MALA ŠKOLA KULTURE I SUBKULTURE GOVORA

 

MEĐUNARODNO PRIZNANJE PALESTINE

INTERNATIONAL   RECOGNITION OF PALESTINE

 Preuzeto / Taken from: IFIMES, Ljubljana

POLITIČKI MARKETING ILI STVARNA PROMJENA  Situacija na Bliskom istoku, posebno u vezi s palestinskim pitanjem, već decenijama predstavlja jedan od najkompleksnijih i najosjetljivijih problema međunarodne politike. Priznanje Palestine kao nezavisne i samostalne države postalo je više politički simbol nego konkretan čin koji donosi stvarnu državnost i nezavisnost palestinskom narodu. Dok neke države, poput Turske, Ujedinjenih Arapskih Emirata, Egipta, Jordana i Maroka, vode pragmatičnu i konstruktivnu politiku usmjerenu ka stabilnosti i saradnji s Izraelom i međunarodno priznatim institucijama palestinske samouprave, druge, kao što su Iran, Saudijska Arabija, Katar, pa i određeni dijelovi Evropske unije, često svojom politikom dodatno komplikuju ionako zamršenu situaciju. Iran, sa svojom podrškom militantnim skupinama kao što je Hamas, doprinosi jačanju ekstremizma i destabilizaciji, što dugoročno narušava mirovne procese i otežava uspostavljanje trajnog mira. S druge strane, neke evropske države poput Njemačke, Hrvatske i Italije imaju složen i često kontradiktoran odnos prema palestinskom pitanju. U slučaju Njemačke, historijska krivica zbog holokausta snažno utiče na političke odluke i često ograničava sposobnost vođenja uravnotežene bliskoistočne politike. Hrvatska je pod snažnim uticajem svoje historijske krivice vezane za postojanje i ulogu fašističke tvorevine Nezavisne  države Hrvatske (NDH) tokom 1941–1945., što dodatno komplikuje njen stav. Italija, s naslijeđem fašizma i pod uticajem sadašnjih desničarskih vlada, pokazuje značajnu ambivalentnost i nestabilnost u vanjskoj politici prema ovom pitanju. Francuska, s druge strane, balansira između sve izraženijih unutrašnjih etničko-religijskih tenzija, naročito između arapsko-muslimanske i jevrejske zajednice. Također, nosi teret kolonijalne prošlosti na Bliskom istoku, uključujući Siriju i Liban. Sve to njen politički stav prema Izraelu i Palestini čini često ambivalentnim i reaktivnim. Uz to, populistički pokreti, posebno vlada Viktora Orbána u Mađarskoj, kao i rastući uticaj desničarskih i populističkih snaga u Poljskoj i Češkoj, dodatno narušavaju jedinstveni vanjskopolitički stav EU prema ovom pitanju.   Priznanje kao politički marketing Priznanje Palestine kao države često se koristi više kao politički odnosno marketinški potez nego kao stvaran korak s opipljivim efektima na terenu ili u međunarodnim institucijama. Palestinsko pitanje (p)ostaje predmet političkih manipulacija, dok suverenitet i kapaciteti palestinskih vlasti ostaju ozbiljno ograničeni. Među ključnim akterima na Bliskom istoku, posebno u vezi sa pitanjem Palestine, ističu se Turska, Ujedinjeni Arapski Emirati i Egipat, kao najveća arapska država. Za razliku od nekih drugih zemalja u regiji poput Iraka, Sirije i Jemena, kao i drugih država koje često koriste patnju palestinskog naroda za svoje interese, ove tri zemlje zauzimaju značajne pozicije u regionalnoj politici. Turska, kao važna muslimanska država i članica NATO-a, aktivno doprinosi diplomatskim inicijativama i nastojanjima da palestinsko pitanje ostane u međunarodnom fokusu, pažljivo usklađujući različite interese unutar složenih odnosa Bliskog istoka. S druge strane, Ujedinjeni Arapski Emirati svojim realpolitičkim pristupom i diplomatskim angažmanom pružaju konkretnu podršku palestinskom narodu, čime grade reputaciju kredibilnog regionalnog partnera. Važno je naglasiti da ove države održavaju diplomatske odnose i s Tel Avivom i s Palestinskom samoupravom, što pokazuje pragmatičan pristup u usklađivanju regionalnih i međunarodnih interesa. Ovakav dvostruki pristup omogućava im da budu mostovi u složenim političkim i diplomatskim odnosima između Izraela i palestinskih vlasti. Turska, UAE i Egipat djeluju kao ključni regionalni akteri koji, svaki na svoj način, oblikuju dinamiku palestinskog pitanja. Turska kroz diplomatsku aktivnost i regionalnu dimenziju, UAE kroz političku podršku i razvoj odnosa, dok Egipat, sa svojom historijskom ulogom i geopolitičkim položajem, ima značajnu ulogu u mirovnim procesima i sigurnosnim pitanjima regije. Mnoge druge države, međutim, koriste palestinsko pitanje kao sredstvo političkog marketinga za smirenje ili mobilizaciju vlastitih naroda. Za razliku od njih, ove tri zemlje svoju ulogu grade na pragmatičnim i strateškim interesima. Njihova aktivnost jasno pokazuje da palestinsko pitanje nije jednostavno, već složeno, te često predmet iskorištavanja kroz trgovinu patnjama palestinskog naroda u širim geopolitičkim kalkulacijama. Najvažniji pokušaji postizanja mira Konferencija u Madridu 1991: Prvi direktni kontakti između Izraela i arapskih zemalja uključujući Palestince, ali bez konkretnih rezultata.  