What are the realistic possible solutions to the Israel-Palestine conflict? Do Hamas want a two-state solution or One state solution?
In my previous article way long back, I discussed the #FreePalestine Movement from a different perspective. In this short article, I will discuss possible solutions to this problem.
To comprehend conflict resolution concepts, we must examine their conflict history, cultural background, win-win solutions, and ideas. Of course, we cannot approach this topic from a religious or political perspective because it involves two populations and cultures. Yes, I understand that people have different thoughts and perspectives on this sensitive topic than me, and I respect your individual opinions. All I'm saying at the beginning of this article is that we need to think beyond religious, ethnic, and political prejudices in order to find solutions to ongoing larger conflicts.
This topic requires good critical thinking skills, so let me express some logical arguments here.
My Key Observations:
· All Middle East populations are not ethnically Arabs.
· Arabs and Jews are cousins based on Biblical references and DNA studies.
· All Palestinians are not ethnically Arabs even though majority speak Arabic language.
· Israel-Palestinian conflict is more of religious, cultural conflict as well as ethnical one.
· Iran supports the Palestinians because there are a large number of Palestinians are ethnically Persians.
· Anti-Semitism could be the root cause of hate towards Jewish people due to ethnic, cultural and religious differences.
· Arabs are not interested in supporting Palestinians because of many reasons.
· Israel-Palestine conflict must be considered a regional conflict. It’s not a global religious problem. Ethnicities except Jews, Arabs, Palestinian populations don’t have valid rights to interfere in this. It’s between them.
One-State Solution:
The one-state solution is a proposed approach to resolving the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, according to which one state would be established between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean. Proponents of this solution advocate a single state in Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Those who support a one-state solution generally see separating Israelis and Palestinians into two states as just too hard. The populations are too intertwined, and reaching agreement on things like borders and Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees is too complicated.
Yet, many Israelis unfavorably view a one-state solution as one that would destroy the state’s Jewish character and undermine the security of Israel. Granting citizenship to all Palestinians would render Jews a minority and essentially eliminate the world’s only Jewish state. Plus, a one-state solution still comes with logistical problems of its own, not the least of which is who would keep the peace between two peoples who have been at war for more than a half-century.
Two State Solution:
The two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict envisions an independent State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel, west of the Jordan River.
Since the latest conflict began, Hamas leaders have taken a harder line in public, now explicitly calling for the destruction of Israel (and therefore openly rejecting a two — state solution).
But the devil is in the details. Where would the borders be between these states? What would happen to Jerusalem, a city important to both peoples? What about all the Jewish settlements in the West Bank? What about Palestinian refugees?
Are there other proposals that don’t fall under one-state vs. two-state?
Confederation: Basically, think of Israel and Palestine as sort of a mini-European Union. Each side would have its own government, but would work together on resources, security, and economic issues. There would be free movement and even residency between the two states, but citizens on each side could only vote in their own elections.
Autonomy-Plus: Naftali Bennett, a right-wing Israeli politician, calls for “upgrading” Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank in the areas already under Palestinian control. The Palestinians would hold their own elections and maintain their own schools and services, but would not control their own borders and would not be allowed to have a military. Israel would also annex West Bank territory already under its control. Palestinians consider this deal a non-starter.
Federation: This variant on the one-state solution applies Israeli law to the entire West Bank and gives full citizenship and voting rights to all the Palestinians living there. However, the resultant country would be divided up into smaller provinces or cantons in ways calculated to maintain a Jewish political majority (think gerrymandering).
Expulsion: Some on Israel’s far-right have insisted the only solution is to expel or “transfer” Palestinians from the entire West Bank. The idea horrifies most Jews and Arabs alike, who consider it nothing less than ethnic cleansing, even if it could somehow be carried out without bloodshed.
Now, My Genuine Concerns and Arguments:
If One-state solution is more practical, can we ensure an internal civil war in future between Palestinians and Jewish people won’t happen?
If Jews become a minority in a One-State solution in the future, there may be another Zionist uprising, which could lead to civil war.
Zionism is an ideology that promotes Jewish statehood; it’s the liberation movement of the Jewish people. For Zionists, Judaism isn’t merely a religion, it’s a nationality. The establishment of the State of Israel was the realization of the Zionist dream of a Jewish state that would enable Jews to live freely and safely. A one-state solution is incompatible with Zionism because Israel would cease to be a Jewish state. It would become, instead, a binational state in which Jews would likely become the minority.
领英推荐
Suppose Palestinians are oppressed again in a One-Solution future, there will be another Intifada for Palestinian identity, leading to a civil war. Will Muslims and Christians enjoy equal political and individual rights?
Israel currently has a democratic form of parliamentary government, which I believe will strengthen in the future as it accommodates civil liberties and individualistic values.
If Two-State solution is more practical, can we ensure there will be peace between both the states after formation of Palestine? Will two-state solution could lead to an Islamic state of Palestine in the future?
You must refer to the conflicts that arose as a result of the British empire’s withdrawal from colonized countries.
· Pakistan-Afghanistan and the Disputed Durand Line
· British conquest of Arakan — present day Rakhine in western Myanmar
· The Cyprus Dispute between Turkey and Greece
· Indian Communalism and the Policy of Divide and Rule — Birth of Pakistan and India
· North Borneo and the Interpretation of ‘Pajak’ — between Malaysia and Philippines is over the state of Sabah.
· India, China and the McMahon ‘Lie’
I’ll give the example of the formation of India and Pakistan. This is a clear example of a two-state solution. What’s the outcome? They are both fighting each other, engaging in proxy wars, and are dissatisfied with their current state of peace.
The same thing will happen to Israel and Palestine if the two-state solution is implemented; they will continue to engage in annual proxy wars and be unhappy with each other’s progress. Because these people think as a tribe (Kaum) rather than as individuals.
The Western world is unaware of the level of tribalism that exists in these collectivist societies. The Western world has primarily moved toward individualistic culture, whereas the rest of the world has not evolved into individualism at all. So, given their cultural histories and community cultures, the Western solution of two states is not long-term viable.
So, WHAT’S MY WHOLE POINT?
Aside from historical claims and conflict records, let us compare and understand which solution is the best way to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. It is not in my hands or yours to decide whether or not it will happen.
I will definitely consider the cultural history and degree of tribalism present in these societies when comparing and making opinions about practical solutions. Tribal societies generally take too long to transition to democracy and an individualistic social order.
Given the current situation, I believe a two-state solution is a non-sense approach because both groups will engage in annual border wars and proxy conflicts, just like India and Pakistan.
A one-state solution appears more practical to me, given that all citizens have equal political and civil rights. Again, it will compromise the very root character of Zionism and Israel as a Jewish nation. However, in the long run, the one state solution is better than the two-state approach.
I personally want peace to be restored and Palestinians to have a better future, rather than being stuck in a war-torn situation.
Autonomy plus is also a real practical choice, a Palestinian “state-minus, autonomy-plus” solution in the West Bank, with Israel preserving its total security control over the West Bank and the Jordan River. This is similar to Kashmir, Kurdistan, Crimea, and Chechnya. Palestinians can establish their own internal administration within the Israeli political system and federal security.
Anyway, I expressed my critical thinking and opinions about possible solutions in this article. I’ll leave this up to the readers, as everyone has their own opinions.
Thank you for reading; Have a great time, friends!
.
References:
(PDF) The 21st Century Israel-Palestine Conflict Over Jerusalem and its Peace Processes (researchgate.net)