. Such a plan would result in:
The creation of an Alawite-majority state in the area where the aforementioned is predominant. The Turkish province of Hatay would also be ceded to this new state, as Alawites have had a historic presence there.
The ceding of land predominantly inhabited by Kurds to a larger Kurdish state, which would imply the unification of its compatriots in Turkey, Iran, and Iraq.
The allocation of the remaining territory to a Syrian rump state, where its population would be composed primarily of Sunni Muslims, albeit with a Christian and Druze minority.
Course of Action to Achieve Plan
The first steps toward achieving this hypothetical plan would be to seek extensive dialogue and start formal negotiations between different stakeholders to reach a consensus on the terms of this partition. This idea would include not only the current governments of France, Israel, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey but also the various ethnic, religious, and political groups in those countries in order to gain as much information as possible so that clear and just decisions can be made.
For this to happen, however, there must be a change of leadership in multiple governments, most notably in Israel and Palestine. The reason behind the flatlining of negotiations between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization, for example, is because of the polarizing views between the two parties. Israel’s Likud, which has been in power via a coalition government since 2009, seeks to fulfill Zionist ambitions of reaching the Dead Sea, while Palestinian nationalists would prefer to reclaim all of historic Mandatory Palestine. Much as it would be great to fulfill both of their ambitions, it is difficult to reach an agreement when views on the subject are on opposite sides. Thus, it would require the relinquishing of irredentist territorial claims by the State of Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization in the Holy Land and the bilateral ceding of Jerusalem to Jordan.
In Lebanon, Hezbollah would have to cooperate with other political parties in Parliament, such as the opposition party, in order to start negotiations on partition. All other political groups and religious leaders that hold significant influence in Lebanese politics would be included, as they would seek to address each other’s problems and aspirations. As in the case of Israel and Palestine, Christian and Muslim factions would have to relinquish claims to Beirut, which would govern itself as a city-state, albeit under French authority.
Given that al-Assad and the current Syrian government are ethnic Alawites, they would want to be assured of their retention of power and have their government transferred to a new Alawite State. Consequently, other Syrian factions would be inclined to start a dialogue, as they would be hopeful of a future without authoritarianism. In this case, the Baathist Party itself could serve as an intermediary after tensions begin to settle.
As promises of self-determination are made to representatives of their respective ethnic groups, there would be more of a tendency to cooperate since the goals would not be met without mutual support. However, one cannot ignore the deep-seated tensions and mistrust that have been experienced between the many different parties that are involved in the cases of Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria. Thus, to overcome this challenge, the involvement of neutral third parties would be necessary in facilitating these negotiations. Due to its historical diplomatic neutrality, a regional power such as Jordan would serve as an initial mediator.
The United Nations would enter the scene by this point, as it would set up task forces to investigate and devise borders in each of the preceding countries, reminiscent of the creation of the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) in 1947. These establishments would address the significant political, economic, and social implications of the partition plan, as consideration over the distribution of ethnic and religious groups, history, geography, the division of resources, and the impact of trade would have to be assessed to ensure the best possible outcome for these newly independent states.
Non-governmental organizations and ordinary citizens, with the advent of social media, could also prove to be vital to the process, as they would seek to influence the decisions made by the committees over the terms of partition. In the end, though, the committee would simply adopt the partition plan mentioned earlier.
Once the partition plan is adopted, the representatives of Palestinian Arabs, Lebanese Christians and Muslims, Alawites, Syrian Arabs, and Kurds would return to their homelands and organize committees to establish their respective government structures in order to prepare themselves for governance once they become independent. This plan would involve drafting a constitution, which would outline the establishment of institutions like a legislative body, the judiciary, and fundamental law.