Sporazumi iz Osla 1993. i 1995: Donose priznavanje Palestinske odlobodilačke organizacije (PLO) i uspostavu Palestinske samouprave. Uslijedile su političke promjene, ali i nastavak nasilja.  Sporazum na plantaži Wye (1998): Palestinski lider Yaser Arafat i izraelski premijer Benjamin Netanyahu (prvi mandat) postigli su dogovor uz posredovanje SAD-a. Sporazum nije u potpunosti sproveden. Camp David II 2000: Pregovori (nakon Wye Plantation sporazuma) propali zbog neslaganja oko Jerusalima, povratka izbjeglica i granica. Rezultat: izbijanje Druge intifade. Pregovori u Tabi 2001: Najbliži kompromisu, ali zaustavljeni smjenom vlasti u Izraelu. Inicijativa Arapske lige 2002: Predviđa normalizaciju odnosa s Izraelom uz potpuno povlačenje s okupiranih teritorija. Plan za mir 2003: Plan međunarodnog kvarteta (UN, SAD, EU, Rusija), nikada u potpunosti implementiran. Konferencija u  Annapolisu 2007: Pokušaj SAD da revitalizira mirovni proces. Sukob Fatah-Hamas i nova izraelska ofanziva 2008. ga neutralizuju. Pariška mirovna konferencija 2017: Pokušaj EU i Francuske da ponude novi okvir – Izrael odbio prisustvovati. Abrahamovi sporazumi 2020: Normalizacija odnosa Izraela s UAE, Bahreinom, Sudanom i Marokom – bez učešća Palestinaca.  Nedavna konferencija u New Yorku 2025, koju su organizovali Ujedinjeni narodi, Saudijska Arabija i Francuska, bila je još jedan pokušaj revitalizacije mirovnog procesa, ali razlike i interesi velikih aktera i dalje predstavljaju prepreku stvarnom napretku. Konferencija je više predstavljala politički marketing nego konkretnu volju za rješavanjem sukoba, dok na terenu i dalje ljudi ginu i pate, što jasno pokazuje koliko simbolika i retorika nadmašuju stvarne korake ka miru. Netanyahu i Lapid: Suprotstavljene vizije za budućnost Izraela i Bliskog istoka Suprotstavljene vizije premijera Benjamina Netanyahua i lidera opozicije u izraelskom Knessetu, Yaira Lapida, jasno odražavaju različite pravce razvoja Izraela i njegove uloge u regiji. Netanyahu, vođa Likuda, zastupa desničarske i nacionalističke stavove, često zagovarajući stroge sigurnosne mjere i iskazujući skepticizam prema mirovnim procesima. Njegova vlada obilježena je brojnim kontroverzama, uključujući optužbe za korupciju i međunarodne pozive na njegovu odgovornost, što dodatno komplikuje političku situaciju i umanjuje međunarodni ugled Izraela. S druge strane, Yair Lapid, kao vođa opozicije u Knessetu, predstavlja centristički pristup koji se zalaže za stabilnost, demokratske vrijednosti i regionalnu saradnju. Izrazio je spremnost da formira koaliciju sa desničarskim Likudom, ali bez Netanyahua, što ukazuje na njegovu odlučnost da razbije postojeće političke barijere i unese novu dinamiku u izraelsku politiku. Lapid se jasno suprotstavlja ekstremističkim i vjerskim strankama koje, po njegovom mišljenju, destabilizuju zemlju, ugrožavaju prava građana i narušavaju ugled Izraela na međunarodnoj sceni. Njegova vizija fokusirana je na jačanje unutrašnje kohezije i demokratije, ali i na aktivan angažman u regionalnim mirovnim procesima. Lapid smatra da je trajno rješenje palestinskog pitanja moguće jedino kroz iskrene razgovore i diplomatski dijalog sa izraelske i palestinske strane. Također zagovara proširenje Abrahamovih sporazuma na ostale arapske države, vjerujući da će dalja normalizacija odnosa s arapskim svijetom dodatno ojačati stabilnost i prosperitet u regionu. Takav pristup, unaprijedio bi međunarodne odnose Izraela, ojačao saveze i doprinio dugoročnom miru i prosperitetu u regiji. Ova podijeljena vizija između Netanyahua i Lapida predstavlja ključni izazov za budućnost Izraela, oblikujući kako unutrašnju politiku, tako i njegovu ulogu u složenim geopolitičkim prilikama Bliskog istoka.   