I’m going to get around to answering the question, but first I would like to share a story. A few weeks ago, I was sitting in the study room of a library at my college and was joined by a friend of mine. This friend is Palestinian. We catch up a bit, talk about what has been in the news lately, and soon enough, get to discussing the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. It’s funny how it always seeps its way into conversations, isn’t it?

Forty-five minutes later, forty-five minutes during which I should have been studying, we were no closer to agreeing with each other. You maybe would have guessed that result from the beginning. My friend and I could not agree on when the conflict had started, how it has developed since then, and who is prolonging it now. I point to the justification of violence within Palestinian culture and my friend sees a lack of empathy on the part of Israeli leaders.

But nonetheless, we agree that no matter how much we disagree on the past, we share a future. We agree that Israelis and Palestinians are two peoples destined to share a land.

This is the sort of “agreement” that we should be pushing for today. It is an acknowledgement of the other side’s existence. It is a display of belief that any solution should not lead to a victor and a loser, but only more freedom for both sides. The details of borders, land-swaps, and security presence are nothing without this acknowledgement.

That is why any attempt by foreign bodies to force a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would fail. The conflict is about the ability of Israelis and Palestinians to cooperate, not whether the United States, France, England, or any other member of the United Nations can come to an agreement. It is natural that foreign countries with no emotional attachment to the land would have an easier time resolving the conflict, but that is exactly why their intervention is irrelevant. Sweden choosing to recognize a Palestinian state does not lead to any tangible freedoms for Palestinians, nor does it assure the security of Israeli civilians.

Jordan submitted a proposal to the U.N. Security Council this week that would force a two-state solution by 2017 based on pre-1967 borders, with limited land swaps, a divided Jerusalem, a solution for Palestinian refugees, and foreign security presence. Now I don’t think anybody on the Security Council would object to such a deal. Many Israelis and Palestinians would approve of this solution. Heck, some on the Change the Brand staff wouldn’t mind. But then why was even Jordan so reluctant to submit the proposal? Reluctant to the point that their U.N. diplomats had to be “shoved out the door” by the other Arab nations to go and submit it.

It’s because this conflict does not belong to the United Nations Security Council. I’m especially sorry for those in Europe who seem so vehemently attached, but it is not your conflict. Any resolution that gives zero mention to Jewish self-determination has failed to address the emotion behind the issue. The idea that the conflict can be solved in New York or Brussels bypasses the autonomy of the indigenous peoples that are involved.

Israelis and Palestinians must take ownership of the conflict. That is what I did with my friend in the library study room and that is what Kevin, also on the CTB staff, did with a fellow student at a coffee shop. Political maneuvering in the U.N. will have no impact on Israelis afraid of taking busses or Palestinians waiting in line at a checkpoint. A solution will only come through mutual recognition. That is how we change the brand, by addressing the issues head-on and giving a voice to the personal connections that shape Israel.