Such a development would also seek to address and ensure the civil, political, economic, social, and environmental rights of ethnic and religious minorities of these new states. It is certain that many will find themselves on the “wrong side” of the border, such as an Israeli Jew in Palestinian territory or a Maronite in Kurdistan, which could trigger a voluntary mass exodus from those countries and possible tension between groups. To mitigate this issue, the rights of ethnic and religious minorities must be affirmed, where chief minorities such as the Druze and Christians are promised equal status, both legally and socially. An apartheid-esque outcome can not happen, as in the present-day case of Israeli treatment of Palestinian Arabs or a possible handling of the Alawite State’s minorities. Should it happen, the international community must be able to proceed in due course to combat it effectively.
Once these have been guaranteed, the goal would be to address the respect for the sovereignty of each new state. For them to be capable of functioning, the new Palestinian, Lebanese Christian, Lebanese Muslim, Syrian Arab, Alawite, and Kurd states would need to be recognized by the international community. Given that the four key requirements for statehood according to the 1939 Montevideo Convention are a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the ability to enter into relations with other states,” the implementation of a partition plan would allow for the fulfillment of the second and third principles, as clear borders give the reasoning for recognition of sovereignty. Thus, an already fixed population would allow for the fourth principle to be met, allowing these entities to be admitted into the United Nations.
However, for all of these to be ensured, the international community must, once again, prove to be effective in implementing this plan. The international community must ensure that the diplomats and representatives of Israel, Palestine, and the new states of former Lebanon and Syria follow the doctrine of pacta sunt servanda. Even if it may be expected to be followed, as it is a general principle of international law, the United Nations cannot afford to commit the same mistake as they did with the failed implementation of its Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947. Therefore, it must be ready to use legal force in the form of its primary organizations and institutions.
This problem could also possibly fall into the hands of the UN Trusteeship Council, which supervised the administration of UN Trust Territories that were placed under the International Trusteeship System. It could once again have an influential role in international politics, as although the organ won’t be transitioning colonies into sovereign nations anymore, the council’s job would be modified to at least ensure that the new states created in Lebanon and Syria remain independent and allow for self-determination to be “a respected reality for all."
Evaluation of Foreign Policy Agendas
Israeli foreign policy has historically been focused on maintaining its existence as a sovereign state. To ensure this, Israel has developed a highly sophisticated military and intelligence force to protect itself from possible threats in hostile neighboring states and non-state actors such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Prior engagements include the 1967 Six-Day War, the 1973 Yom Kippur War, and the ongoing Israeli-Hamas conflict. However, this doctrine has led Israel to experience regional diplomatic isolation from its Middle Eastern neighbors, although that does not include Egypt, Jordan, and some Gulf Sea states. To overcome this hurdle, Israel has established and maintained strong diplomatic relations with other countries around the world to expand its diplomatic influence and gain support for its policies. A key partner can be found in the United States, which has provided significant military and economic aid to Israel and has been a strong supporter of its security and diplomatic objectives.
By achieving the two-state solution, though, there would be a shift in Israel’s foreign policy agenda towards prioritizing the fostering of peaceful relations with the new Palestinian state. This shift could result in the reversal of its ostracization from the rest of the Middle East through political and economic integration, as there would be no reason for contention given that relations between the previously mentioned states would improve. Islamist militant organizations, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, would see their goals of destroying Israel shattered, ushering in a new era of Pax Arabica. Israel’s strong bilateral relationship with the United States would remain untouched but adapt to its new policies. Israel would also need to engage in negotiations with the many countries around the world that host the Jewish diaspora to address issues such as the rights of immigrants and settlers now that its territory would be significantly diminished.
As for Palestine, it would transition from a foreign policy largely focused on prioritizing symbolic victories over pragmatic ones to attempting to fulfill its goals. Thus, it would most likely receive full recognition from the international community, as clear and defined borders would accredit its legitimacy as a sovereign state. Such a development would also open the doors to regional and global economic investment.
