Two State Solution

Policy Recommendation: The Two-State Solution

The state of Israel, since its founding, has been at odds with its Arab neighbors.  The issue has only been exacerbated in the last few decades due to the internal crisis between the Palestinians and Israeli Jews.  Many solutions have been tossed around, though one has never been strongly pursued.  The solutions boil down to two: the one-state solution and two-state solution.  While both have drawbacks and advantages, this paper recommends the two-state solution as the desired course of action.  In fact, former Prime Minister and current President Shimon Peres once said, “A solution of two national states - a Jewish state, Israel; an Arab state, Palestine. The Palestinians are our closest neighbors. I believe they may become our closest friends.”  

 

 As mentioned above, the one-state solution and two-state solution are the two most tossed around solutions to the Palestinian-Israeli crisis.   The one-state solution is the call for there to be one, unified state.  According to “The One State Solution,” a 2007 signed statement supporting the one-state solution, “the international efforts to implement a two-state solution cannot conceal the fact that a [separate] Palestinian state is not viable, and that Palestinian and Israeli Jewish independence in separate states cannot resolve fundamental injustices, the acknowledgment and redress of which are at the core of any just solution.”  The statement’s main point boils down to the idea that the land of Palestine belongs to all who live in it, including those exiled, regardless of identifying features, be it religion or ethnicity.  Also added is the caveat that people of Palestinian descent are given the Right of Return, similar to those of Jewish descent (“The One State Solution”).  

The two state solution, on the other hand, calls for an Israeli state and a Palestinian state.  According to “What is the Two State Solution?” this was first proposed in the Peel Commission of 1937.  The Peel Commission called for two separate states, one Jewish state and one Arab state.  Today, the proponents of the two-state solution usually call for “borders ... based on pre-1967 lines with agreed land swaps allowing for each state to incorporate large population centers on the other side ... robust security arrangements, an agreed resolution for Palestinian refugees, compromises over Jerusalem, and mutual access to all holy sites” (“What is the Two State Solution?”).  

The two above proposals are the two main choices for Israelis and Palestinians to take.  Obviously, neither offers a perfect solution that will solve everything.  But, as mentioned at the beginning, this paper will support the two-state solution.  Although Israel and the Palestinian Authority have officially back this plan, neither side has made strong, overt efforts to pursue the two-state solution.  Both sides have made false promises and done things to alienate the other side.  Thus, this paper calls for a strict adherence to the implementation of the two-state solution.  

To best comprehend the two-state solution, it is important to understand the historical background of it.  As mentioned above, the Peel Commission of 1937 was the first official document that called for two separate entities.  According to “British Palestine Mandate: The Peel Commission,” after the civil strife of the mid 1930s, London authorized a commission to investigate the roots of the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Lord Robert Peel and his commission listened to testimony and eventually gave its recommendation of diminishing the British Mandate and and dividing the land between the Jews and Arabs.  Also included was a parcel of land from Jerusalem to Jaffa that would remain under the supervision of the British Mandate and the international community ( “British Palestine Mandate: The Peel Commission”).  Figure 1 illustrates what the land of Palestine would look like according to the Peel Commission.   

Ultimately, the Peel Commission came to nothing due to the Declaration of Independence and the withdrawal of the British.  According to, “Map of UN Partition Plan for Palestine - 1947,”   the next step to implement the two-state solution was the establishment of the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP).  Like the Peel Commission, the UN partition plan had a Jewish state, Arab state, and international zone (“Map of UN Partition Plan for Palestine - 1947”).  As seen in Figure 2, the plan created a checkerboard appearance that was, in reality, impossible to implement because of the hostilities between the Jews and Arabs.  “The Partition Plan: Background and Overview” adds that the plan was particularly impossible to implement because of the inability of Jews to reach Jerusalem.  Theoretically, they should have been able to enter into Jerusalem because it was neutral ground, but to reach the city, Jews would have to go through territory controlled by Arabs.  In addition, another negative of this plan was that most of the land given to the Jews was infertile and arid.  Not only were the Jews mostly given land unsuitable for agriculture, but what little good ground they got was settled by Arabs already (“The Partition Plan: Background and Overview”).     

The next milestone for the two-state solution is in recent history.  The biggest difference between the two-state solutions of the mid 1900s and today is that Israel has gained more territory through wars, mainly Jerusalem and the West Bank.  This makes the UN Partition Plan unviable, mostly because Israel will be unwilling to give up such large tracts of land.  However, in 2005, Israel did withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, ceding control of the land to the Palestinians.  According to Washington Post writer Jefferson Morley, the “Disengagement Plan” was put into action to “ increase security of residents of Israel, relieve pressure on the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and reduce friction between Israelis and Palestinians.”  This move was met with hostility from many Jews who believed that the Gaza Strip was part of Eretz Israel (Greater Israel) and was by divine intervention given to the Jews.  The withdrawal was also the first time since 1982, when Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula, that Israel has given territory to Arabs (Morley).  Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip is important to point out because it shows that there are some members of the Israeli government, in this case the late Ariel Sharon, that are willing to give up territory for the sake of peace.  