Uloga međunarodnih aktera: Saudijska Arabija, Francuska i UN kao organizatori konferencije u New Yorku, 15. maja 2025 Saudijska Arabija i Francuska, zajedno s Ujedinjenim nacijama, dugo su planirali i koordinirali ovu konferenciju s ciljem pokretanja mirovnog procesa između Izraela i Palestinaca. Namjera je bila okupiti ključne aktere kako bi se otvorio put ka pregovorima i postigao stvaran napredak u rješavanju jednog od najdugotrajnijih sukoba na svijetu. Ipak, složenost problema i suprotstavljeni interesi učesnika znatno su umanjili efekt ove inicijative. Saudijska Arabija, kao važna muslimanska država, nastojala je kroz ovu konferenciju potvrditi svoju ulogu posrednika u palestinskom pitanju. Međutim, njena politika nije bila dosljedna — unutrašnji izazovi i regionalne tenzije smanjili su njenu sposobnost da oblikuje stvarni mirovni proces. Saudijska Arabija balansira između podrške palestinskim pravima i očuvanja bliskih odnosa sa zapadnim saveznicima i državama koje su već normalizirale odnose s Izraelom. Francuska, kao jedan od ključnih aktera u Evropskoj uniji, diplomatskim je naporima nastojala održati status mirovnog posrednika, promovišući rješenja zasnovana na međunarodnom pravu, naročito dvodržavnom modelu. Ipak, unutrašnje nesuglasice unutar EU, kao i složeni odnosi u izraelsko-palestinskom sukobu, ograničile su njen utjecaj. Ujedinjeni narodi, iako formalno glavni globalni arbitar mira i sigurnosti, nisu uspjeli pružiti odlučujuću podršku konferenciji. Njihova uloga bila je više protokolarnog karaktera, dok duboki nesporazumi unutar Vijeća sigurnosti UN-a i političke blokade onemogućavaju efektivno djelovanje. Konferencija održana 15. maja 2025. u sjedištu UN-a u New Yorku zamišljena je kao prilika za prekidanje zamrznutog statusa quo i otvaranje puta ka deeskalaciji sukoba. Organizatori — Saudijska Arabija, Francuska i UN — naglašavali su važnost zajedničkog djelovanja i kompromisa. To je bio pokušaj preusmjeravanja pažnje svjetske javnosti na humanitarnu katastrofu u Gazi, iako se konferencija nije stvarno bavila ovim pitanjem. Taj fokus se pokazao ne samo nekorisnim, već i kontraproduktivnim. Prevelika pažnja usmjerena na humanitarne posljedice skrenula je pažnju sa ključnih političkih problema, dok su stvarni koraci ka trajnom rješenju ostali potpuno zapostavljeni. Umjesto očekivanog pomaka, konferencija se brzo pretvorila u još jedan PR događaj. Doneseni zaključci bili su uglavnom deklarativni i bez stvarne obavezujuće snage, što je dodatno oslabljeno odbijanjem Sjedinjenih Američkih Država da podrže bilo kakve pritiske na Izrael. Bez ključne podrške SAD-a, glavnog saveznika Izraela, dogovori i konferencije se smatraju jednostranim aktom i uglavnom će ostati mrtvo slovo na papiru. Konačno, konferencija nije donijela značajan napredak. Sukob se nastavio, a patnja palestinskog naroda i dalje traje. Ovaj događaj jasno pokazuje koliko su međunarodni mirovni procesi često sputani političkim kalkulacijama, retorikom i različitim interesima, dok prava volja i moć za trajno rješenje ostaju nedostižni.   Palestinci zaslužuju imati svoju državu Palestinsko pitanje i dalje predstavlja otvorenu ranu Bliskog istoka, koja zahtijeva iskren i odgovoran pristup svih uključenih aktera. Priznanje Palestine bez stvarne državnosti ostaje prvenstveno simboličan i marketinški potez, bez stvarne težine i efekta na terenu. Dok geopolitički interesi i političke manipulacije često dominiraju, neophodno je da međunarodna zajednica podrži stvarne i konkretne korake ka stabilnosti, pravdi i trajnom miru. Ključno je da se oživi uloga Kvarteta za Bliski istok, osnovanog 2002. godine, a kojeg čine EU, Rusija, Sjedinjene Američke Države i UN — kao ključnog mehanizma za koordinaciju mirovnih napora i podršku stvaranju održivog rješenja. U budućnosti je neophodno da međunarodna zajednica odustane od površnih simboličnih gesta i usredsredi se na suštinske promjene koje će osnažiti palestinske institucije i omogućiti im funkcionalnu državnost. Uključivanje svih relevantnih aktera, uključujući Iran, kao i velike sile poput Rusije i Kine, mora biti dio svakog realnog i održivog rješenja. Globalne sile poput SAD-a, EU, Rusije i Kine trebaju uskladiti svoje politike i podržati pregovore vođene na ravnopravnoj osnovi, bez nametanja unilateralnih uslova