The Two-State Solution

In 1897, an organized Jewish nationalist movement known as “Zionism” was established. At the core of the Zionist ideology was the traditional aspiration for a Jewish national home through the re-establishment of Jewish sovereignty in Palestine with the founding of the State of Israel.

In 1917, the Balfour Declaration, was a public statement issued by the British Government during the First World War announcing its support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a small minority Jewish population.

In 1937, the first proposal for the creation of Jewish and Arab states in the British Mandate of Palestine was made in the ‘Peel Commission’ report, with the British Mandate continuing to cover only a small area containing Jerusalem.

While some argue that many in the British government at the time were Zionists themselves, others say the declaration was issued out of an anti-Semitic reasoning, that giving Palestine to the Jews would be a solution to the “Jewish problem” in Europe.

In 1944, before a ‘United States’ (US) House Committee, eminent Arab-American historian “Philip K. Hitti” gave testimony in support of the view that there was no historical justification for a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

In 1945, Philip served as adviser to the Arab States delegations, in particular to the Iraqi delegation at the San Francisco Conference, the initial meeting in which the ‘United Nations organization’ ?(UN) was established in 1946.

He was consultant to several government agencies, and was the first Lebanese-American witness at the ‘Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine’. “He... explained that there was actually no such entity as Palestine - never had been; it was historically part of Syria.”

Palestine was home to a diverse population of Arabs, Jews, and Christians, as all groups had religious ties to the area, especially the city of Jerusalem, before 1947.

In 1947, the question of Palestine was first brought before the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). By ‘resolution 181 (II)’, the Assembly decided to partition Palestine, which had been under British control for 25 years, into three parts: the 1st Arab; the 2nd Jewish; and 3rd being the city of Jerusalem, linked by extraterritorial crossroads, and placed under a special international regime. The resolution was adopted but not implemented.

The UN partition plan divided the land in such a way that each state would have a majority of its own population, although some Jewish settlements would fall within the proposed Palestinian state and many Palestinians would become part of the proposed Jewish state.

The partition plan was accepted by ‘Jewish Agency for Palestine’ (later renamed “Jewish Agency for Israel”) and most Zionist factions who viewed it as a stepping stone to territorial expansion at an opportune time.

The ‘Arab League’ and other Arab leaders and governments rejected it on the basis that Arabs formed a two-thirds majority and owned a majority of the lands. They also indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division, arguing that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN Charter. They announced their intention to take all necessary measures to prevent the implementation of the resolution.

In 1948, a first attempt at partitioning the land resulted in an ‘Israeli state’ but no ‘Palestinian state’, and the ‘West Bank’ and ‘Gaza Strip’ fell under Jordanian and Egyptian rule, respectively, subsequently, triggering the first Arab-Israeli war (1948-1949), which saw the expulsion and flight of most Palestinian Arabs, the establishment of Israel on most of the Mandate's territory, and the control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank by Egypt and Jordan, respectively.

In 1967, Israel annexed ‘East Jerusalem’ and gave its Arab inhabitants permanent residency status. They were also entitled to apply for Israeli citizenship.

In 1978, the Camp David Accords were signed between Israel and Egypt but did not include any Palestinian representation. The accords led to a 1979 peace treaty between the countries. The Camp David's "Framework for Peace in the Middle East" envisioned autonomy but not sovereignty for the local, and only for the local, (Palestinian) inhabitants of West Bank and Gaza. The autonomy plan would not be implemented, but its stipulations would to a large extent be represented in the Oslo Accords.

In 1980, domestically, Israel attempted to emphasize the status of East Jerusalem as part of Israel by its Jerusalem Law. A basic (quasi-constitutional) law enacted by the Knesset that "Jerusalem, complete and united" is the capital of Israel and the seat of the President, Knesset and Supreme Court.

In 1987, Palestinians living under Israeli rule began an uprising, known as the “first intifada” (uprising).

In 1990, a breakthrough agreement negotiated between Israeli and Palestinian leaders in Oslo, Norway, set out a process for a mutually negotiated two-state solution to be gradually implemented. Although the process showed initial promise and progress, a combination of dissatisfaction and distrust led to the breakdown and delay of the process.

In 1991, Israel accepted dialogue with the ‘Palestinian Liberation Organization’ (PLO) in Madrid, under intense pressure from the US.

In 1993, the two-state solution proposed by the Oslo Accords, based on ‘Resolution 242 and 338’ of the ‘United Nations Security Council’ (UNSC) was born out of a series of historical events. The two-state solution proposed framework for resolving the Israeli–Palestinian conflict centered-around the establishment of an independent State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel, in the region west of the Jordan River.

In 1998, five years after the Oslo Accords were signed and final status negotiations were supposed to take place, Israel and the PLO concluded the “Wye River Memorandum”. Under this agreement, Israel was to continue a partial withdrawal from the West Bank while the Palestinian Authority (PA) was to implement a crackdown on Palestinian violence. The agreement was suspended the following month.

In 2000, the UNSC ‘Resolution 1397’ agreed with support from the US and became the first UNSC resolution to agree on a two-state solution.

Objectors to a Palestinian right of return contend that such a right would destroy Israel as a Jewish state as it would leave Jews a minority in Israel. In a two-state solution framework, this would leave Israel as a bi-national state with a Jewish minority with an additional Palestinian state.

Although the right to return has a solid foundation in International Law. ‘Article 13(2)’ of the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ (UDHR) states, "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country".

In 2001, in the midst of the “second intifada”, negotiations stalled as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict reached one of its most violent periods.

In 2005, Israel’s government tried a new approach to the peace process by unilaterally dismantling Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip (along with four Jewish settlements in the West Bank) and withdrawing Israeli troops from the territory. Facing fierce opposition, especially within his own party, he formed a new party, Kadima, which was committed to the pursuit of a two-state solution.

In 2009, it was reported that although polls had consistently shown Israeli and Palestinian majorities in favor of a negotiated two-state settlement, there was "growing disillusionment" with a two-state solution.

Under pressure from the US, a freeze on settlements in the West Bank from 2009 to 2010 was to be imposed. But due to the freeze not being implemented for Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, which Israel insisted were not settlements, The PA refused to meet, and negotiations ceased.

Direct talks did not occur again until 2013–14. The talks fell apart after relations continued to falter and negotiators failed to make significant progress within the set timetable.

A 2021, survey of experts found that 52 percent believed that the two-state solution was no longer achievable. 77 percent believed that if not achieved, the result would be a "one-state reality akin to apartheid".

The major points of contention include the specific boundaries of the two states (though most proposals are based on the 1967 lines), the status of Jerusalem, the Israeli settlements and the right of return of Palestinian refugees.

Alternatives put forth through the years are, the binational “one-state solution”, which could either be a twin regime federalist arrangement or a unitary state; the “three-state solution” (also called the Egyptian–Jordanian solution or the Jordan–Egypt option), and the "no-state solution" (also known as the Alon plan).

The two-state solution was deemed the ‘least bad option’ to enable both Israelis and Palestinians to fulfil their political, civil and human rights. But, clearly, the solution could not be imposed on unwilling parties, with Israel's “clear and repeated rejection” of the two-State solution.

In light of such, many tend to agree that the two-state solution is no longer a possible option, …but how about a “confederacy in a unified state solution"?

?

Food for thought!