According to Senior Editor of the New Republic, John Judis, who outlined the United States’s probable outline of the two-state solution, “The agreement would permit between 75 and 80 percent of Israeli settlers in the West Bank through land swaps. What settlements would remain, and what Israel would cede was not discussed in the briefings [United States State Department briefing about ongoing plans to unveil strategy], but it’s likely that large settlements like Maale Adumim ... will become part of Israel.”  Also, a security zone on the Jordan River would be administered by Israeli security forces for about five years, before handing over the reigns to Palestinian security forces.  Palestinians would like this number to be closer to three years, while Israelis are in favor of ten years.  Arguably the most important part of the plan would be for Palestinians to recognize Israel as the nation of the Jews and for Israel to recognize Palestine as the nation of the Palestinian people.  The State Department is vague about one of the most important problems.  What will be done with Jerusalem?  This question is unanswered.  To truly move forward, this needs to be addressed.  However, at the end of the day, most of the State Department’s plans are still unknown because it it still an ongoing study and investigation (Judis).

There is strong support for the two-state solution, seeing as it is the most viable and both the Palestinians and Israelis will be able to get a nation for their people.  Journalist Adiv Sterman of The Times of Israel writes that in a late 2013 poll conducted by Hebrew University, a majority of Palestinians and Israelis are in agreement with two-state solution and believe it to be the best path to follow.  A little bit less than half of Israelis supported giving territory to the Palestinians in the West Bank in exchange for land in other parts claimed by the Palestinians.  More than half of Palestinians also agreed with these land swaps (Sterman).   Although the voices of the people are very important, those who are currently in power have more of a say.  They have the ability to actually pass legislation and pursue an agenda.  The BBC article “Guide to Israeli Political Parties” says that the Likud party, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has officially endorsed the two-state solution.  However, in the late 2000s, Likud led peace talks with the Palestinians stalled due to Netanyahu’s government’s support for the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.  So, while the current government supports the two-state solution, they are unable to actually accomplish anything.  The party most likely to affect any change with the peace talks is the Hatnua party led by Tzipi Livni.  Two of Livni’s previous positions were Foreign Minister and Chief Negotiator with the Palestinians, giving her an unique understanding of the situation at hand (“Guide to Israeli Political Parties”).

As far as the Palestinian leadership goes, Mahmoud Abbas, the current president of the Palestinian Authority, is in support of the two-state solution, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica.  In the last few years, Abbas has been focused on getting recognition from the international community for a Palestinian state.  He even went so far as to ask the United Nations Security Council for the admission of an independent Palestinian state.  Ultimately, the motion failed, but it does show the Abbas prefers the two-state solution over the one-state solution (“Mahmoud Abbas”).  The leadership of Hamas, on the other hand, the terroristic party in control of the Gaza Strip, is much less supportive of the two state solution.  In fact, according to Jerusalem Post writer Khaled Abu Toameh, Hamas recently said “it would never accept the two-state solution or give up ‘one inch of the land of Palestine.’”  In addition, like many other Arab countries,  Hamas refuses to recognize Israel as a legitimate nation (Abu Toameh).  This of course throws a wrench into any negotiations.  But there is hope, writes Haaretz, an Israeli news site.  The reconciliation agreement of Hamas and another Palestinian faction in April of 2014 was “is based on a two-state solution and recognizes the State of Israel.”  Whether or whether not Hamas will follow through with its new pledge is still unknown and it is still too early to tell (“PA official says Hamas accepted two-state solution”).

To even enter into negotiations again, there are many things the two parties must agree to.  Too many times, one side has left the table and the negotiations have fallen apart.  To fix this, this paper recommends that the following issues be dealt with before moving into full negotiations:

1. Recognition - The Palestinians must make a strong commitment to recognize the state of Israel as a legitimate state of Jews.  And vice versa, Israel must recognize Palestine as a legitimate state of Palestinians.  The two parties must be on equal ground.
2. Ceasefire - The two sides cannot be in the middle of an engagement while trying to negotiate.
3. Nobody is at fault - This crisis has been exacerbated by both parties.  Blaming each other solves nothing and will only makes things worse.  
4. Jerusalem - Currently, the question of what to do in regards to Jerusalem is at the heart of the issue.  Both sides claim Jerusalem as their capital.  Unless this issue is addressed straight away, the negotiations will fall apart, which is why this paper recommends that this be dealt with before moving into full negotiations.  If the two sides cannot figure this out, negotiations will never succeed.  

In conclusion, this paper is a recommendation for the Israelis and Palestinians to enter firm, strong negotiations focused on the two-state solution.  To do this, both sides must agree to four criterion based on the historical facts of the two-state solution and support for the plan.  At the end of the day though, the two-state solution is just one option for the feuding parties to choose from.  Whatever choice the Israelis and Palestinians take, it all depends on a firm, strong commitment to make peace.  Albert Einstein once said, “Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.” Indeed, the Israelis cannot just force the Palestinians to give up their grievances and the Palestinians cannot just force the Israelis to give them their own state.  By understanding each other and working together, the two sides will be able to come together and enter into negotiations with renewed purpose and vigour.