Front Burner - Will recognition lead to a Palestinian state?

Episode Date: October 1, 2025

Last week, Canada officially recognized Palestinian statehood. In explaining this decision, Prime Minister Mark Carney released a statement which read, "Canada recognises the State of Palestine and offers our partnership in building the promise of a peaceful future for both the State of Palestine and the State of Israel."Just over a week later, U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unveiled an alternative way forward: a 20-point plan they say would end the war in Gaza, but falls well short of creating a pathway for the creation of a Palestinian state. Today, we're talking about the creation of a Palestinian state, as well as the promise, failure, and uncertain future of the two-state solution. Our guest is Noura Erakat, an academic, human rights lawyer, author, and Palestinian-American activist. For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

The spirit of innovation is deeply ingrained in Canada, and Google is helping Canadians innovate in ways both big and small, from mapping accessible spaces so the disabled community can explore with confidence, to unlocking billions in domestic tourism revenue. Thousands of Canadian companies are innovating with Google AI. Innovation is Canada's story. Let's tell it together. Find out more at g.co slash Canadian Innovation. This is a CBC podcast.

Hey, everybody, it's Jamie. Before we start the show, I wanted to do something that we probably should have started years ago. And that is shout out some of the amazing people who listened to the show. This week, we got a beautiful email from Jamila about the episode that we did on autism and Tylenol. Jamila, the note was just so touching. Thank you so much for it. If you're new to the show or you don't follow us yet, please do. Just click that follow button and let us.

know how you think that we're doing, what you like, what you want to hear more of, front burner at cbc.ca.com. Okay, here is today's episode. I want to start the show today by reading a part of a statement released by Prime Minister Mark Carney. Here goes. Canada recognizes the state of Palestine and offers our partnership in building the promise of a peaceful future for both the state of Palestine, and the state of Israel. Canada recognizing a future state of Palestine, that's new. But the path towards it, often called the two-state solution, is not.

It's been this country's long-standing position. Well, about a week and a half later, U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had their own declaration to make. A plan, they say, Hamas would need to agree to in order to end the war. It contained only the faintest suggestion. that one day maybe Palestinians would see statehood. Today, we're going to talk about the potential of Palestinian statehood and the conditions past and present to reach that goal,

a goal that Israel remains very much opposed to. You know what message the leaders who recognize the Palestinian state this week sent to the Palestinians? It's a very clear message. Murdering Jews pays off. Israel will not allow you to show. shove a terror state down our throats? My guest today is Nora Erica, an academic, human rights lawyer, author, and Palestinian-American

activist. I spoke to Nora last week before Israel and the U.S. released their Gaza plan. It is really great to have you on the show. Thank you so much for making the time. Hey, Damie. Thanks for having me. So as I mentioned, Canada, the UK, Australian, France have now officially recognized Palestinian statehood. This is something that we've known was going to happen for some time now, but they have made clear that recognition will rely on a number of conditions being met. Among them, that any future Palestinian state would have to demilitarize that Hamas must play no part in the formation of a future government. And given the history between Israel and the Palestinians, what do you make of those conditions? So let me start by saying that these states are basically coming late to the party.

Palestine has already been recognized by the General Assembly by a majority of states in 2012, which has given it the status to be able to accede to human rights and international treaties. That's given it the status to be able to participate at the United Nations and to file petitions before the international criminal court. So what we're getting right now out of this state recognition, basically they're the late ones to the game after some 150 states have already recognized Palestine might be more deflection than it is positive. And I would say in many ways is even less than symbolism because they're actually creating conditions that are making it worse for Palestinians indicated very overtly in what you share with us. the conditions that are placed are all placed on Palestine. After nearly two years of genocide, after nearly eight decades of settler colonial expansion,

after almost six decades of prolonged military occupation, after the declaration and finding of apartheid, these states continue to single out Palestinians as the problem, rather than identifying these systems of oppression as the problem. And so far from getting what we need in this moment, which is accountability for war crimes, crimes against humanity, accountability for genocide, the prosecution of alleged war criminals, reparations to Palestinians. Instead, we get an articulation of what is to be done with the Palestinians further to make sure to either contain them or to remove them from being a problem. I think that your answer to this is going to be no, but I just want to ask you straight, do you see the recognitions as carrying anything positive for the Palestinians?

