Israeli-Palestianian Conflict: A Three State Solution
It is often cited as the most helpless situation in the international community, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Every major accord, summit, parameter, and initiative has wound up failing. Although some of the peace talks have accomplished a few notable things and served as a conduit to facilitate open discussions between the two parties, the end result has always been one of the parties walking away from the negotiating table in frustration. The question that inevitably dooms the peace talks to failure is whether or not there should be a single-state or two-state solution — the proverbial Palestinian question. Both of the proposed solutions doom every peace initiative to failure because of their inherently fallible facets.
The single-state solution proposes one unified Jewish-Arab state with Arab and Jewish inhabitants having citizenship and equal rights in the combined entity. Sadly, the single-state solution is a political non-starter. If the Palestinian states (the Gaza Strip and the West Bank) were annexed into Israel the ratio of Palestinians to Jews will be nearly 1:1. The population of the Jews and Arabs would both equal roughly 5.4 million. However, one often overlooked statistic is the population growth rates. Palestinian Arabs have a growth rate of about 3% and Arab Israelis about 2.5%. The Jewish Israeli growth rate is a dismal 1.4%, when compared to that of their Arab compatriots and surrounding Arab neighbors. The notion that Jews would be outnumbered by Arabs is a frightening thought to Jewish politicians and diplomats, because it reverses years of Jewish population control. Jews will not even consider becoming a minority in Israel, a state they have fought to preserve and expand over the last 60 years. This doesn’t even account for the Palestinian Diaspora, 5 million Palestinians worldwide (another 5 million Arabs!). And with the right of return a key issue for many Palestinians, the prospect of a single, ethnically mixed state has very little, if any, chance at success.
A two-state solution sounds more workable than a one-state solution, but when it is put under any scrutiny it crumbles under political impossibility. If the Palestinians are to have their own state, it is assumed that both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank will be combined to form a contiguous Palestinian state. This presents a major issue. If the Gaza Strip and the West Bank merge together it will effectively create a noncontiguous Israel — Israel will be cut into two separate land masses. The prospect of a contiguous Palestinian state is, again, a political non-starter and is enough to thwart any peace deal in the making. Are you beginning to see the hopeless trend?
The single-sate and two-state solutions don’t work and the continued push for one or the other is both politically and demographically inane. The solution that I feel could provide a real groundwork to negotiate from is the Three-State Solution. An international tribunal would mediate between representatives from the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and Israel in the creation of a Gaza and a West Bank. This solution circumvents the Jewish fears of becoming outnumbered, and the geo-political impossibility of cutting Israel into a noncontiguous state.
What this solution also does is recognize that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are two very different territories, politically speaking, an aspect almost always overlooked. The Gaza Strip is run by Hamas and politicians like Khamel Mashaal, while the West Bank is run by Fatah and leader Mahmoud Abbas. Hamas is a militant sect of the PLO. Fatah is a left-center PLO political organization. To assume that both of these groups have the same objectives in mind is to be blind of political realities.
A three-state solution also provides the international community, especially Israel, with a unique opportunity to seek negotiations to end Hama’s terrorist agenda. The Gazans elected Hamas, an organization listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. and Israel, because peaceful negotiations were failing and conditions in the Gaza Strip were only getting worse (and still are getting worse). If Hamas were given political recognition and brought to the negotiating table with the knowledge that the Gaza Strip will be a sovereign state, Hamas would be much more willing to compromise on other issues of importance. Israel and the U.S. must work with Hamas, to ignore them is politically derisive and does nothing more but to fuel further hatred and enmity between the Arabs and the Jews and the Arabs and the West.
Once the boundaries of the three states are demarcated, negotiation over issues like right of return, access to the Temple Mount, West Bank settlements, and control over Jerusalem will be politically possible. Over the last 60 years the struggle between Arab and Jew, Israel and Palestine has costs many lives and has caused great malaise to regional stability. If a more practical solution is adopted, the situation could finally begin to improve and perhaps not appear so hopeless. Give people hope and the the possibilities are endless.
I think I agree with you that a 3 state solution has the highest probability for long-term stability. I am still skeptical about the Palestinians’ willingness to split up into two separate states, though. While Gaza and the West Bank are different politically, I think the populations in each tend to identify with the larger group of “Palestinians” more than they do as “Gazans” or “West Bankians.” This of course dates back to the time before Israel was created and expanded, separating the Palestinians into separate areas.
Although the one state solution may seem dead in the water, it really is the only way to ensure the rights of all the people as well as the security. Israel has to come to terms with its actions and except the results of democracy instead of continually trying to ethnically cleanse themselves of the Arab Israeli population
That is an excellent point, my friend, and it was something that I gave a considerable amount of contemplation while writing this post. Are the social structures of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip that much identical that they would be unwilling to separate from each other? It’s hard to say for sure, but I think for one to look at their political leanings will help to give a reasonable answer to this vital question. The Palestinians who live in the Gaza Strip support the militant political party Hamas, whilst the Palestinians in the West Bank support the more peaceful, left-center political party Fatah.
