The peace process is a farce biased heavily in Israel’s favor. Only unilateral action from a democratic Palestine will allow Palestinians to counter Israeli imperialism and achieve statehood and peace.

If it didn’t have such tragic implications for Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and Israel proper, the so-called “Peace Process” would be one of the great jokes of modern history. The question of the appropriateness of unilateral action, therefore, must begin with an assessment of this tired alternative, a process by which the U.S., the world’s leading imperial power, rejectionist state, and underwriter of Israeli crimes, attempts to mediate a settlement between an occupying power, Israel, and those who are occupied, the Palestinians.[1] Despite all the events, changes in leadership, and ideological shifts within these three parties over the last 44 years, this basic blueprint hasn’t changed, and, unsurprisingly, it has produced a lot of process and no peace.

Consider this carefully: ever since Israelis and Palestinians began negotiations for a two-state settlement, the Israeli camp has offered precisely and exactly zero concessions. All concessions have come from the Palestinians, who have seen their territory shrink rapidly since 1948. Many Israeli apologists, however, unable to recognize the deep sense of lawlessness and exceptionalism that has so rampantly infected Israeli political culture, often point to a long list of “painful concessions” made by Israel: the 2005 “withdrawal” from Gaza is a popular one; so, too, is Netanyahu’s ten-month “freeze” on illegal settlement building. In both cases, Israel did not offer a concession, but rather decided to temporarily obey the law (though the Gaza example is a bad one, since there was no complete withdrawal, but instead a redeployment of the Israeli Occupation Forces on the periphery of Gaza). Indeed, issuing a temporary freeze on illegal settlement building is much like telling the highway patrolman: “I’ll stop speeding for 90 days, but after that, I’m going drag racing in a school zone.”

Furthermore, Israel-Palestine, when viewed from a global perspective, is perhaps the least controversial and easiest “conflict” to solve; there already exists an overwhelming consensus on how to reach a two-state settlement. This year, the U.N. resolution calling for “peaceful Settlement of the question of Palestine,” which essentially reiterates the universally accepted realities of this issue—that the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, in their entirety, are “occupied Palestinian territory,” that the settlements are illegal, that the wall is illegal, that the blockade on Gaza has caused a monumental humanitarian crisis, etc.—received 165 “yes” votes and 7 “no” votes.[2] That is, over 95 percent of voting states agree that Palestinians should have a state in this form; the dissenters are the usual rejectionists – Israel, the U.S., Australia, and a few Pacific Island nations. That a solution hasn’t been reached with such incredible unanimity is proof enough of the crippling effects of U.S.-Israeli intransigence.

Meanwhile, proponents of the Peace Process insist that unilateral action in Israel-Palestine affairs can only hinder the prospects for peace. The truth is that the Israeli camp has only practiced unilateralism. After all, did the Palestinians bilaterally agree to have their homes demolished,[3] their land illegally colonized[4], their resources stolen, [5] and their families beaten and harassed on a daily basis?[6] Certainly they didn’t have a say in Israel’s construction of an illegal annexation wall that separates farmers from their fields, students from their classrooms, and the sick from medical care.[7] Indeed, there is only one type of bilateralism that the Israeli government has communicated: agree to let us do whatever we want.

I support the most recent unilateral statehood bid by the Palestinian Authority in principle because it represents a break from the farcical American Peace Process. The bid gives the nations of the world a chance to stand against Israeli occupation, which hopefully can pressure and isolate Israel in the same way that Apartheid South Africa was in the late 80’s and early 90’s. In the end, however, this bid can’t have a real impact on the situation in Palestine, and I have plenty of reservations about it. Most notably, I believe there is a dangerous precedent in Mahmoud Abbas—who hasn’t been elected and represents no one—speaking on behalf of the Palestinians. A democratically elected leader must represent Palestine. The last time there were elections in Palestine, however, the U.S. and Israel punished the Palestinians for voting the wrong way in a free election. Thus U.S.-Israeli suppression of democracy must end as well, which includes unwavering support for Arab dictatorships like the Saudi and Jordanian kingdoms. Seeing that Israel isn’t likely to accede to such change voluntarily, it’s important for supporters of peace to practice targeted boycotts, divestments, and sanctions against Israel until it complies with international law and abandons its expansionist ambitions. If Israel truly wants peace and is serious about protecting its security, it should do one thing: end the occupation now. But as history has shown us, the Israeli government will ultimately choose expansion over peace—and then tell the world it wants to dialogue over whatever land it hasn’t already usurped.

The Israel-Palestine issue is not a conflict between two peoples who just don’t know how to share and get along. It is a struggle between poor and privileged, colonized and colonizer, occupied and occupier, victim and aggressor. Until this power structure changes, or a genuinely neutral party mediates the talks, the struggle will continue.