The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been developing long before foreign policy analysts and diplomats were around to scrutinize it. This region is impeded by numerous quandaries that must be considered when attempting to evaluate the problem– the politics, geography, religions, and history involved. However, after numerous failed peace talks, it may seem that these issues are too burdensome and tedious to rummage through. Because of this, Palestinians are now bypassing peace talks and proceeding to the United Nations for a bid as a sovereign state. Though this is quite controversial and frowned upon by the United States, a steadfast player in reconciling the two sides, the real issue for the Palestinians is the collective goods problem of power, reciprocity, and identity. These three basic principles exist to offer possible solutions for cooperation among nations. Does progressing to the United Nations benefit the Palestinians more than rekindling peace talks with Israel?
The United States and United Nations both hold influential roles amid relations between Israel and Palestine. The U.S. has voiced their aversion to the Palestinian Authority’s proposition to the United Nations and has claimed that they will block the vote for Palestine as a viable state. Congress has even considered cutting off military and economic assistance the United States has given to the Palestinians. This act may not even disturb the Palestinians due to the political support they receive from the UN. In addition this negative reciprocity put forth by the US may actually backfire; the United States acting on this claim will only further isolate them from the Arab world.
The UN’s power in the hierarchy of international organizations weighs heavily in the Palestinian’s favor. One hundred and twenty-nine of the 193 member countries are needed to grant a vote of approval to provide Palestine with statehood recognition. One hundred and twenty-two countries, according to Palestinian officials, have already recognized Palestine as a state. With this in mind, if everything goes according to plan, the Palestinians will indeed be recognized as a state in accordance with United Nations standards.
In a perfect world, this UN vote would force Israel and Palestine to contribute to the common good and establish peace. However, neither side has demonstrated any signal that either wish to collaborate. The Palestinians are bypassing any further assembly of peace negotiations and Israel has stated that nothing on the ground in regards to checkpoints, separation wall, and settlements will change whether or not the vote actually goes through. In essence, UN recognition of Palestine only benefits the Palestinians within the body of the United Nations. The vote also symbolizes a worldwide referendum against Israel.
Because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict dates back so long ago, identity construction intensifies the situation greatly. I recently met with the Israeli Policy Advisor to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tal Becker, and he relayed an anecdote about his time at the Annapolis Middle East peace conference in 2007. The Israelis and the Palestinians already had a peace treaty prepared – they were simply waiting for the ceremony to sign it. An hour prior to the signing, Becker was called out of his room and rushed to meet with then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. She explained to him that the Palestinians made last minute changes and he just needed to approve of them. After a quick glance through, Becker agreed to the changes. He was later informed that when the Palestinians heard of his approval, they became skeptical, asking “what did we do wrong in this treaty for Israel to agree?” And subsequently, the Palestinians called off the treaty.
This illustrates clearly the “us vs. them” mentality that has pervaded both sides of the conflict between for so long. Many believe that victory for their side must mean defeat for the other. This is simply not the case. The only avenue for lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians is a two-state solution where both nations are peaceful, prosperous, and free. Though this example comes from failed peace talks, it also presents a situation that contains real progress and lacks all traces betrayal.
Because these identity aspects are such strong and influential aspects, it seems that talks between Palestinian President Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu are the best bet. As seen through the analysis of the role of power and reciprocity’s results in the dilemma, it seems that intervention and participation of the United States and the United Nations simply exacerbates tensions.
Though achieving recognition from the United Nations is the most immediate and seemingly simple route for statehood, in actuality the status of the Palestinians and the Israelis will only be aggravated. The only avenue for lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians is a two-state solution established through understanding of both nations. However, the issue at hand is not simply about securing the two states’ borders. We must achieve a new state of mind if both nations are to be successful. It is the only solution that can deliver security to Israel and dignity to the Palestinian people.
Hypothesizing a long-term solution to a problem that has been in existence since before the declaration of Israel is nearly impossible. Every aspect of the collective goods problem must be examined, weighing out the benefits and risks of each solution. The odds don’t seem great for peace in the future. But then again, the odds weren’t exactly great when Moses parted the Red Sea.
Works Cited
Vick, Karl. "The Palestinians' Statehood Dilemma: Full UN Membership or Observer Status?" Time. 1 Sept. 2011. Web. 15 Sept. 2011.
Gordis, Daniel. "Can Israel Survive Without a Palestinian State?" New York Times, 15 Sept. 2011. Web. 15 Sept. 2011.
Mollie Adatto
I agree that an agreement between Israel and Palestine is the only way for a true solution to this conflict, and that the UN recognizing Palestine as a state leaves most of the problem unsolved. However, given that peace talks are broken down between the two nations, do you think that Israel will be more or less willing to negotiate with Palestine if it receives legitimate statehood? Given Israel's suspicion of Palestine and vice versa (the anecdote you relayed above is a good example) Israel may view Palestine going through the UN as a confrontation rather than as a bid for legitimacy. Do you think this resolution, if it passes, will have a positive effect at all?
ReplyDeleteI do not believe, if passed, this will produce any positive effects in terms of reconciliation between Israel and Palestinians - and that is the only way for peace. The Palestinian effort to secure recognition of statehood at the United Nations is a direct challenge to U.S. interests and could have severe implications for the peace process. Palestinian Authority leaders have indicated their intention to exploit recognition of Palestinian statehood to isolate Israel and attack her internationally.
ReplyDeleteI think you're both right to identify the statehood bid as a potentially confrontational, rather than necessarily a stabilizing, move.
ReplyDeleteFor my part, what I can't shake is the suspicion that the creation of a legitimate Palestinian state really spells the end of any kind of one-state solution for Israel-Palestine - essentially, a final crystallization of the political reality that Palestinians will never return to Israel, and will permanently be citizens of the odd and dispersed political entity controlled by the PA.
Is it too cynical to imagine that an independent and fully-certified Palestinian state would leave the Palestinians high and dry, locked into a political unit that is as unable to sustain the lives of its citizens as Somalia or Abkazia?
Though it is the case that a one-state will surely not come to be, I do not believe that a one-state solution is practical or even foreseeable in the least. The only avenue for lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians is a two-state solution where both nations are peaceful, prosperous, and free. This isn’t the slogan that has been tossed around fantasizing a utopia where we all love each other. This is the reality we have been dealt; a state for the Jewish people and a state for the Palestinian people. However, the issue at hand is not simply about securing the two states’ borders. We must achieve a new state of mind if both nations are to be successful - which is why the Palestinians going ahead to the UN is a major setback. A two-state solution is the only solution that can deliver security to Israel and dignity to the Palestinian people.
ReplyDeleteI agree that a two-state solution has become the only solution but no one seems to have a way of achieving that goal. Since peace talks have been halted by both sides and reciprocity has clearly failed (as you mentioned,) how is any agreement supposed to be reached? I noticed that you didn't touch on power but I'm pretty sure that's because it seems to have little to no relevance in this case. If we are to rely solely on identity and the hope that there will be a "two-state solution established through understanding of both nations" it sounds to me like we will be sitting back and watching the conflict for many more years to come.
ReplyDeleteI am wondering if any of your sentiments about the bid for statehood have changed or evolved now that the speeches at the UN have been made. I agree that the UN decision will not have a stabilizing impact. Moreover, I felt Abbas failed to talk much about why the Palestinians deserved to be recognized. Since he did not make his case very strongly it felt just like a move to stir up the tension and get the Palestinian issue back on the table (likely in part because it has been overshadowed by the Arab Spring).
ReplyDelete