Dear members of the Atlantic Community, we are interested to hear your opinion: which solution for the Middle East conflict should be envisaged?
1) The one-state-solution
Facts on the ground speak for this solution: Israel and the West Bank grow together. In everyday life, the one-state-solution is nearly implemented. Large parts of the West Bank are covered by more or less illegal Israeli settlements. Israeli industry and the Palestinian workforce need each other, and the deep wells into the aquifers of the West Bank are an integral part of the Israeli water supply. But if the Palestinians received Israeli citizenship, Jews would become a minority. Could Jews, like South Africans at the end of the Apartheid, hope to be accepted by the Palestinian majority? In any case, it is very unlikely that special features of the Israeli state could persist, e.g. that persons of Jewish faith automatically attain citizenship and the right of immigration. The return of Palestinian refugees would also remain problematic.
Arguments about a one-state solution can be found, for instance, here.
2) The two-state-solution
This solution was unilaterally implemented by Israel after the failure of the peace talks in 2001. It attempts to create a Palestinian "state" with little control over its affairs. Regarding the economy, services, basic supplies, and security, a Palestinian state would be 100% dependant on Israel. Palestinian citizenship would allow for the preservation of the Israeli state in its current form, while everyday life would approach the same conditions as those under a one-state-solution. Some refugees might return to the Palestinian-controlled areas. The unilateral imposition of the two-state-solution was probably conducted in the hope that the Palestinians would at some time accept the facts on the ground. However, it resulted in radicalization and the election of Hamas. With this unsurprising but uncomfortable result, Israel has no legitimate negotiation partner anymore. If you support the two-state-solution, please specify whether you think:
2.1) The two-state-solution should be negotiated with President Mahmoud Abbas only, which means a violation of the democratic principle, and that Hamas might have to be defeated in a civil war if the treaty is to be implemented.
2.2) Negotiations should involve Hamas even if it does not change its charter calling for the destruction of Israel.
Arguments about a two-state solution can be found, for instance, here
3) The three-state-solution
Former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton proposed that the Palestinian territories should be added to the neighboring Arab states, which would mean Gaza becoming a part of Egypt and the West Bank a part of Jordan. In essence, this would mean going back to the pre-1967 situation, which is a core demand of all Arab countries. A three-state-solution would partly reverse Israel’s gains of the 1967 war: the West Bank settlements and the “separation wall” would probably have to be removed, the deep wells given to Jordanian control, and it is likely that the old town of Jerusalem would have to be ceded. Millions of Palestinian refugees could return. However, if the three-state-solution does not lead to a regional, long-term pacification, the loss of the West Bank would weaken Israel’s strategic position. Therefore it is likely that Israel might accept this solution only for Gaza, which has nothing to offer but is costly to control. But it is unlikely that Egypt would accept the role of policing Gaza if no similar steps are undertaken in the West Bank. The three-state-solution would bury the idea of a Palestinian nationality and strengthen Pan-Arabism, which is not necessarily in the interest of western powers.
Arguments about a three-state solution can be found, for instance, here
4) Do nothing
One may say that it is not the duty of the international community to solve the problems of the Israelis and Palestinians.
Please give your opinions on the options for a medium-term peace plan, by giving your support to one of the options, or by offering your own, in the comment field below. Your suggestions and opinions will be distilled into an Atlantic Memo.
Photo by David Shankbone under GNU license.
- 14
March 2, 2009
Member deleted
While the one-state solution satisfies the demands of Palestinians through self-determination and integration into a democratic system the three-state solution satisfies Israel’s security concerns as Egypt and Jordan witnessed to be capable in keeping borders safe.
But both solutions cannot be a focal point/equilibrium as Jordan, already anticipating social instability that could arise out of imbalance in national identities among its people, would percept the three-state solution as harassment against their national integrity and Israel assessing a one-state solution as death of the Zionist vision that is still prevalent and fundamental for Jewish-Israeli self-perception.
So both “extreme solutions” appear as a “no-go” but reach out with two highly important implications thus self-determination of Palestinians and security.
The two-state solution appears to be the only realistic under the precondition of dismantled settlements and withdrawal of any virtual and real presence of Israel in the West-Bank and Gaza. A moral basis and rational mind forbids subjecting Palestinians to perceivable Zionist presence after 40 years of occupation.
The two-state solution offers Arab recognition to Israel under a quasi 67 agreements if Palestinians agree to and self-determination to Palestinians.
Arab states could contribute to this solution by helping out with security support flagged under a UN mission as Mr. Abbas demanded during his latest address to the EU-parliament. Hurdles for the two-state solution are two obstacles, thus Palestinian disunity and Israeli settlement activity for the first and foremost. As Palestinian unity talks appear promising the settlements are to be dismantled yet.
If the two-state solution fails and Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinians cannot be convinced to implement the three-state solution, Israel and Palestine face the “Apartheid” - solution that would be equal to “doing nothing”!? So I would like to raise one question: Do we have the capability and realistic triggers in order to implement the one- or three-state solution?
By the way the “Apartheid” – solution would likely lead to the one-state solution after another 60 years and pan-Arabism is far less dangerous than pan-Islamism that emerges out of the will to revenge colonialism and Israeli occupation, isn’t it?