This question has been on the minds of almost every Israeli and Palestinian out there, as well as those who have taken special interest into this conflict that has spanned for more than five decades. An almost countless string of failed peace talks, skirmishes, operations, suicide bombs and assassinations later, this question remains ever more vital and even more seemingly impossible to answer. Many proposed solutions to the conflict have been met with fierce resistance by both sides. The One-State solution, for example, doesn't seem to sit well with Zionist extremists, who consider Israel the undivided homeland of the Jewish people, and neither does it sit well with Palestinian extremists, who claim that Palestine should fall under Palestinian sovereignty since they were kicked out and deserve to rule over the land. The two-state solution has also met fierce opposition under similar terms to the ones described above. Another solution, albeit not as promoted as the abovementioned ones, is the no-state solution, where neither party has (complete) sovereignty over the Holy Land. A more extreme solution would be complete exclusion of "the other" via expulsion or population transfer. At the moment, I side with no specific solution, as I am ambivalent on the matter, though I am not for exclusion as it will lead to more problems. I will assess all mentioned suggestions with a viewpoint as critical as possible from both historical and socio-cultural perspectives, and attempt at reaching common ground between Palestinian and Israeli demands for an end to the conflict.
The first and most promoted solution so far seems to be the two-state solution. The solution, simple enough, calls for two separate states, one for the Palestinians and another for the Israelis (Wikipedia: two-state solution). The reasoning behind this proposition stems from the long, bloody history of the conflict itself and acknowledges the events of the previous few decades, including the 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 wars, as well as the two Intifadas and the Lebanese Civil War, all of which have resulted in nothing but more death and destruction for all parties that were involved. You could say that this perspective has the nasty reputation of being "realistic" since it is rooted almost entirely on historical realities rather than prospects for interfaith and/or cross-cultural dialogue and socio-political reform. The two-state solution seems promising. It would keep the extremists at bay given border regulations between the two states. All peoples living in Gaza and the West Bank, or in any other area that might be allotted to the Palestinian state (of which a positive implementation would be fairer), would be entitled to Palestinian citizenship. Both countries would then be independent of each "other" and the whims of the "other's" politicians. The Palestinians would finally be free of the misery, and the Israelis would get the security that they were looking for.
Seems like a rosy picture, doesn't it? Well, even in acknowledging historical facts does one find a few flaws in very sensitive spots, and pointing them out would eventually lead to the whole plan falling apart into shambles. Although one can consider the two-state proposals that have been promoted in the past, one must also not forget the outcome of such dealings. It would be stupid to say that at least one of them worked. In reality, they all turned sour... more sour than lemon juice gone bad. The reasons? Many, among them corruption, unfair peace deals and lack of complete autonomy promised for the Palestinian people (Saracen, 06-07-06). Moreover, think of the divisions that will be stoked in a two-state solution. Simple separation of the two might work if only for a while, but in the long run, there wouldn't be much diplomacy between the two nations unless parties that are committed to doing so without compromising their own interests or the interests of "the other" are allowed to run for power. Otherwise, separation leads to ignorance leads to fear leads to hate of "the other". Palestinians and Israelis will be alienated from parts of land that have not been allotted to the respective states. These and many other factors only serve to fuel the conflict, not promote understanding. But acknowledging present day realities seem to give support to this solution, for it splits the two groups and prevents any direct conflict.
Another solution that has been promoted in its stead, especially by many moderate Palestinians and Israelis, is the One-State solution. This solution has been written on quite a lot, considering the increasing divide between Israeli and Palestinian society. The solution seeks to reconcile both peoples as spiritual sons of the Patriarch Abraham, having a common root in their duty to God to uphold His Commandments, and look for a peaceful coexistence between the two peoples. Moreover, the One-State solution, in a way, seeks to destroy the borders of nationalistic allegiances and instead seeks to unite two peoples as one before God, seeking to establish a divine allegiance rather than one that serves group interests. Of course, that's a religious perspective. From a more secular perspective, a union entitles both parties to equal rights under one flag and one nation, eliminates national borders and checkpoints, makes travelling within the country easier, and seeks to bridge gaps between communities based not on religious affiliation but rather on consensus for the ruling governmental parties. I'm more spiritual, so I'd rather go for the first one, even though many people make it out to be that the problem is spiritual (which it isn't, considering that most of history's wars were rooted in secular origins, including the Crusades). But either way, the One-State solution holds some water...
