The year 2011 started with mixed signals in the Middle East.  While the outcome of change in Tunisia remains unclear, the revolution has nevertheless sparked debates  about the future of many Arab regimes in the region.  The Israeli-Palestinian conflict appears as deadlocked as ever, while Lebanon stands (once more) at the brink of renewed conflict after another government crisis. In its New Year edition the Economist headlined with: “The United States, Israel and the Arabs – Please not again – Without boldness from Obama there is a real risk of war in the Middle East”.

The background of the cover shows a worried president Obama, who following his speech in Cairo in summer 2009, generated much enthusiasm across the region. The same leader, who many expected to finally bring “hope” and “change” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, two years later, the renewed talks are dead. Israeli settlement activities continue, and Israel’s Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu recently defended construction in East Jerusalem as being “in accordance with Israeli law.” Israel’s government under Netanyahu and its belligerent Foreign Minister Avigdor Liebermann has swung increasingly to the right.  This has been exacerbated in recent days with the split of the Labor Party. While Defense Minister Ehud Barak will continue to support Prime Minister Netanyahu with his new “Atzmaut” (independence) block, his more left leaning former Labor colleagues have left the coalition.

U.S. ambitions to bring negotiations back on track were severely damaged in November, when Israel rejected a number of Washington’s initiatives. Obama and his Middle East team were embarrassed when Israel decided to refuse even a three-month settlement moratorium in return for the supply of fighter jets worth billions of dollars. At the same time, Washington’s foreign policy in the wake of the economic crisis has shifted towards prioritizing China, India and Afghanistan. A recent one hour “Meet the Press” event at the Brookings Institute on key 2011 foreign policy concerns did not even mention the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But while solving the Palestinian question seems to have become less of a priority in Washington DC, in Latin America, things are different. Indeed, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Ecuador, Bolivia and Chile all recently declared their recognition of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. With South America’s powerhouse Brazil leading the recognition, this is far more than a coalition of traditional Palestinian sympathizers speaking out. The prospect of other emerging countries following the same path clearly troubles the current Israeli government. Palestinian leaders were quick to embrace the development. Foreign minister Riad Malki declared his ambition to ask the United Nations for recognition of an independent Palestinian state in September 2011. Russia has also just reiterated its recognition of an independent Palestinian state.  If EU countries discuss similar steps, this approach might gain momentum at the UN.

Despite these developments, it remains unlikely that the U.S. will follow suit any time soon with such a declaration. However, the goal of a demilitarized Palestinian state according to the 1967 borders – minor land swaps included – is anything but a revolutionary idea (as it was in 1988, when Arafat declared Palestinian independence in Tunis and for the first time indirectly accepted a two state solution). While most can today agree on a two-state-solution, few can find consensus on how to get there. Offering a short-cut to the establishment of a Palestinian state might be the last chance to save it.

Without doubt, President Obama’s frustration with the right-leaning Israeli government is growing. If 2011 sees continuing support for the recognition of a Palestinian state, the U.S. will have to make up its mind as to how long it will keep the UN out of the process. A first test will come, when a current bill declaring settlement activities “illegal” will come before the council. While in the past the U.S. has automatically vetoed such resolutions, Israel’s resistance to freeze settlement activities might motivate Washington to consider a different approach.

Neither the U.S. nor the conflict parties themselves have been able to move the peace process any further. Negotiations have been held for years, and too many “roadmaps” have been drawn. 64 years after the United Nations first recommended the partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states, (with UN General Assembly Resolution 181) increased efforts now need to be made to lay the foundations of a future Palestinian state – even if many questions remain to be solved: the future of Palestinian democracy; the status of Jerusalem; the position of the radical Hamas movement and its domination of the Gaza strip; and, most importantly, a 100% reliable security guarantee for Israel, potentially with the presence of U.S. and international troops for an interim period. This time, the creation of a new state in the Middle East has to come without a “war of independence”, ending the occupation and creating a demilitarized Palestine living peacefully with its neighbors.

René Wildangel is a German Marshall Fund/ American Political Science Association Congressional Fellow in Washington D.C.

Share/Bookmark