If their social structures were closely related wouldn’t they be more homogeneous, politically speaking? I thought so, and I think that the Palestinian peoples would be willing to split into two states, if it means the international recognition of a struggle more than half-a-century old. That, and I just don’t think there’s another politically viable solution out there, do you?
It simply isn’t realistic for one government to control two regions separated by a hostile nation. That is the flaw. Israel needs to take the South African high road.
Hey Edmund, welcome to the blog, we’re glad you’re here!
“Although the one state solution may seem dead in the water, it really is the only way to ensure the rights of all the people as well as the security.”
This may have a bit of truth to it, but I still don’t think it’s politically possible, which leads me to disagree with your second statment that “Israel has to come to terms with its actions and [accept] the results of democracy instead of continually trying to ethnically cleanse themselves of the Arab Israeli population.”
I think its still the primary objective of many center-right, Likud members to marginalize the Arab population in the state of Israel and in the Palestinian territories. If it wasn’t, then why does Israel continue to expand into the West Bank and impose such harsh measure on the Gaza Strip. They don’t want a multiehnic democracy, they want domination.
This conflict is historic and its roots run deep into the socio-religious makeup of the region. The enmity that exits between Arabs and Jews is unfortunate. I just don’t see any way that a Jew would ever accept an Arab leader, do you?
“It simply isn’t realistic for one government to control two regions separated by a hostile nation. That is the flaw.”
Obviously, one government wouldn’t control two regions. Since each would be their own state, they would subsequently elect their own respective governments. One presumably lead by Hamas and the other by Fatah.
However, you do bring up a potential solution: two Palestinian states under a Palestinian Authority Confederation, lead by Mahmoud Abbas.
“the South African highroad.”
Does that mean a one state solution? Unless they have Apartheid like South Africa, there’s no way Israel is going to go for it.
Would you argue that the West Bank is not just a system of Bantustans where the ethnic groups are held without political representation. I would. Many prominent South Africans do as well.
Sure, you could make that argument. But, you see, the white, Anglo population of South Africa was always the minority and had adjusted their rule to accommodate for that fact.
Jews, on the other hand, have been the majority population since Israel declared independence in 1948 and has ran their domestic policy accordingly. I cannot see the Jews allowing themselves to become the Israeli state minority, under a unified state.
But, Edmund, assuming a unified-state solution is agreed upon. What should be the response to the “right of return” question?
I agree with David in that I am really skeptical that Palestinians would ever agree to two separate states. I think that relying purely on their political leanings without taking into account family ties, nationalism, and a sense of history is a little bit like looking at the American Democratic and Republican parties and deciding to split the country accordingly.
Opposing views between Palestinian government leaders is what would keep them honest, if it were a single state. Compromise builds trust, and tearing nations apart breeds distrust and sectarian violence.
I like the Palestinian Authority Confederation idea, myself. Although I have no idea what to do with the “right of return.” I think that in that latter failing, I’m in good company with the world’s finest diplomatic minds.
It seems that the only way the Palestinians could be one Palestinian state would be under a PA Confederation, which isn’t that much different from a three state solution, since technically the states are semi-sovereign.
So, the real question is how much different are the populations of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, if different at all, socially speaking?
Know any Palestinians we could ask?
You could ask me.
They are different in class. People who live in Gaza are like the poor in big city ghettoes where people in the West Bank are like the poor who live out in the country. Politically people in Gaza have been subjugated to more abuse, so they have a higher rate of reactionary policies and ideologies compared to the West Bank. Socially they are one people. If anything there is a disconnect between those who became fled to other nations and those who stayed in the region (1947 borders).
As far as the right of return. It should be offered but I doubt any more than 20% of the refugees would take it because we are 1- 2 generations removed. I personally would not go to live but I would be a frequent visitor. The UN states that refugees of war and political prosecution are guaranteed the right to return to their place of origin.
An apology by Israel (similar to the Australian and American apologies) to the ‘aboriginal’ people would go a long way.
That makes sense that second and third generation refugees who immigrated to places like America would be less interested in the right of return. However, there is a huge population of refugees who are in neighboring countries, most of whom are not living in conditions comparable to the typical Palestinian-American experience (one would imagine, anyway).
This is what the UN estimates the refugee population to be in neighboring countries:
Jordan 1,827,877 refugees
Gaza 986,034 refugees
West Bank 699,817 refugees
Syria 432,048 refugees
Lebanon 404,170 refugees
Saudi Arabia 240,000 refugees
Egypt 70,245 refugees
Maybe 1 in 5 Palestinian-Americans and British Palestinians would return if they had that right, but there is no way that only 1 in 5 of the refugee populations listed above would stay in those neighboring countries.
And that is a lot of people to be returning.
