Often musing is necessary to keep one's sanity, the hope is that someone reads one's thoughts, interjects their own and either tell you that you are NOT insane or that you are off your rockers, both of which I consider a solace.
We learned on Friday (10/3/14), that Sweden's newly elected Social Democrat prime minister Stefan Loefven announced that his country will recognize a Palestinian state, becoming the first EU member in Western Europe to do so.
The British Parliament quickly followed suit.
Among the non-EU members, Iceland is the only other western European nation to have done so. So Sweden's significance in joining the 130 other countries around the world in recognition of Palestine is due to it being the first Western European country.
When the world first heard that Sweden was considering recognizing the Palestinian State, it was seen as a bold statement. The reaction was 'a collective gasp' by the United States and its Western partners and 'congratulatiions' and 'tipping of hats' to the Swedes by the rest of the world.
(The US went as far as calling Stockholm's recognition of Palestine "premature" urging "caution", via State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki.)
Perhaps that is why Prime Minister Loefven felt the need to explain his attitude by saying that he wanted to be the first Nordic country to bolster a 'two-state solution' to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Alas that very 'rationality' has escaped the United States for the past 3 decades while she was championing the so called 'peace negotiations'.
For the past 35 years, from the time of Carter's Camp David, the US has been playing the alleged role of "honest broker" in efforts to achieve peace. For the past 35 years, while the US pretended to sow the seeds of a 'two state solution', it never dawned on the "Peace Team" that recognizing Palestine as a 'State' is part and parcel of any "two-state solution." How utterly absurd is that really?
The many signs showing that the United States has issues with the idea of a Palestinian State, makes one ponder whether its 35 year old rhetoric of 'brokering peace' has been disingenuous at best.
I must add that the idiocy of over two decades of so called 'peace brokering' by the United States has been quite clear to those of us who have been painstakingly following the Arab/Israeli conflict.
One could write a book where the timeline of US hypocrisy could be accurately and chronologically outlined but let us suffice with mentioning a few of the overt examples of that hypocrisy:
Any ambiguity and uncertainty surrounding the objective of 'peace talks' was put to rest in 2008 on the second night of DNC Convention, when Democrat's reference to 'Jerusalem as the capital of Israel' became the Democratic policy platform.