Part of what NCA tries to do in Palestine is to contribute to peacebuilding. Peacebuilding and nation-building are two different approaches that have things in common. They are not dependent on each other, but there is a possibility that with peace in the Palestinian society comes a better chance of building a nation. But what seems more reliable is that nation- building can speed up the process of peacebuilding. This is because a stable Palestinian nation-building could be less complex and more stable than the current situation. Successful nation-building can stabilize the society and reduce the potential for violence in fragile and fragmented societies (Hippler 2005, p. 183). Evidently, there is coherence between nation- building and peacebuilding, whereas successful nation-building relies on certain aspects from peacebuilding such as stability and peace. To a certain degree, peacebuilding relies on nation- building; it is arguably easier to promote peace when the Palestinians are gathered as one society. But in the end, nation-building will only be influential on peacebuilding when there is interdependence between the states involved (van Edig 2005, p. 153). Nation-building itself cannot bring about a peace solution, whereas peacebuilding depends on both Israel and Palestine to cooperate, and not just a stabilized Palestine.
Hippler’s argumentation is that imperial nation-building – nation-building done by foreigners is destructive for the process. This can of course be correct, and should be a concern for every foreign organization working with nation-building abroad. It is important to be aware of the consequences when working with nation-building. However, the position of the NCA seems to be in line with the political goals of the Palestinians:
Norwegian Church Aid position is they support the two-state solution. But this is only if the two sides want it. Because maybe two-state solution is not the solution. And this is the good thing about NCA – we will support what the people want (Daghash, interviewee).
The NCA’s modest approach to nation-building is appropriate – nation-building is not likely to prosper if it does not consider the local varieties. Reapplying former models of nation- building to the Palestinian society can turn out wrong (Hippler 2005, p. 184). Instead, it is better to connect nation-building with the local varieties. The NCA are concerned with strengthening the local civil society organizations.
For Palestine to be considered an independent nation by international standards, it would have to separate from Israel, and we would have a two-state solution. This solution is part of the current political agenda for Israel and Palestine. The NCA has explicitly said that they do not want to strive for a two-state solution if the Palestinians do not want this solution. But it is difficult to see a Palestinian nation prosper without being independent from Israel. So to a certain level, there is a symbiotic relationship between nation-building and the two-state solution. The findings provide clear evidence that the two-state solution is an element of uncertainty within the Palestinian society. This could be an issue for the NCA, inasmuch as they take into consideration the solution the Palestinian people want:
It was possible, but now the Palestinian people I think they’re leaning towards: “Ok, it’s our land. No two-state solution. We don’t have money, we don’t have a state, we’re killed anyway. So all the land, no two-state solution” (Daghash, interviewee).
What this extract shows, is that working towards a two-state solution is difficult, because the political climate in Palestine and Israel is inconstant.
6.1.3 Approaching decision-makers as a means for development
Part of what nation-building involves, is a stable and just government. And being able as a citizen to influence on the government is important for a democracy. However, this is not easy in either Palestine, or Israel. The two governments seems almost impossible to communicate with, and even less possible to influence:
Here in this context it’s very hard to say that we are influencing decision-makers like Israel, because they are a strong state with their own agenda (Daghash, interviewee).
Another employee at the NCA gave almost the same answer, but added that the NCA is indirectly an influential force through its partner-organizations. Like Næss-Holm said, they
are primarily focused on the civil society, and the grass-root level. This is clearly a bottom-up approach, and is a part of the NCA strategy to strengthen the civil society. Næss-Holm stated in the interview, that a solution to the conflict is a matter for politics. A political solution can provide stability to the context, which will help the nation-building. There are limitations to being a rather small organization in a complex context. And a faith-based organization by itself cannot complete nation-building. Being part of networks and alliances such as the ACT Alliance can make it easier to communicate with Israeli and Palestinian politicians. But the findings showed that there is little use trying to influence the governments with the networks the NCA are part of. This is an issue. Because the efficiency of the NCA’s nation-building work is to some extent affected by political restrictions. A solution would be to create a solid mandate for the networks to influence the Israeli and Palestinian governments, preferably through EU-networks.