In contrast, Lebanese foreign policy has been shaped mainly by its own regional diversity, as the country has sought to maintain relationships with others that align with the interests of its different religious and ethnic groups, owing to the confessionalist power-sharing agreement. These views have been showcased before, such as in the previously mentioned Civil War, where Christians were assisted by Western powers such as the United States and Israel, and Syria and Iran fought with Muslim militias. In the present day, those nations have retained substantial influence in their state politics and abroad for the aforementioned reasons. Lebanon has also had historically close ties with France through its colonial past, which has played a significant role in both Lebanese politics and culture, most especially in the Christian community.
Lebanese foreign policy has also been influenced by the many conflicts that have happened in the region throughout the past few decades, dealing with refugee crises similar to that of the Palestinians at the onset of the Israeli-Arab conflict in 1948 and of the Syrians in 2014. Consequently, it has adopted a policy that maintains diplomatic relationships with its Arab neighbors, owing to a shared language and ethnic identity. Yet, the country’s foreign ministry struggles to implement it, as the differing interests amongst its chambers hinder the decision-making process.
However, a partition would solve that issue, as the creation of a Christian state and a Muslim state will allow them to pursue their respective agendas. Both would seek to maintain political and economic relations with their neighbors, but it would result in the stipulations of the National Pact becoming essentially broken, as the prior would most likely become closer to Western powers, such as France. All the while, the Muslim state would find an ally in Syria. As the political divide grows between the two, both would be more inclined to adopt regionalist stances on foreign policy, especially considering the economic side, as a division of natural and human resources would render their respective financial portfolios worse off than before the partition. Thus, it would incentivize cooperation as they try to survive, attributing to the fact that they were once united under one country and the sharing of a common language with most of the Middle East.
In the case of Syria, its foreign policy has been characterized by a sense of grievance from the forced partition of historic Syria by European colonial powers and the creation of a Jewish state on the territory of what was the southern part of the region. As a result, it has adopted an anti-imperialist stance on foreign policy, and it has positioned itself as an opponent to Western interventions. Relationships with countries that share similar views, such as Iran and Russia, have been prioritized to enhance its military security and economy. To compensate for its failed irredentist aspirations, Syria has sought to play a leading role in affairs in the Arab world, supporting pan-Arab causes and initiatives, most notably in supporting Palestinians in the greater Israeli-Arab conflict, and being involved in regional organizations such as the Arab League.
Syria has also been influenced by its insular conflicts, most especially by the ongoing civil war in the country. Consequently, it has positioned itself against terrorism in general, where it has sought diplomatic, financial, and military support from allies like Iran and Russia. Yet, simultaneously, Syria itself has assisted militant groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. The country has been involved in the Axis of Resistance, an alliance that includes Iran and other anti-Israeli actors.
Consequently, the implementation of a partition plan would result in profound shifts in a now-defunct Syrian foreign policy. The Alawite State would most likely inherit former Syrian doctrines, continuing al-Assad’s regime possibly, but it would result in the definitive abandonment of pan-Arab aspirations, as the country would be further divided. The Syrian rump state, controlled by Sunni Muslims, would remain landlocked, meaning it would have to pursue a similar regionalist stance on foreign policy, like its new neighbors to the West, where it would engage in political and economic alliances to sustain itself. The new Kurdish state would look to find its place in the international community, possibly utilizing its large recently found petroleum reserves as a catalyst. As it positions itself to be a future energy provider in the Middle East, relations with neighboring Turkey and Iran would be crucial to its survival.
Conclusion
The realization of border changes and the creation of new states through partition in the Levant would allow for the many different peoples in the region to freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development with less external strain, which would realize their rights to self-determination. More importantly, it could usher in a new era of peace in the Levant, as respecting each other’s sovereignty would foster a climate of mutual cooperation for the above reasons. Such a development, however, would mark a fundamental shift in international politics, as it would be a continuation of the growing global nationalist movement where minorities such as the Catalans in Spain, the Québécois in Canada, and the Northern Irish in the United Kingdom, have made it clear that the epoch of ethnic coexistence could be nearing its finale.
Comments