koji dodatno produbljuju podjele. Pored političkih i diplomatskih inicijativa, značajnu ulogu trebaju imati i obrazovni programi te inicijative za jačanje međusobnog povjerenja unutar izraelskog i palestinskog društva, jer je to temelj dugoročnog mira. Iznad svega, neophodna je hrabrost izraelskog i palestinskog naroda da prepoznaju svoje zajedničke interese i prevaziđu duboke podjele koje godinama razaraju život u regiji. Samo kroz iskrenu volju za kompromisom, odgovornost i spremnost na dijalog može se okončati ciklus nasilja i patnje. Mir koji oba naroda zaslužuju može biti ostvaren jedino uz istinsku hrabrost da se prihvate neophodni kompromisi i zajednički život u harmoniji — poput primjera Francuske i Njemačke, nekadašnjih suparnika i neprijatelja u više ratova (1870–1945), a danas ključnih stubova EU. Takav pristup donio bi trajnu stabilnost ne samo Bliskom istoku, nego i širem međunarodnom sistemu, otvarajući vrata sigurnijoj i prosperitetnijoj budućnosti za sve. U međuvremenu, nužno je omogućiti nesmetan pristup humanitarnoj pomoći Palestincima i osigurati trajni prekid vatre u Gazi. Ovi koraci su od presudnog značaja za stvaranje realnih osnova za primjenu svake ozbiljne političke inicijative. Palestinski narod zaslužuje pravo da živi u vlastitoj državi, u miru i dostojanstvu, pored Izraela. Samo uzajamno priznanje i odgovoran dijalog mogu donijeti trajni mir. Ljubljana/Washington/Bruxelles/Tel Aviv, 8.avgust 2025

POLITICAL MARKETING OR GENUINE CHANGE  For decades, the Middle East, particularly the question of Palestine, has remained one of the most complex and sensitive issues in international affairs. Recognition of Palestine as an independent and sovereign state has become increasingly symbolic, rather than a concrete step towards achieving genuine statehood and independence for the Palestinian people. While some countries—such as Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco—have pursued pragmatic and constructive policies aimed at promoting stability and cooperation with Israel and the internationally recognised institutions of the Palestinian Authority, others—such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and certain segments of the European Union—have often contributed to further complicating an already entangled situation. By supporting militant groups such as Hamas, Iran has fuelled extremism and contributed to regional destabilisation, thereby undermining long-term peace efforts and diminishing the prospects for a lasting settlement. In contrast, some European countries, including Germany, Croatia, and Italy, maintain a complex and often contradictory stance on the Palestinian issue. In Germany, the enduring weight of historical guilt over the Holocaust continues to shape political decisions, frequently limiting its capacity to pursue a balanced Middle East policy. Croatia remains deeply influenced by its historical legacy, particularly the existence and role of the fascist Independent State of Croatia (NDH) during 1941–1945, which further clouds its position. Italy, marked by its fascist history and shaped by present-day right-wing governments, exhibits significant ambivalence and inconsistency in its foreign policy on this matter. France, on the other hand, is navigating mounting internal ethno-religious tensions, particularly between its Arab-Muslim and Jewish communities. It also carries the burden of a colonial past in the Middle East, including in Syria and Lebanon. These factors have made its political stance on Israel and Palestine frequently inconsistent and reactive. At the same time, the rise of populist movements, most notably Viktor Orbán’s government in Hungary, and the growing influence of right-wing and populist forces in Poland and the Czech Republic continue to erode the European Union’s ability to present a coherent and unified position on the issue.      Recognition as political marketing The recognition of Palestine as a state is often used more as a token move for political or publicity purposes than as a meaningful step with tangible impact on the ground or within international institutions. The Palestinian issue continues to serve as a vehicle for political manipulation, while the sovereignty and capacities of the Palestinian authorities remain seriously limited. Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt, the largest Arab state, stand out as key actors in the Middle East, particularly with regard to the Palestinian question. In contrast to other countries in the region, such as Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, as well as those that often instrumentalise the suffering of the Palestinian people for their own agendas, these three countries occupy crucial positions in regional politics. As a key Muslim country and member of NATO, Turkey plays an active role in diplomatic initiatives and efforts to keep the Palestinian cause in the international spotlight, while carefully balancing competing interests within the region’s complex political landscape. On the other hand, the United Arab Emirates, through its realpolitik approach and diplomatic engagement, provides concrete assistance to the Palestinian people, thereby building a reputation as a credible regional partner. Notably, these states maintain diplomatic relations with both Tel Aviv and the Palestinian Authority, reflecting a pragmatic stance aimed at reconciling regional priorities with international expectations. This dual approach enables them to act as intermediaries in the sensitive and multifaceted relations between Israel and the Palestinian leadership. Turkey, the UAE, and Egypt act as key regional players who, each in their own way, shape the dynamics surrounding the Palestinian question. Turkey exercises influence through diplomacy and regional outreach, the UAE through political support and growing bilateral ties, and Egypt, drawing on its historic role and strategic location, plays a central part in peace efforts and regional security affairs. Many other countries, however, use the Palestinian cause as a tool of political marketing, either to pacify or rally their domestic audiences. In contrast, these three countries base their role on pragmatic and strategic interests. Their involvement highlights the complexity of the situation, which is often reduced to a geopolitical bargaining chip, with the suffering of the Palestinian people exploited in pursuit of broader strategic agendas.   Major peace initiatives  The Madrid Conference in 1991 marked the first direct contacts between Israel and Arab states, including Palestinian representatives, but concluded without tangible results. The Oslo Accords of 1993 and 1995 led to mutual recognition between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and established the Palestinian Authority. Political changes followed, yet violence persisted. The Wye River Memorandum in 1998, brokered by the United States, brought together Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (during his first term). The agreement was never fully implemented. The Camp David Summit in 2000, held in the aftermath of the Wye negotiations, collapsed due to disagreements over Jerusalem, the return of refugees, and final borders. The talks’ failure triggered the outbreak of the Second Intifada. The Taba Talks in 2001 came closest to reaching a compromise but were cut short by a change of government in Israel. The Arab Peace Initiative, launched by the Arab League in 2002, proposed full normalisation of relations with Israel in exchange for a complete withdrawal from the occupied territories. The Roadmap for Peace, introduced in 2003 by the Quartet (the UN, the United States, the EU, and Russia), was never fully implemented. The Annapolis Conference in 2007 was a U.S. initiative aimed at revitalising the peace process, but internal Palestinian divisions (Fatah–Hamas conflict) and the subsequent 2008 Israeli military operation undermined its impact. The Paris Peace Conference in 2017, initiated by the EU and France, attempted to offer a new framework for negotiations. Israel declined to participate. The Abraham Accords, signed in 2020, led to the normalisation of relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco—without the involvement of the Palestinians. The recent 2025 conference in New York, organised by the United Nations, Saudi Arabia, and France, represented yet another attempt to revive the peace efforts. However, diverging interests among major actors continue to hinder genuine progress. Rather than reflecting a true commitment to resolving the