Personally, I like the 2003 Geneva Accords. It gives incentives to both the Israelis and the Palestinians, as well as stipulating certain concessions. Israel would have to withdrawal most of their West Bank settlements, in return for Palestine giving up the “right of return” demand. Furthermore, it doesn’t stipulate a contiguous Palestinian state, which is simply a political non-starter, and any peace initiatives that leave that critical issue up to ambiguity or specifically call for contiguousness are doomed to fail.
Here is a brief abstract of the Accords taken from CFR’s Middle East: Peace Plans Background:
I find it very hard to believe that Gaza and West Bank Palestinians wouldn’t accept a three state solution. By saying that, you are essentially saying that Palestinians are incapable of negotiation. Sure, they’ll put up a fuss about it, but you have to think realpolitik here. If Israel, grants them autonomy, they’ll take it. It Israel tells them they are to be two states, they have to accept it. If they won’t accept it, Israel can call their bluff and take all their land back. Palestine has zero leverage in this matter.
Besides, once they are put in place, Fatah is not going to want to share power with Hamas or the other way around.
The matter is hardly that simple, Chris.
First off, by neglecting a three-state solution, that doesn’t make Palestine non-negotiable. If Israel offers a three-state solution but refuses to stop land settlement expansion in the West Bank, Palestine would probable refuse to accept. This refusal is rationale, since Israel would be unwilling to compromise on a vital issue, that of land expansion.
Secondly, Israel, officially or non-officially, has offered autonomy before (see Camp David Summit, Taba Talks, Geneva Accord); however, due to a myriad of other issues like the Temple Mount, control over Jerusalem, and land swaps, the peace initiatives have failed. Palestine doesn’t have to accept anything, as you’ve put it. And unless you see militancy, Intifadahs, and terrorism as a zero-leverage tool, Palestine does indeed have leverage in this matter — quite a lot, actually. Also, Palestine has some international support behind them, viz. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Palestinian-Israeli-European Alliance for Peace and its American counterpart, to name a few.
“Besides, once they are put in place, Fatah is not going to want to share power with Hamas or the other way around.”
Two things: One, they are already “sharing” power. The PLO parliament is Hamas controlled and Fatah lead. Two, if that’s the case, we better give up now, because compromise and conciliation between these two parties is imperative.
I won’t deny, you make good arguments. The Camp David Summit seems to be the closest thing to just giving them their land back since 1948.
Let me just offer my interpretation of things. Suppose the intifadah didn’t happen. Suppose the talks continued. Or perhaps more realistically, suppose they continue to happen off and on. I just can’t help but think that as long as Palestine is offered something better than what they have, and Israel has no true compelling reason to heed to the PLO’s demands, eventually Palestine is going to take it. The longer the Israelis hold out, the fewer demands Palestine can make. I say that because it is much more in Palestine’s interest that they get their autonomy than it is Israel’s. To me, the Camp David Summit didn’t not succeed because Palestine had power, it failed because it was interrupted. The leverage you are describing seems insignificant in the long run to me.
“I say that because it is much more in Palestine’s interest that they get their autonomy than it is Israel’s.”
Yes. Palestine is used both as a bantustan, or homeland territory, set aside for Palestinian inhabitants. This is, for all intensive purposes, 21st century apartheid. There they can “control” the Palestinian population. It is also used as political and military leverage. With the reactionary populace of the Gaza Strip, hawkish policies can be pushed through the Knessset; they are also sometimes supported or “tacitly acknowledged” by the international community. It also gives a causi belli to military occupation of violent Palestinian territory.
“To me, the Camp David Summit didn’t not succeed because Palestine had power, it failed because it was interrupted.”
That was a contributing factor, no doubt. However, it was only one factor amongst many. I think that the reason it ultimately failed was the dissonance on, arguably, two of the most vital issues: “right of return” and Israeli West Bank “settlements.”
As stated by MIDDLE EAST: Peace Plans Background:
I can’t believe that Palestine will just eventually “take it.” As belligerent as they seem to get sometimes (arguably with just cause), they are still rationale actors.
I would argue that if we have not “taken it” for 60 years then we have no reason to “take it” now. We just want recognition of the injustices inflicted upon us and either A) equal rights under the law or B) A state of our own.
Edmund, it was only in the last decade that Israel offered autonomy to Palestine. That is hardly a case for Palestinians not ever taking it. I believe Palestinians are rational actors and, therefore, will accept Israel’s terms.
“I believe Palestinians are rational actors and, therefore, will accept Israel’s terms.”
You see, Chris, this is why they haven’t accepted Israel’s “terms.”
Because we are not rational?
Amazing analysis. Im sure American Indians and Australian Aborigenes were irrational as well.
No, Edmund, because you are.
Hasn’t it been my underlying rationale that the Palestinians are rationale actors?
From a leadership perspective, anyway.
Quoted from an above comment of mine:
My mistake
It’s all good. I just wanted to make the point that people who make the argument that Palestinians are completely irrational or nonnegotiable don’t know the situation very well.
We appreciate your comments and your time here. Feel free to stop by anytime!