SHARE
Jared Kushner and Ben­jamin Netanyahu at Embassy Ded­i­cation Cer­emony | Wiki­media Commons

On April 14, The Guardian pub­lished a letter from former high ranking gov­ernment offi­cials all over Europe that urged the European Union to reject any Middle Eastern peace plan from the U.S. that would exclude Palestine.

For the past several months, Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has been in charge of cre­ating this Middle Eastern peace plan. He has been meeting with Middle Eastern leaders in pur­suance of what some call the “deal of the century.” Though there has been no official doc­u­ments or reports about what exactly the plan would entail, The Wash­ington Post talked to “people familiar with the main ele­ments” who indi­cated this peace plan may not include plans for Pales­tinian sov­er­eignty.

And per usual, Israeli-Pales­tinian rela­tions, and their accom­pa­nying ten­sions, are at the center of the con­tro­versy. But instead of right­fully pointing to the Pales­tinian Authority’s abuse, angry indi­viduals and leaders banded together in oppo­sition, not against the PA, but against Israel. The letter opposing Kushner’s pos­sible peace plan was signed by 37 former European leaders, including former prime min­isters and foreign sec­re­taries from the United Kingdom, France, Sweden, Spain, Austria, Germany, and several other European coun­tries.

Of course, Kushner’s plan would not fix the Israeli-Pales­tinian con­flict. The Pales­tinians have refused to even con­sider coop­er­ating with the U.S. because they said the Trump admin­is­tration would be a biased broker for peace.

It’s more than likely Kushner’s plan would favor Israel. Trump has revi­talized the U.S.-Israeli alliance, rec­og­nizing the Golan Heights as legit­imate Israeli ter­ritory and Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, and not even batting an eye when Ben­jamin Netanyahu announced he wants to annex parts of the West Bank.

The Euro­peans can’t fix the Israeli-Pales­tinian problem either. In their letter of oppo­sition they wrote, “European gov­ern­ments should further commit to scale up efforts to protect the via­bility of a future two-state outcome.” And there’s the problem: They still believe that a two-state outcome is a viable option, and it’s not. At least, the tra­di­tional idea of a two-state set­tlement is not viable.

The Pales­tinians and Israelis have shown the world for the past century that the sim­plistic, western idea of a two-state solution cannot work. Their griev­ances are too deeply rooted in history, which has led to numerous fac­tions and fighting that have par­a­lyzed any progress in resolving their issues.

The ongoing con­flict has created so many fac­tions, both Israeli and Pales­tinian, that it is hopeless to find a solution that will appease everyone. There are 21 Pales­tinian political parties and none of them want the same thing. The PLO wants a Pales­tinian state. But Hamas wants to lib­erate Palestine, and while they’re at it, create an Islamic state from the Jordan River to the Mediter­ranean Sea. Not to mention that each party has sub-parties with their own ideas of how to get a Pales­tinian state. Should they nego­tiate with the Israelis? Should they blow the Israelis up and then nego­tiate? Should they just have a massive war to get rid of the Israelis?

The Israelis aren’t much better. There are 17 parties with seats in the Knesset — Israel’s leg­is­lature — this term and another 33 political parties without Knesset seats. Every party has its own ideas and agendas. There are Zionists who believe in the estab­lishment of a Jewish nation in their ancient homeland. There are anti-Zionists. There are Islamists who want to be part of the state of Israel, but not a Jewish state. There are Com­mu­nists. Some parties want to annex the West Bank, while others are con­cerned with irrel­evant issues like Arab nation­alism.

The European leaders are stuck in an unre­al­istic Western men­tality. There are simply too many fac­tions in Israel and Palestine, and too much history and hatred to rec­oncile them with a two-state solution.

Diana Buttu was a former advisor to the Pales­tinian Authority Pres­ident Mahmoud Abbas and described impos­si­bility of nego­ti­a­tions well: “If it had just been about drawing a line and a border, then the border would have been drawn a long, long time ago. But the nego­ti­a­tions very much touched upon many of these ide­o­logical issues. Israel was never pre­pared to address its history,” she told Husna Rizvi of the New Inter­na­tion­alist. “I came to the con­clusion, in January of 2001, that nego­ti­a­tions were a waste of time.”

The Euro­peans need to come to Buttu’s con­clusion as well before they dismiss Kushner’s plan on the whim that a two-state solution is fea­sible. Kushner’s “deal of the century” might not work out, but it has a better chance than a two-state solution.

Abby Liebing is a junior studying History.