conflict, the conference largely served as a political performance, while violence and suffering persist on the ground—demonstrating once again how symbolism and rhetoric often outweigh concrete action for peace. Netanyahu and Lapid: Competing visions for Israel’s future role in the Middle East The contrasting approaches of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and opposition leader Yair Lapid, a member of the Israeli Knesset, clearly reflect differing visions of Israel’s development and its role in the region. Netanyahu, leader of the Likud party, promotes right-wing and nationalist positions, frequently advocating strict security measures and expressing scepticism towards peace initiatives. His government has been mired in controversy, including allegations of corruption and mounting international calls for accountability—factors that have further complicated the political landscape and undermined Israel’s global standing. On the other hand, Yair Lapid, as the leader of the opposition in the Knesset, embodies a centrist outlook committed to stability, democratic values, and regional cooperation. He has indicated his readiness to form a coalition with the right-wing Likud party—but without Netanyahu—highlighting his determination to overcome entrenched political divisions and inject fresh momentum into Israeli politics. Lapid is a vocal critic of extremist and religious parties, which he believes destabilise the country, erode civil rights, and tarnish Israel’s international reputation. His vision focuses on strengthening internal cohesion and democracy, as well as active involvement in regional peace processes. Lapid maintains that a lasting resolution to the Palestinian question can only be achieved through sincere talks and diplomatic dialogue between both sides. He also supports expanding the Abraham Accords to include other Arab states, believing that further normalisation of relations with the Arab world would help promote regional stability and progress. Such an approach would improve Israel’s international relations, strengthen its alliances, and support efforts toward peace and prosperity in the region. This contrasting vision of Netanyahu and Lapid represents a key challenge for Israel’s future, shaping both its domestic politics and its role within the evolving geopolitical landscape of the Middle East. International involvement: Saudi Arabia, France, and the United Nations as organizers of the New York conference on 15 May 2025 Saudi Arabia and France, together with the United Nations, spent considerable time planning and coordinating the conference with the aim of launching a peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. The intention was to bring key stakeholders to the table in an effort to pave the way for negotiations and make tangible progress in resolving one of the world’s most enduring conflicts. However, the complexity of the issue and the conflicting interests of the participants significantly diminished the impact of the initiative. Saudi Arabia, as an important Muslim country, sought to use the conference to reaffirm its role as a mediator in the Palestinian question. However, its policy has lacked consistency. Domestic challenges and regional tensions have reduced its capacity to shape a meaningful peace process. The kingdom continues to balance support for Palestinian rights with the need to maintain close ties with Western allies and with states that have already normalised relations with Israel. As a prominent EU actor, France has sought to maintain its role as a peace broker through diplomatic efforts, advocating for solutions grounded in international law, particularly the two-state model. However, internal disagreements within the EU and the complexities of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have curtailed its influence. The United Nations, although formally the main global arbiter of peace and security, failed to provide decisive support for the conference. Its involvement was largely ceremonial, while deep divisions within the UN Security Council and ongoing political deadlock continue to obstruct effective action. The conference held on 15 May 2025 at the United Nations headquarters in New York was conceived as an opportunity to break the frozen status quo and open a path toward de-escalation of hostilities. The organisers – Saudi Arabia, France, and the UN – stressed the importance of joint action and compromise. The event aimed to draw international attention to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, despite not directly addressing the issue. This focus proved not only ineffective but ultimately counterproductive. The excessive emphasis on humanitarian consequences overshadowed the core political issues, while meaningful steps toward a lasting solution were entirely sidelined.  