Until, of course, you unearth the problems associated with it. These issues have been explored by many political analysts and researchers, including MidEastWeb's Ami Isseroff, who claims that over the course of the five-decade-long history of this conflict, the One-State solutions
A third solution that has not been promoted as much as the previous two, and has thus received considerably less airtime due to its unpopularity with the Israeli and Palestinian public, is the No-State solution. Noam Chomsky is one of its biggest proponents (to be honest, I didn't know what solution Chomsky backed until now). The only source on the net, however, that I happened to stumble across that gives a detailed account of his shared vision is on the website of Israel Shamir, who is apparently a seriously self-hating Jew (Shamir). Regardless, the No-State solution has appeal among libertarians since it involves the decentralization of authority over the entire region, although it sounds more like forming feifdoms and Ottoman-like millets as mentioned in the article. Advantages include separating the population into like-minded communities and lack of gun control. Disadvantages obviously include sub-population transfers within the Holy Lands, and that doesn't sound too exciting, considering that many Palestinians and Israelis have family history rooted in the locales that they live in or hail from. This solution as it is now (emphasis) can therefore be easily dismissed as non-viable for the time being.
And then there's exclusion. Names come to mind. "We" have Hamas, and "they" have Likud. "We" have Islamic Jihad and "they" have Yisrael Beytinu. They all have one goal in mind: expel the "other" and create a state solely for "the people". Sadly, "the other" doesn't seem to count as "people" for these guys, so you can see why I, a humanist, would rather shun them and spend not another sentence writing about what they want. I'd have to ask you to research it yourself.
One thing is for sure: if there is ever to be peace, the flaws of the first two solutions must be addressed. There should first be a court that should rule out those who are corrupt and at the same time those who earnestly seek the best interest of the people. Second, if the two-state solution is to be instated, the separation must not be absolute; that is, Palestinians can be permitted to visit Israel and Israelis can visit Palestine. However, predominant political rights go to the Palestinians in Palestine and the Israelis in Israel, not that I would favor minority discrimination in either state. The One-State solution will be a more tumultuous goal to accomplish as it will involve a nationwide consensus on part of both parties, and that is rather difficult at the moment. Either way, programs should be promoted to educate Palestinians and Israelis on peace, the political process (like I believe in it, anyways), etc., as well as programs of interfaith and cross-cultural dialogue. Moreover, as I've stated in previous posts, education and dialogue are only words that promote the major and more important solution: action, and by that, I mean a total change of the political dynamics of the Holy Land in a way that benefits both parties involved, and this is only part of the larger change in the dynamics and nature of the change of the East-West relationship, which in its current form is rather colonialist and exploitative. Also, meddling parties such as the Quartet should be only used as intermediaries rather than beacons of influence or change, and should not have the final word on whatever goes on in the Holy Land. All this can be accomplished in the scope of the political backdrop that the entire Middle East is facing (I will be discussing more on this some time in the future).
To be honest, I am apathetic towards politics, for the political system turns out to serve specific interests rather than the interests of the people. I'm rather pessimistic about the issue: it's not like statesmen will become the leaders of Palestine and Israel just like that. At the moment, I just pray that things get better and we can all get back to betterring ourselves and our societies instead of scapegoating others for the failures that we are sufferring at the moment. This conflict, as Richard Ben Cramer put it, is eating its way towards the core of the fabric of both Arab and Jewish societies as we know it today, and we can't let it deprave us of a future that can be shaped in our hands if we want it to.
