England Determining the Sovereignty of Foreign Nations

The British parliament has voted in a vast majority to recognize a Palestinian state, in hopes that an international recognition may help to stem the war and help achieve peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. As the article states, “Although the vote in the Commons is only symbolic, it has attracted wide comment in Israel…”, http://bit.ly/ZCby0k. The question of Palestine’s sovereignty that England is addressing therefore, has no actual hard merit, and is unable to back its claims towards a Palestinian State on a systemic level. The differentiation between the two nations in question is one based on their religious ideologies. For England to step in and give Palestine an advantageous position in their conflict, and thereby their religion, their vote could possibly undermine the quest for peace that the two states are already having trouble with. The Israel Ministry responded to the vote stating, “Premature international recognition sends a troubling message to the Palestinian leadership that they can evade the tough choices that both sides have to make,”. Clearly Israel is disturbed with the clear bias that international powers have towards the situation, and feels that an unfair advantage is being given to one side from people on ‘the outside’ looking in.

This symbolic vote was done in poor political taste. The reason for this is because the conflict is between the Israeli’s and the Palestinians, and a vote against Israel, even if only symbolic, enables the Palestinians to use this as leverage to help their political campaign. It would be quite easy for Palestine to use this vote as propaganda to influence their drive for independence and international recognition as their own state from Israel. Further, for England to engage in these foreign domestic disputes is inappropriate because England is not actually the nation involved with the dispute. In a way, England is just the poking stick that helps give the fire more flame.

I believe that this was an unfair vote as one side is clearly supported by outside forces as “A cold wind is blowing toward Israel from every corner in the world, but they refuse to deal with the hard facts and are bringing a diplomatic storm,”. The outside influence from other countries puts pressure on the two nations to make a peace settlement, which of course is good, but it could possibly be hastened to where both parties aren’t actually happy and come to an agreement just to appease the international view towards the conflict. Another possibility is with international backing towards the Palestinians, the Palestinians may be able to push for a settlement which favors them to a greater extent than would have originally been planned, as they now have more ‘power’ with other countries supporting their cause. This could cause Israel to not be happy with the terms of a peace and perhaps disregard the peace, or this may in fact backtrack the peace to where Israel does not agree in the first place because it feels that the terms of peace are favoring the Palestinians too much because of outside influence.

Overall, this is a domestic conflict between Israel and Palestine and outside pressures are inappropriate, and could cause more trouble with enabling a peace than intended. England has as history shows, been involved with all parts of the world for centuries, and this ‘symbolic’ vote is England trying to extend its long arm to other parts of the world that does not actually concern it. This internal conflict must be settled and realized by the two parties that this actually pertains to. For outside forces to try and put leverage towards one side or the other I would argue, would cause a worse effect. Instead of using this to speed up the process of peace, Israel has now been ‘symbolically’ attacked, and the propaganda that England has been able to cause towards the states makes the negotiations too one sided. The two parties now know for as long as they are discussing peace that one sided is supported internationally over the other, and obviously that advantage will be pushed. I would not doubt that Israel would reject terms based on international influence, as this political and religious conflict is domestic, not international.




One thought on “England Determining the Sovereignty of Foreign Nations

  1. Thanking you for your thought about the complex issue concerning the vote to recognize the Palestine state. As we have learned in class, the quest to find a ‘Jewish’ state was pursed through Zionism. After World War I, secular Jews wanted a nation-state for Jews. Jews were given a section of Palestine and as the years grew they build their land hold.
    I disagree with your assessment that, “clearly Israel is disturbed with the clear bias that international powers have towards the situation, and feels that an unfair advantage is being given to one side from people on ‘the outside’ looking in.” I believe this is an unfair evaluation to make. From your blog it seems you are saying that the Palestine people do not have the right to a nation state? You say the vote is unfair, but how is it unfair? This vote will have no effect on Britain’s foreign policy towards Israel. It is only a vote that recognizes the Palestine people and their right to sovereignty. By acknowledging Palestine it does not mean Britain is being bias towards them especially if you consider the facts that traditional and still today foreign policy have favored Israel. The Israeli government has always had support from western nations; now that countries are supporting the Palestine people they are seeing it as an attack on them.
    Having the international community recognizing the Palestine people as a sovereign nation gives them a voice that is considered legitimate. This voice gives the Palestine’s power and they can be treated as equals especially when it comes to a two-state solution. By having the international community holding Israel accountable, there may be chance to gain peace and the first step is for the end of Israel’s occupation. As it was noted in the article “the Swedish announcement and the Commons vote came against the background of unilateral moves by Palestinians at the UN security council to secure a resolution that would call for the end of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories by November 2016.”
    The vote to recognize Palestine as a state can be seen as an international reaction to Zionism. As can be seen with “Britain’s ambassador to Israel warn[ing] that the move reflected changing British public opinion” we are seeing a change in people’s attitude to the injustice that Palestine’s and non-Jewish citizens face due to Zionist policy’s which give Jewish citizens more rights than non-Jewish citizens. It is a biased policy. By recognizing the Palestine state, the international community is taking a step in holding Israel to a new standard.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s