Well, let me surprise you and say yes. And I do think that the positive here is that for the first time, we're seeing a coalition of European states consolidate their efforts in order to confront the United States. The United States is, you know, this is its single most policy in order to provide Israel with unequivocal. military, diplomatic, and financial support in order to enable it to expand its settler colonial project without any international appearance or being subject to any international norms and has paved the way now as a partner in Israel's genocidal campaign to continue to provide it the arms necessary to do so, as well as the cover through the form

of six Security Council vetoes in order to impede an end to the genocide. And so here we see a pivot from that in order, even however slightly, right, at least to challenge the United States. And the positive of that is to further isolate the U.S. and Israel, which now stand alone. Canada has said that a future Palestine should be led by the Palestinian Authority following elections in 2026. And just I wanted to ask you about the PA specifically for a moment here. Why do they have such a complicated reputation among Palestinians? Are they looked at as a legitimate force by enough Palestinian people today? What these conditions that are being imposed are telling Palestinians is that you cannot determine your own leadership.

That is what there's, you cannot vote and determine who you want to lead you. They're also saying that your country cannot be militarized. What does that mean? It's not about having a standing military, as much as it means, that we are going to be our air, Palestinian airspace, it's territorial waters, it's, you know, fake boundaries, whatever have you. It's an other way to continue occupation. Now you want to get into the details of the PA. So people need to understand that the Palestinian authority was in a step, which was a creation of the Oslo Accords from 1993. And they basically,

preceding that, the Palestinians were governed by the Palestinian Liberation Organization, which is a coalition of all its political parties, of which Hamas was never a coalition member. The PA is a total invention of the Oslo Accords that basically set up an administrative authority to be able to oversee the incremental, the supposed incremental transfer of Palestinian territory, which is under Israeli occupation,

to Palestinian authority, but which we've seen now in the present, Israel never transferred anything. They kept it all. And now the PA, which is supposed to be this administrative authority responsible for, like, picking up garbage, you know, delivering mail, administering, you know, has ballooned to supplant the role of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, which represents Palestinians worldwide. And it's done so without electoral legitimacy, right? It doesn't have any electoral legitimacy to do so. And it's done so in a way that it is, it has been not only, corrupt, but they have turned their arms that they've been provided by the United States

against Palestinians. They have basically become a subcontractor of the Israeli state to protect the illegal settlements, to protect the present, the illegal presence of settlers against Palestinians, leaving the Palestinians now not only dominated by Israel and an apartheid regime, but also dominated by a Palestinian police authority that has imprisoned them, tortured them to death, their own Palestinians, that has actually handed over Palestinians who are wanted by Israel to Israel.

Essentially, they are not accountable to Palestinians. They have become a police state that is beholden to the whim of Israel and the United States. So yes, Palestinians are also very antsy, that not only are we not getting the, you know, the justice that we deserve in the, you know, in this genocide, ending it and then accountability for it and then our liberation, but on top of that, the only thing that's being proposed is to subject us to a police state governed by the Palestinian Authority, which has already been part of our oppression. You know, one of the main things I wanted to try and do with you today is to really try to understand the roots of the two-state solution and its enduring appeal. And I know that much came before this, but a major milestone in the negotiation timeline is the Oslo Accord signed on the White House lawn. This is where we saw the first mutual recognition between Israel and the Palestinians that the other had a legitimate claim to a nation.

and where we really saw the mainstreaming of the two-state paradigm that continues to dominate discourse today. Also divided the West Bank into zones as a temporary solution, but 30 years later, the map largely remains, even as settlements have expanded. How do you see Oslo's rule and legacy in shaping the framework of a Palestinian state today? I think it's really important for folks to understand a few things about Oslo. Number one, the Oslo Accords or the Declaration of Principles, which were signed in 1993 were basically an agreement to agree over the autonomy of Palestinians. It never, nowhere in the documents, does it ever mention a Palestinian state or promise a Palestinian state. It promises autonomy, which is a form of derivative sovereignty that, you know, I think in Canada you would, you know, you understand native reservations.

So the native reservations are not sovereign. they have autonomy within the Canadian sovereign, right? And that is what also set out to do to provide Palestinians with some sort of autonomy over these non-contiguous areas of land that never amounted to sovereignty. That is what the document promised to do. That is what the document has delivered and the agreement has delivered. And let's be clear, when people talk about a two-state solution, even when they talk about it now, They're really only talking about a Palestinian state

because Israel has been recognized as a state by the United Nations since 1948 and in 93, the Palestinian Liberation Organization also recognized Israel as a state. In exchange, Israel never recognized Palestine. They only recognize the PLO. They recognize that the Palestinians are a juridical people

with the right to self-determination but never recognized the state. If you read through these documents, that they're a trap. They're a sovereignty trap. that basically tells Palestinians that in exchange for being good natives, that they will get certain privileges, incremental privileges in return that never amount to their liberation. How do they do that? How does the document do that? The most fundamental way that the document does