But what do you think? What should be done about the Israeli-Palestinian issue?
Salaam, from Saracen
P.S. I hope that this post will end all my politically-charged posts about this issue, for I am currently sinking lower into the depths of apathy towards the political situation of the Middle East and the World in general.
The first and most promoted solution so far seems to be the two-state solution. The solution, simple enough, calls for two separate states, one for the Palestinians and another for the Israelis (Wikipedia: two-state solution). The reasoning behind this proposition stems from the long, bloody history of the conflict itself and acknowledges the events of the previous few decades, including the 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 wars, as well as the two Intifadas and the Lebanese Civil War, all of which have resulted in nothing but more death and destruction for all parties that were involved. You could say that this perspective has the nasty reputation of being "realistic" since it is rooted almost entirely on historical realities rather than prospects for interfaith and/or cross-cultural dialogue and socio-political reform. The two-state solution seems promising. It would keep the extremists at bay given border regulations between the two states. All peoples living in Gaza and the West Bank, or in any other area that might be allotted to the Palestinian state (of which a positive implementation would be fairer), would be entitled to Palestinian citizenship. Both countries would then be independent of each "other" and the whims of the "other's" politicians. The Palestinians would finally be free of the misery, and the Israelis would get the security that they were looking for.
Seems like a rosy picture, doesn't it? Well, even in acknowledging historical facts does one find a few flaws in very sensitive spots, and pointing them out would eventually lead to the whole plan falling apart into shambles. Although one can consider the two-state proposals that have been promoted in the past, one must also not forget the outcome of such dealings. It would be stupid to say that at least one of them worked. In reality, they all turned sour... more sour than lemon juice gone bad. The reasons? Many, among them corruption, unfair peace deals and lack of complete autonomy promised for the Palestinian people (Saracen, 06-07-06). Moreover, think of the divisions that will be stoked in a two-state solution. Simple separation of the two might work if only for a while, but in the long run, there wouldn't be much diplomacy between the two nations unless parties that are committed to doing so without compromising their own interests or the interests of "the other" are allowed to run for power. Otherwise, separation leads to ignorance leads to fear leads to hate of "the other". Palestinians and Israelis will be alienated from parts of land that have not been allotted to the respective states. These and many other factors only serve to fuel the conflict, not promote understanding. But acknowledging present day realities seem to give support to this solution, for it splits the two groups and prevents any direct conflict.
Another solution that has been promoted in its stead, especially by many moderate Palestinians and Israelis, is the One-State solution. This solution has been written on quite a lot, considering the increasing divide between Israeli and Palestinian society. The solution seeks to reconcile both peoples as spiritual sons of the Patriarch Abraham, having a common root in their duty to God to uphold His Commandments, and look for a peaceful coexistence between the two peoples. Moreover, the One-State solution, in a way, seeks to destroy the borders of nationalistic allegiances and instead seeks to unite two peoples as one before God, seeking to establish a divine allegiance rather than one that serves group interests. Of course, that's a religious perspective. From a more secular perspective, a union entitles both parties to equal rights under one flag and one nation, eliminates national borders and checkpoints, makes travelling within the country easier, and seeks to bridge gaps between communities based not on religious affiliation but rather on consensus for the ruling governmental parties. I'm more spiritual, so I'd rather go for the first one, even though many people make it out to be that the problem is spiritual (which it isn't, considering that most of history's wars were rooted in secular origins, including the Crusades). But either way, the One-State solution holds some water...
