Establishment of a Palestinian state with definite borders has been a subject of debate for a long time since they missed their chance in 1948, which resulted in lots of bloodshed. Now peace process is still going on.
I think that most Palestinians would opt for a 1 bi-national state solution, in order to prevent any further conflicts between states as the civilian Palestinians are the ones who suffer the most casualties from the war. Adding to that, the Human Development Index and the standards of living in Palestine (especially in Gaza) are depressingly bad, and for most Palestinians it would be a reward to become a citizen of a Developed Country with high education and sanitation standards.
For Israelis, most of them would opt for a 2 state solution, as they fear the Palestinians from what they see from the Western-ruled media, which is unarguably moderately (at least) biased. Moreover, a 2 state solution would mean the preservation of the Jewish identity of Israel. In addition to that, they would feel much more comfortable and safe in a Jewish-majority country. Current Arab percentage of Israel’s total population is already over %20 percent and this is a concern since Arabs have high fertility rates. As it might a surprise to you right now this is why many Ultranationalist Jews don’t want the annexation of Arab-majority lands as they will increase the number of Arabs in Israel…
Which solution do you think is the “right one”? Is there a perfect solution, is any of them the right one?
What would you think about the solution if you were Israeli and what would you want to have if you were Palestinian.
Do you think any of these solutions are feasible and how do you think if a solution was to be reached would impact the Israeli-Arab relations(Like in my opinion, Lebanon and Israel would sign a peace treaty just as Egypt and Jordan did with Israel in 1979 and 1994 respectively.).
Israel now has a(nother) hostile independent state on its borders, almost certainly one with a real army instead of some rag-tag terrorists and such.
Israeli settlements in the West Bank would have to be evacuated, as the IDF can no longer guarantee the settlers’ safety, because if it does how is Palestine really independent? And there are about 500,000 settlers.
Except perhaps for those settlements east of the Green Line and west of the Wall – which was built to defend the settlements but now looks like a claim staked to keep them in Israel forever – and it’s hard to see how Palestine would be economically viable without that territory.
Palestine would include two non-contiguous territories, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; free passage across the Israeli territory between them would be a political problem for, well, ever.
Problems with a one-state solution:
Two ethnic groups that have been at each other’s throats for decades now have to share the same land, state and society. Ain’t gonna be easy.
Jews in a united Israel/Palestine would still outnumber Palestinians – but not by much, and possibly not for much longer. Once the Pals have a majority, can Israel really be a “Jewish state” any more?
Palestinians would aggravate the above by demanding their own “Law of Return” allowing Palestinian refugees (or their descendants) all over the MENA and all over the world to emigrate to Israel/Palestine.
Problems with an indefinite continuation of the status quo:
Too well-known to require enumeration.
Isn’t a two state solution (in one form or another) the only one that people are realistically talking about? I thought that a one-state solution had pretty much been discarded by this point.
Ultimately I think there must be a two state solution, with Jerusalem ruled in part by a coalition with small areas controlled exclusively by one major religion.
Calling the “one state solution” a solution is like calling a party for your hundredth birthday a cure for cancer. If the Palestinian territories can ever be integrated into Israel, it can only happen after the Palestinians reject the tactics of kidnapping and murder that make keeping Hamas at arm’s length a necessity, and enough time has passed to give any reason to believe that this isn’t just another ceasefire to be broken once they think they’ve wrung all the advantage they can out of it.
My thinking is with the building of walls, blockade of Gaza and ongoing growth of settlements in the West Bank that there are certainly Israeli policy makers who are thinking a one state solution is the realistic way to go- even if they aren’t talking about it.
Israel has a vaguely stable peace with Egypt, and Jordan is also not overtly hostile. If they can live with Syria as a neighbor, they certainly can live with Palestine as one.
The IDF can always step in to protect Palestinian Jews who come under attack. This might be said to impugn Palestine’s independence, but, if you really want to insist on military autonomy as a precondition for independence, then Canada is not an independent nation, as the U.S. could invade it and conquer it in minutes flat. Israel would always have a de facto right of intervention, just as all other powerful countries have.
This is a killer. The settlers would not be willing to move out, and Israel would not be willing to forcibly relocate them. The settled areas are a problem that simply cannot be dealt with. Neither side will cede them.
This, too, is bad, but not necessarily a killer. There are other non-contiguous states, and, while there are problems, they can be coped with. Likely as not, a Gaza to West Bank highway zone would be created. If we’re very lucky, it would be a “silk road” trade route, generating revenue for all. Gas stations and strip malls. If we’re very unlucky…we fall back to the status quo.
That’s the only comforting thing about all of this: we’re already in the worst possible situation. It can only get better! So, let’s try a few ideas out in practice.
The two state solution is the one that people think Israel is more likely to accept but the one state solution is still the preferred solution for some groups (IIRC some Hamas folks have said they would cease all hostilities for a one state solution because they think it will eventually lead to an Islamic state, Hamas is really no better than the Zionists, some people even argue that they are worse;)).
WRT to Egypt, the Sinai is demilitarized, and the Negev desert provides an additional barrier between Egypt and Israel’s major population centers (Tel Aviv and Jerusalem). Jordan is largely blocked off by the West Bank to the north and the Negev to the south.
With an independent Palestine, Israel’s capital would be bordering a hostile foreign nation, a situation not seen since (to the best of my knowledge) the American civil war. You can’t just wave this problem away.
I think the two state solution is the best solution. But I’m not a Palestinian or an Israeli. The question is whether both sides agree that two states are the best solution.
And I don’t think that agreement is there. I may be biased (although I don’t think so) but I feel the Israelis would be willing to accept the existence of two states. However, I don’t think the Palestinians would. If Palestine had its own state, even with full national status and sovereignty, I don’t think they would accept that as enough. The Palestinians do not want just a Palestinian state that coexists with Israel - they want it all. They want all of the territory that is Israel to be part of Palestine. In this scenario, the establishment of a full Palestinian nation alongside Israel would just be a prelude to a war where Palestine attempted to conquer Israel. I feel this is a realistic scenario based on Palestinian declarations and Palestinian actions.
From the Israel side, this presents a clear principle on how they should deal with Palestinians. Why give the Palestinians anything when it will not result in peace and will only be used as an advantage in fighting against Israel?
Another, more recent historical example might be WWI, when Constantinople, the Turkish capital, was very close to the Greek frontier. London is also not very far from France, and was put to some punishment in WWII.
Mere proximity isn’t that much of an issue, given how small Israel is. The entirety of the country is inside trivial airstrike range of any modern fighter-bomber.
In a two-state situation, if Palestine militarizes the border, Israel will simply roll in and stop them, just as they are doing now with Gaza. It’s an absurdity, because it would serve no one’s rational purposes.
The two-state approach is only worthwhile if it is, in fact, a solution. It can only come about if the Palestinian negotiators agree to Israel’s right to exist. There will be provisions for non-militarized border regions.
I’m not really “waving anything away.” It won’t be easy, and it will require both sides to negotiate in good faith. The breakdown of that good faith should not automatically be assumed.
I think proximity would still be an issue. There’s a distinct difference between a cheapo rocket being able to hit you and a bomber squad but it’s not just the strict military threat but the political pressure of any threat.
Don’t conflate the regular Palestinians with Hamas. The Palestinians do not use kidnapping and murder as a political tool, Hamas does. Hamas is at fault, not the Palestinians, though they did vote them in. Poor, desperate people do that sometimes but that doesn’t make them murderers.