this is by leaving out the five most significant issues, which they are termed permanent status issues. These are refugees, Palestinian refugees, Jerusalem, water, settlements, and borders. These are the fundamental issues that would shape the outcome of a Palestinian state, which was never meant to be. And yet they're described as final status issues without a timeline of when to even get to these final status issues. Using that ambiguity deliberately, Israel has continued to increase its settlements. It's now increased it by 200% in the West Bank, has continued to take Palestinian land, as we've seen across Area C, as well as the building of the apartheid wall, which is taking 13% of the West Bank, which has used this in order to

basically say that refugees are completely off the table and has no international responsibility for it, which has used this in order to continue to, you know, take the large portions of water leaving Palestinian farmers without access to water for irrigation, even access to underwater wells underneath their land, has used this in order to control the borders. But the siege of Gaza has been the control of Palestinian borders and their ability to travel in and out. It's done so under the veneer, both of saying that it has no partner for peace, even as it's expanded, its settler colonial encroachment, and at the same time saying that these are all security measures. But what is lost in this is that Palestinians are left.

absolutely beholden to Israeli whims. And in fact, as Palestinians have tried to reach to international law mechanisms to hold Israel to account, they've been accused of being of undermining peace. They have been accused every time they've gone to the ICJ of engaging in lawfare, or, you know, what they call international, you know, legal warfare. And so here you have the only nuclear power in the Middle East, the eighth most significant weapons exporter to the world, Israel, negotiating with a stateless people that don't have an airport and who's, you know, so-called president can't travel without Israeli permission, right? And the only oversight to it is global superpower, which provides unequivocal support to Israel. The two-state solution, or whatever, the illusion

of creating a Palestinian state has basically become a talking point to deflect responsibility under international law to pivot to politics. And so any calls now for a Palestinian state, frankly, are disingenuous, because what we need is not more recognition of the state. What we need is to stem Israeli theft of Palestinian lands. What we need is protection of Palestinians from Israeli settler and state violence. What we need is international support in order to isolate an apartheid regime that is hell-bent, that the only solution for Palestinians is articulated by Bezalil Smotrich in 2017 is that, that Palestinians can stay, basically, you know, as supplicants.

And that's the outcome that we're having today. The spirit of innovation is deeply ingrained in Canada. And Google is helping Canadians innovate in ways both big and small, from mapping accessible spaces so that disabled community can explore with confidence to unlocking billions in domestic tourism revenue. Thousands of Canadian companies are innovating with Google AI. Innovation is Canada's story. Let's tell it together. Find out more at g.co slash Canadian Innovation.

Okay, here's a few movies. Guess who is the common thread between them? Lost in Translation, Ghost World, The Prestige, and like a million Marvel movies. I'm talking about Scarlett Johansson, the highest grossing actor of all time. Scarlett's directorial debut, Eleanor the Great, came to this year's Toronto International Film Festival. And I talked to her all about loneliness, forgiveness, and compassion, all themes in her new film. Find our chat on Q with Tom Power, wherever you get your podcasts, including on YouTube. I want to talk to you about the settlements in particular. A wide range of policymakers, diplomats and politicians have argued that the most

pressing issue here in many ways is the presence of those 700,000 settlers currently living in settlements scattered across land considered Palestinian by international law. Decades ago, the U.S. affirmed these settlements as illegal, but there's been a softening of the language around that over time. Obama referred to the settlements as, quote, not constructive to peace. Trump's current ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, says there's no such thing as a settlement altogether, quote, there is no such thing as a West Bank. There's no such thing as a settlement. Their communities, their neighborhoods, their cities.

In their statement about recognizing a Palestinian state, the Canadian government talks about, quote, accelerated settlement building across the West Bank and East Jerusalem while settler violence against Palestinians has soared. And just if you could talk specifically about how prohibitive these settlements have been to Palestinian statehood and why they have been able to continue. A lot of times we say settlements and audience members don't understand what that

means, right? Essentially what it means is that either vigilantes, backed by the state, protected by, you know, state violence, will take Palestinian land, build an outpost, kick the Palestinians off, and then build their own homes that continue to expand that are exclusive, exclusive for Jewish Israelis and would-be Israelis. What do I mean by would-be Israelis? meaning that somebody in your neighborhood in Canada who converts to Judaism, right, will now have the right to go live on those lands that require the permanent removal of Palestinians,

the theft of their land, and the use of violence against them and their families to achieve that. And that violence includes raids in the middle of the night, that violence includes deliberately terrorizing Palestinians so that they never resist, that violence includes military trials where children under the age of 18

are tried in a language they can't understand without a translator and without their parents and without adequate legal representation in what results in a 99% conviction rate. So settlement on its own doesn't capture the range, the structural violence, the material violence that Palestinians endure

in, you know, expanding basically a colony, a settler colony. And the same settlements that are in the West Bank that people can recognize are illegal, they are bemoaning them, those are the settlements that Israel wants to build again in the Gaza Strip, which is a violation, obviously, of the acquisition of territory by force, which is a violation of the transfer of civilian population into territory that you occupy. But we should also understand that for Palestinians, most of whom are, refugees, their original homes, and what is today Israel, were also settled in the same way. They were stolen in Haifa, in Lid, in Ramla, in the Nazareth, right?

