The Two-State Solution After Trump (original) (raw)
Related papers
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2004
two sides on the basis of the establishment of a Palestinian state equivalent in size to the Territories; the division of Jerusalem between Israel and Palestine, with Israel retaining sovereignty over the Old City and Palestine obtaining sovereignty over the Temple Mount; 10 and compensation of Palestinian refugees who fled Israel during the 1948-1949 Arab-Israeli War in exchange for Israeli control over how many refugees may return to Israel." While, as always, the devil is in the details, both the Road Map and the Geneva Accord underscore the continued appeal of the land-for-peace framework as the basis for a negotiated agreement that would end this longstanding conflict and establish a legal structure to govern the Israeli-Palestinian relationship. Ridding the lands in which they live of Israeli occupation, the Palestinians would realize their right to self-determination and self-government and, for the first time in history, would have the opportunity and agency to pursue their own vision of the good society. 2 Israelis, in turn, would free themselves from the physical, psychological, and economic burden of fighting an ongoing, low-level war against a tenacious enemy, which is unlikely ever to result in total victory. The stubborn tenacity of the land-for-peace concept and the equally stubborn perpetuation of this state of war raise two obvious questions: why has Although the Palestinian negotiators of the Geneva Accord insisted that PA Chairman Yasser Arafat endorsed it, Arafat publicly rejected it.
Some New Suggestions for Solving the Israeli–Palestinians Disputes
Polish Political Science Yearbook, 2018
Many suggestions have been presented for solving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. As for now, none of those suggestions, presented during more than thirty years of negotiations, have been accepted by both sides. As for this, some new ideas have to be entered the arena. Here some new, "out of the box", geographical proposals are presented, based on actual events and geographical realities which exist in other areas. These proposals could be seen as un-human or politically wrong suggestions but as all other proposals were rejected, the decision makers of both sides, as well as the leaders of the world, can use the presented suggestion as a base for future negotiations.
Israel and Palestine: The Demise of the Two-State Solution
New England Journal of Public Policy, 2017
A two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with a Palestinian state along the lines of the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, the "mandated" settlement for decades, is no longer either a viable outcome or one that can be implemented. In the past fifty years, the "facts on the ground" have changed, but, perhaps more important, so too have "facts in the mind." The geopolitical landscape in the Middle East bears little resemblance to "facts" back to 1967. The context of negotiations has changed at least four times: first, after Gaza's spin-off in 2006; second, after the Gaza war in 2014; third, because of Israel's increasing religiosity; and fourth, because of the detritus of the Syrian Civil War, ISIS, and Islamic militancy roiling the post-Arab Spring Middle East. ___________________________________________________________________________ On December 23, 2016, weeks before President Barack Obama stepped into history, the United States abstained on UN Security Council Resolution 2334. The resolution called on Israel to stop all settlement activity on the grounds that it is an impediment to a two-state solution. 1 The settlements are illegal under international law, but the resolution was the first of its kind, because heretofore all resolutions along these lines were vetoed by US presidents. In practical terms the resolution means little, since the international community has failed to sanction Israel and the countries in the European Union that might have been expected to take some action are too preoccupied with their internal problems. For Obama, withholding the veto signified less the use of power than a departing gesture of impotence, the culmination of eight years of contrarian and cantankerous relations with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who consistently stymied his attempts to forge initiatives. At the end of Obama's presidency, some would say the prospects for a two-state solution were much diminished. This article argues that they were already dead in the water. Donald Trump's inauguration, his promise to relocate the US embassy to Jerusalem, and his nomination of David Friedman, a right-wing American Jew who has vociferously supported the annexation of the West Bank, galvanized the Israeli right. More than six thousand settlement units were authorized; calls to annex Ma'ale Adumim reached a new pitch, and the Knesset passed a law (sure to be overturned by Israel's High Court, even according to many of its proponents) that retroactively legalized thousands of settlement units built on privately owned Palestinian land. Such was the excess that even the White House called the move "not helpful." When he met with Netanyahu on February 15, 2017, however, Trump turned to his friend "Bibi" during their press conference and casually abandoned the decades-held position of both Republican and Democratic presidents of two states for two peoples. He was, he said, for "one
The paper analyzes the internal "behind the table" conflicts among Israeli and Palestinians. It argues that these conflicts interact with, and create problems for, any significant across the table negotiations between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority. Indeed, these interactions best explain why it is difficult for Israeli and Palestinian leaders to make and implement and agreement. a comprehensive deal. On the one hand, if an Israeli leader goes to the negotiating table insisting on the broad territorial claims of the national religious settlers, or if a Palestinian negotiator presses for the expansive demands of refugees who insist on return to Israel "proper", negotiations across the table are doomed. On the other hand, a two-state accord that might satisfy the interestsof most Israelis and most Palestinians risks turmoil and even violence
Legacy of failure - Why the two-state solution died under Obama’s watch
As Palestinians enter the 50th year of under illegal occupation, the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is as intractable as ever. The mix of politics, religious ideology, ethno-nationalism, complex geography and a history of aggression and grievance on both sides make this conflict notoriously challenging to resolve. Four main issues encompass the roots of the conflict: Territory, Sovereignty, Security and Recognition. This case study will analyse the period from January 2008 to January 2017; coinciding with the span of the Barack Obama presidential administration. This period also accounts for the second, third and on-going fourth terms of Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu who began his second term in March 2009; conversely, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has remained the recognised leader for the Palestinians since succeeding Yasser Arafat in 2005. The converging presence of three leaders over the chosen period allows from comparison of positions, stances and actions. The purpose of this study is to account for Obama’s failure to bring around meaningful progress within the peace process. Opening chapters will provide a contextual summation of the conflict and its actors, subsequent chapters will examine two Obama-era rounds of peace talks and account for their failures. Further analysis of the wider stalemate between the parties will employ Dean Pruitt’s ‘Readiness Theory’ in order to detail evident lack of motivation and optimism between parties as of late. This unreadiness has soured the diplomatic and political atmosphere; further hindering progression to negotiations to reach a solution to this seemly everlasting volatile conflict. The concluding chapter evaluates Obama’s legacy and provide thoughts for the future.