Until, of course, you unearth the problems associated with it. These issues have been explored by many political analysts and researchers, including MidEastWeb's Ami Isseroff, who claims that over the course of the five-decade-long history of this conflict, the One-State solutions
proved conclusively that it is a formula for war and misery, not peace.(Isseroff: April, 2005)I'm assuming that he bases this on the deep and mutual distrust that is present in the root of the fabric of both societies at the moment, considering the rising extremist mindset prevalent in both societies (which, for some reason, seems most pronounced in crises and less pronounced otherwise). However, Isseroff seems to have considerably patriotic motivations for his claim, especially when he claims that the one-state solution will deny the political and self-determination rights of any one side, not that there's anything wrong with that.
A third solution that has not been promoted as much as the previous two, and has thus received considerably less airtime due to its unpopularity with the Israeli and Palestinian public, is the No-State solution. Noam Chomsky is one of its biggest proponents (to be honest, I didn't know what solution Chomsky backed until now). The only source on the net, however, that I happened to stumble across that gives a detailed account of his shared vision is on the website of Israel Shamir, who is apparently a seriously self-hating Jew (Shamir). Regardless, the No-State solution has appeal among libertarians since it involves the decentralization of authority over the entire region, although it sounds more like forming feifdoms and Ottoman-like millets as mentioned in the article. Advantages include separating the population into like-minded communities and lack of gun control. Disadvantages obviously include sub-population transfers within the Holy Lands, and that doesn't sound too exciting, considering that many Palestinians and Israelis have family history rooted in the locales that they live in or hail from. This solution as it is now (emphasis) can therefore be easily dismissed as non-viable for the time being.
And then there's exclusion. Names come to mind. "We" have Hamas, and "they" have Likud. "We" have Islamic Jihad and "they" have Yisrael Beytinu. They all have one goal in mind: expel the "other" and create a state solely for "the people". Sadly, "the other" doesn't seem to count as "people" for these guys, so you can see why I, a humanist, would rather shun them and spend not another sentence writing about what they want. I'd have to ask you to research it yourself.
One thing is for sure: if there is ever to be peace, the flaws of the first two solutions must be addressed. There should first be a court that should rule out those who are corrupt and at the same time those who earnestly seek the best interest of the people. Second, if the two-state solution is to be instated, the separation must not be absolute; that is, Palestinians can be permitted to visit Israel and Israelis can visit Palestine. However, predominant political rights go to the Palestinians in Palestine and the Israelis in Israel, not that I would favor minority discrimination in either state. The One-State solution will be a more tumultuous goal to accomplish as it will involve a nationwide consensus on part of both parties, and that is rather difficult at the moment. Either way, programs should be promoted to educate Palestinians and Israelis on peace, the political process (like I believe in it, anyways), etc., as well as programs of interfaith and cross-cultural dialogue. Moreover, as I've stated in previous posts, education and dialogue are only words that promote the major and more important solution: action, and by that, I mean a total change of the political dynamics of the Holy Land in a way that benefits both parties involved, and this is only part of the larger change in the dynamics and nature of the change of the East-West relationship, which in its current form is rather colonialist and exploitative. Also, meddling parties such as the Quartet should be only used as intermediaries rather than beacons of influence or change, and should not have the final word on whatever goes on in the Holy Land. All this can be accomplished in the scope of the political backdrop that the entire Middle East is facing (I will be discussing more on this some time in the future).
To be honest, I am apathetic towards politics, for the political system turns out to serve specific interests rather than the interests of the people. I'm rather pessimistic about the issue: it's not like statesmen will become the leaders of Palestine and Israel just like that. At the moment, I just pray that things get better and we can all get back to betterring ourselves and our societies instead of scapegoating others for the failures that we are sufferring at the moment. This conflict, as Richard Ben Cramer put it, is eating its way towards the core of the fabric of both Arab and Jewish societies as we know it today, and we can't let it deprave us of a future that can be shaped in our hands if we want it to.
But what do you think? What should be done about the Israeli-Palestinian issue?
Salaam, from Saracen
P.S. I hope that this post will end all my politically-charged posts about this issue, for I am currently sinking lower into the depths of apathy towards the political situation of the Middle East and the World in general.
0 comments:
Post a Comment