Tensions between Palestinian authorities and the Israeli state are millennia old, and the ideological conflict is deep-seated and institutional enough to act as the stumbling block to peaceful negotiations. I do not know if there is an answer for this kind of conflict. Our leaders may have read every book Zig Ziglar and John Maxwell have ever written, and it still will not be enough to facilitate conflict resolution here. The complexity of this foreign policy situation is incomprehensible to most of us. The problem, which is much too soft a word, between Israel and Palestine is so unlike anything our leaders have dealt with. Because this is such a unique situation, it provides an opportunity for a unique solution. Typical methods of conflict resolution and contract negotiation are just not going to yield fruitful results.
A few weeks ago, Sweden formally recognized Palestine as a state. This recognition comes after yet another tumultuous summer in the Middle East and amid criticism from Israeli authorities. This is an issue that we are obligated to have an opinion on as the lone (for now) superpower in the world.
In what is likely an action that will pave the way for other European countries to follow suit, Sweden’s Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom said Palestine, as a state, meets all the criteria needed to be recognized as its own sovereign country, and to deny it such an opportunity would be wrong, according to a recent CNN article by Brooke Bowman. The most baffling part of this development is not even Sweden’s recognition of Palestine as an independent and sovereign state, but rather that Sweden is the 135th country to do so.
In mid-October, the British Parliament passed a symbolic measure to recognize Palestine as a state, and the French government continues to act as though recognizing Palestine as a state is a matter of when, not if. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told Reuters if negotiations between Israel and Palestine collapsed, Paris “would not shirk its responsibilities,” but rather would move to recognize Palestine as a state with peace in mind.
According to an Oct. 3 article in The New York Times, Sweden’s newly elected Prime Minister, Stefan Lofven, noted his support for a Palestinian state in his inaugural address, saying a two-state system is the only way to attain peace in the region.
Commentary on this issue requires a whole lot of delicacy, a point Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman articulated perfectly when he said, “relations in the Middle East are more complex than one of Ikea’s flat-pack pieces of furniture, and would do well to act with greater sensitivity and responsibility.”
However, while sensitivity and couth are absolutely necessary if negotiations between Israel and Palestine are to move forward, we must also realize the inequality of the playing field. Israel and Palestine negotiate from two different positions: one already with statehood, and one without. The most logical solution, then, would be to put them both on equal footing and to give both parties the same amount of political clout with which to negotiate. The world can take Sweden, France and many others at their word and find solace in the goal of Palestinian recognition, which is not to cause more strife or facilitate more conflict, but ultimately to seek peace in the region and to “give hope to young Palestinians and Israelis that there is an alternative to violence,” according to Wallstrom.
According to Washington Post columnist Ishaan Tharoor, the United States will try to wait until a two-state solution arises organically before it gives its blessing to Palestine. However, our government should be prepared for these negotiations to end up being virtually impossible, at which point it will be interesting to see how our government chooses to act. Fabius has already said if the two parties cannot organically come to an agreement, “then France will naturally have to assume its responsibilities.” Will the U. S. do the same? Ideally, an agreement would naturally arise between the two parties. In case that does not happen, the U. S. should be prepared to dig through propaganda and misinformation on both sides in order to decide how to best move forward.