Instead of the anticipated breakthrough, the conference quickly turned into yet another public relations exercise. The conclusions adopted were mostly declarative and lacked binding force, further weakened by the United States’ refusal to support any pressure on Israel. Without the backing of the United States, Israel’s key ally, agreements and initiatives of this kind are widely perceived as one-sided and are unlikely to yield substantive outcomes. Ultimately, the conference failed to deliver tangible progress. The conflict continued, and the suffering of the Palestinian people persists. This episode starkly illustrates how international peace processes are often constrained by political calculations, rhetoric, and divergent interests, while the true willingness and capacity for a lasting solution remain elusive.   The Palestinians deserve to have their own state The Palestinian issue remains an open wound in the Middle East that demands a sincere and responsible approach from all parties involved. Recognition of Palestine without actual statehood continues to be largely symbolic and performative, lacking real weight or impact on the ground.  While geopolitical interests and political manipulation often prevail, it is essential that the international community support tangible and concrete steps toward stability, justice, and lasting peace. Reviving the role of the Middle East Quartet—established in 2002 and comprising the EU, Russia, the United States, and the United Nations—is vital to restoring coordinated diplomatic efforts and reinforcing the pursuit of a sustainable outcome. Looking ahead, the international community must move beyond superficial gestures and concentrate on substantive changes that will strengthen Palestinian institutions and lay the foundations for functional statehood. Any credible and viable solution must involve all relevant actors, including Iran, along with major powers such as Russia and China. Global powers such as the United States, the EU, Russia, and China must align their policies and support negotiations based on equality, without imposing unilateral conditions that risk deepening existing divides. In addition to political and diplomatic initiatives, educational programmes and efforts to strengthen mutual trust within both Israeli and Palestinian societies should have a meaningful place in peacebuilding process, as they form, the groundwork for durable coexistence. Above all, it will take courage on the part of both Israelis and Palestinians to recognise their shared interests and overcome long-standing rifts that have fractured life in the region for decades. Only through a sincere commitment to compromise, responsibility, and dialogue can the cycle of violence and suffering be brought to an end. The peace both peoples deserve can only be achieved through true courage to accept the necessary compromises and embrace a shared life in harmony—following the example of France and Germany, once adversaries in multiple wars (1870–1945), now key pillars of the European Union. Such an approach would bring lasting stability not only to the Middle East but also to the broader international order, opening the door to a more secure and prosperous future for all. In the meantime, it is vital to ensure unimpeded access to humanitarian aid for Palestinians and to secure a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. These steps are pivotal in creating the foundations for any serious political initiative. The Palestinian people have the right to live in a state of their own, in peace and with dignity, alongside Israel. Only mutual recognition and responsible dialogue can pave the way to lasting peace. Ljubljana/Washington/Brussels/Tel Aviv, 8 August 2025