Peace Part 1: 1947-2000

One and Two State Solutions

The one-state solution is an approach that advocates for the creation of a single, democratic state in the area that currently includes Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. Advocates argue that this solution would ensure equal rights for all citizens, regardless of their ethnicity or religion, and could foster greater unity and cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians, ideally eliminating the conflict. However, major obstacles exist that complicate the implementation of this idea. Critics argue that a one-state solution could alter the demographic balance, potentially leading to one group dominating the other. Beyond this, both Israelis and Palestinians have strong national and religious identities and claims to the land. Merging them into a single state may pose difficulties pertaining to cultural preservation and identity, and not satisfy those who believe the land should belong fully to one group or the other. Finally, the historical conflict and distrust between Israelis and Palestinians make it challenging to establish a functional, inclusive state. Notably, support for a single democratic state in the region is in the single digits for both Palestinians and Israelis.

The two-state solution would entail the creation of a Jewish and a Palestinian state in the region including Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. Supporters of the two state solution argue that there are two distinct peoples in the land with different cultures, religions, and societies, so allowing them sovereignty in separate states would best fit both of their interests. However, opponents argue that the current demographics would make this solution impossible, or that significant border disputes would make this solution impossible. Furthermore, some who oppose ethnic states in general take issue with this approach, and others argue it would not ensure peace.

General

Here is an article which does a good job discussing various considerations in implementing a one-state versus two-state solution from Jewish and Palestinian perspectives.

Here is another informative article by Hey Alma, a self-purported Jewish-feminist blog.

One State

This classic 1999 article by Edward Said, a Palestinian American academic and political activist, emphasizes that equal citizenship in a binational state is essential for peaceful coexistence.

This article from a fellow at the Crown Center for Middle East Studies at Brandeis University explains the perspective that a one-state solution is the only way forward.

Still others argue that regardless of the one-state / two-state solution debate, the region currently operates as a “One-State Reality”, in which the Palestinian population is de-facto controlled by the State of Israel. This argument underpins the claim that Israel operates as an apartheid state. This notion is further discussed in the following editorial.

Two State

An outline for a two state solution was agreed to by the parties in the Oslo Accords (see below), and a fairly specific timeline, referred to as the “roadmap,” was agreed upon. This detailed description of that roadmap is provided by Human Rights Watch.

What might that look like, on the map? This analysis, including several proposed maps, is provided by globalsecurity.org, an independent nonprofit based in Washington.

In this historical overview from Al-Jazeera, the reader can see the development of a conceptual Palestinian state, and the Israeli one, over a period of a hundred years or so.

Despite the current war, there are those still hopeful that a two-state solution is possible.

1947 UN Partition Plan

In November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181, recommending the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. A concise history, including a map, comes from Britannica:

You can imagine that Jewish and Arab residents had different reactions to this plan. You can find an Israeli/Jewish perspective here, and a Palestinian one here.

1978 Camp David Accords

The Camp David Accords were a pair of political agreements signed by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin on 17 September 1978. By this time, a lot had changed on the ground. The results of two brief open wars between Israel and its neighbors left the IDF in clear military control of the region. The entire Sinai peninsula was under Israeli control, as were the Golan Heights, and the Gaza Strip. Palestinians were not represented in these talks, though the subsequent frameworks for the eventual governance of the West Bank and Gaza affected them greatly.

The UN Peacemaker agency offers the details of that framework.

Here’s a video and accompanying article produced by the History Channel, 40 years after the signing of the agreement.

The US Embassy in Israel presents its view.

What did Israel give up/gain?

Israel gave up control of the Sinai peninsula, while maintaining control of the Rafa crossing from Egypt into Gaza, which it maintains today. It gained international recognition for its legitimacy, and diplomatic relations with Egypt, and got a commitment from the US for sizable military support, which continues. This analysis comes from the ADL.

What did Egypt give up/gain?

Egypt, and Sadat particularly, regained some face after its humiliating losses in two previous wars. It regained military control of the Sinai. It received both general and specific military foreign aid from the US. But by agreeing to normalized relations with Israel, Egypt lost its place as a leader in the movement for the liberation of Palestine. This piece appeared in the New Arab last fall, describing how the relationship between Egypt and Israel has developed since.

What were the wins and losses for the US?

The US, and Carter in particular, gained worldwide recognition as a peacemaker. Allies of Israel on both sides of the political aisle were very supportive. But in the Muslim world, particularly in Iran, anti-American sentiment was strengthened. Jimmy Carter was defeated by Ronald Reagan 2 years later.

AP presents this reevaluation of Carter and his Presidency, 40 years on:

Effect on Palestinians:

The IDF continued to control all of the West Bank and Gaza. Jewish settlers moved in from around the world, and established communities. Hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians continued to live in refugee camps. This article explores the perspective that Camp David left Palestinians behind.

1993-2000 Oslo Peace Process

The Oslo peace process is the most concerted effort to date made at achieving a peaceful resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It took place between 1993 and 2000 and resulted in two peace agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). These accords established interim Palestinian self-government in the West Bank and Gaza and laid out the roadmap for a permanent settlement. The Oslo peace process ended with the failed Camp David summit of 2000.

Many of the structures set up by the Oslo accords are still in place. For example, the West Bank is still governed by the Palestinian Authority, established as part of the accords, and divided into three administrative zones with varying levels of Palestinian self-government. This complex arrangement was intended to be transitional but remained in place once the peace process stalled.

The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, the fifth Prime Minister of Israel, took place on November 4th 1995 at the end of a rally in support of the Oslo Accords. The assassin, an Israeli ultranationalist named Yigal Amir, radically opposed the peace initiative.

The first Oslo accord (Oslo I) acts as a declaration of principles and is quite readable. In it Israeli and Palestinian leadership affirm, for the first time ever, each other’s legitimacy.

The US State Department summarizes the Accords here.

Al Jazeera summarizes the Palestinian perspective on the failure of Oslo.

Ehud Ya’ari is a veteran Israeli political analyst. This article recounts his experience and perspective on the Oslo process and its aftermath.