Right now, in what, you know, they call the Negev. This is a naqab, you know, in Jerusalem, in the Uts. This is, the idea here is that we say settlements, but I want to emphasize that it's a process, that focuses on the constant, constant dispossession of Palestinians of their land, removal of them through killing or through forced population transfer ethnic cleansing, and the containment of the rest of them into reservations, you know, or autonomy holdings. And under the complicity of the international community, which has refused to take issue with this, and under specifically U.S. support for Israel and the Oslo framework and now the complicity of the PA,

Israel has been able to expand its settlements across the West Bank. Today, you know, go to Bethlehem. Bethlehem is a Palestinian city. Today, my friends tell me that the cities around Bethlehem are being cut off from it. Bejala, bit sahur, batyr. They are all being separated from one another so that Palestinians can't travel. so that Palestinians can't move, so that they are circumscribed further by these colonial settlements and the military infrastructure required to protect those settlers and the settlements.

And we are not getting out of this trap. What happens to the Palestinians here? What happens is when the international community does nothing for them, they decide to defend themselves. And when they decide to defend themselves, whether they're, you know, targeting civilians, which is, illegal, ipso facto illegal, or they're targeting military infrastructure, which they have the right to do under international law. Israel labels all of it as terrorism. And Palestinians are securitized. And now, not only are they subject to, you know, the abandonment of the international community in order to, you know, suffer at the hands of, you know, this oppressive regime,

now they're also being punished for doing the one thing that all humans would do, which is to try to survive? We have talked about the challenges with a two-state solution, but I want to talk to you now about the one-state solution. There is another vision for a single state that would be shared by both the Palestinians and Israelis, right? When we're both. people would coexist as equals under the law, but as much as the two-state solution remains improbable, this idea of a single state feels, well, even harder to see to consolidate 15 million Palestinians worldwide and 10 million Israelis into a single nation state to welcome back nearly 6 million Palestinian refugees and allow for refugees to settle to live together as equals

in a nation where Jewish people would constitute a significant minority. that would be an enormous undertaking. On top of that, you would have to reconcile return, repatriation, property rights, restitution. Is the prospect of a single state even more of a symbol? Or is this a feasible option that you think could ever come to pass? You know, Jamie, let's just be clear. There is no way through but through.

And at this point, because Israel has become drunk with impunity, and it's led by, you know, non-contested, like a far-right, you know, religious zealot regime, it's anything moving forward is going to be extremely difficult. And there is no way through but through. People often think that the one-state solution is, you know, more difficult than the two-state solution, but why? Yeah. Well, why? I mean, I think...

It just really seems like it. I don't... I would love to hear why you think not. I don't think not because I think the two-state solution. The problem that we have is the problem of, you know, this entitlement, this entitlement that this land that's inhabited by Palestinians, a land on which they constituted 90% of the people in the aftermath of the First World War and the establishment of the Palestine mandate that wanted to see it transition to independence, where they were denied the right to self-determination, has basically been marked as belonging to another nation. that's not there, but that lives abroad, right? That basically at any point in time, somebody not yet born yet, with no ties to this land, who decides to convert to Judaism, can have more rights than a Palestinian grandma who has been there

and pre-existed the establishment of the state of Israel. And so if we do not confront this entitlement, anything is difficult. anything is difficult when you look at how hard is it right now to remove settlers from the West Bank they're ready to take up the settlers aren't necessarily behold into the Israeli state and they're ready to take up arms against the soldiers it's going to be incredibly hard the one state solution which is a future that says look there is no supremacy there is no racial supremacy there is no entitlement there is no entitlement We believe in a world where people belong to the land, and the land does not belong to them.

And so here, I just want to emphasize that any future to forge is going to be so hard. That partition as being easier is a fiction as being easier because the land has been eaten up. And so if we know that both ways forward are incredibly hard, then why wouldn't we push for the optimal future that we want for the rest of the world. Nora, thank you so much for this. I really appreciate it. Thank you, thank you. Thank you for having me.

All right, that is all for today. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thank you so much for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. For more CBC podcasts, go to cBC.ca.ca slash podcasts.