Shibboleh: Bernard Salcedo's Two-State Solution

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has proven to be one of the most complex and “intractable” conflicts of modern history – or as some may even add – of all time. And after many decades of failed attempts at peacemaking in this region, there still seems to be no conceivable end to the conflict. During those same decades, most of the parties involved as well as the international community have embraced the idea of a two-state solution, but the question we pose today asks whether this solution is still a viable option considering the present context, and if not, is it finally time to consider a one-state solution? This essay will argue that although a two-state solution remains the more

This solution will eradicate mass murders and even out the distribution of land. Intifadas and suicide bombing have taken the lives of many innocent Israelis and Palestinians. In fact, “Since 1944, Hamas and Islamic Jihad have dispatched more than 80 suicide bombers. The terrorist have blown up buses in major Israeli cities, as well as shopping malls, cafes, and other civilian targets” (Doc. #5). Hamas had the same goal as the PLO; destroying Israel and creating a Palestinian state. It’s important to realize that Hamas and the PLO’s main motive was not to eliminate other civilians, but in order to gain their property back for their fellow Palestinians. Many of these suicide bombings could have been prevented if a two-state solution was established, which would have left both parties untroubled. Unfortunately, we have seen intifadas start to rise in Israel, which have caused more deaths in the country. In detail, more than 8,184 Palestinians were killed after the 2 intifadas, and more than 1,581 Israelis were killed after the uprisings (Doc. #7). Some might say that the Palestinians started the rebellion by these killings, and therefore the conflict istheir fault. But if the world and the Quartet (EU, U.S, U.N and Russia) decided on a multi-state resolution, they could have stopped the conflicts. More than 9,765 people died all because of the international community not providing help by splitting up

Any reference to conflict turns history into a reservoir of blame. In the presence of conflict, narratives differ and multiply to delegitimize the opponent and to justify one’s own action. Narratives shape social knowledge. The Israeli Palestinian conflict, both Jews and Muslims, view the importance of holding the territories through religious, ideological, and security lenses, based on belief that Palestine was given by divine providence and that the land belongs to either the Israelis or Palestinian’s ancestral home. Understanding these perspectives is required for understanding Palestinians’ and especially Israel’s strategy and role in entering the Oslo peace process. Despite

The Israel-Palestine conflict is one of the most long-term, pressing, and largely confounding social, political, and national quandaries of our age. Since we have been moving with surprising velocity into the vast horizons of globalization, the conflict has built up tremendous momentum and has called into question the adequacy of our current attempts at coming to a peaceful resolution that can simultaneously and successfully address both sides of the struggle. The purpose of this paper has been to understand the prospect of a two-state nation solution for Israel and Palestine. The discussion arises a retrospective view of the context behind the present analysis. We begin with a discourse that informs the reader of the historical narrative between the Jewish inhabitants of Israel and the Palestinians who also seek to live in the lands which comprise Israel. At the forefront of the discussion are some key issues such as trends in Israeli settlement expansion over time, the manner in which these settlements create political challenges towards the prospect of a two-state solution, and the fragmentation of power within Palestinian political parties which inhibit the opportunity for proper negotiations amongst the two parties. Finally, we delve into a discussion on nationalism, it’s importance in the discussion of a two-state solution, and the challenges posed when trying to formulate US Foreign Policy towards the matter.

The two solutions are the One-State and Two-State solutions, and each is self-explanatory. The One-State solution would have Israel annex all Palestinian land to create one large Israeli state. On the other hand, the Two-State solution involves Israel and Palestine becoming two separate states in hopes that it would end the conflict. As previously mentioned, I had debated changing my preferred solution. This would have had me favor the One-State over the Two-State; however, I had come to realize that the One-State would have possibly provoked further conflict rather than solve

Since 1967 the borders between Palestine and Israel have been unfair. The Israeli people have taken a majority of the Palestinians land. This had caused conflict between these two territories for years. The Israel and Palestine conflict has been going on for many decades and nothing seems to be able to solve this issue. All because the Israeli government is very stubborn. They are not willing to make a compromise in this situation. The main issues between the Palestinians and the Israelites are; Israel has been unfair to the Palestinians and have taken the land which used to be their own. Not only has Israel created unfair boundaries but, they are also reluctant to let outsiders into Jerusalem. A place that is not only religiously important to the Jews but also to the Arabs. And above all of that Palestinian people feel as if they have to live in fear from the Israeli people. Israel militia has shot at mothers and children. These problems are still prevalent today; if we can solve the unfair borders, Jerusalem, and security we could have a safer Middle East.

Before anyone can comprehend the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one must understand the theory of Zionism. Theodor Herzl was the first Jew to have the idea of creating Israel. He was a witness of the Dreyfus affair, in which a Jewish officer was accused of treason, solely because he was Jewish. Herzl also witnessed mobs of people shouting “Death to the Jews”. This was the last straw for Herzl. Herzl decided that there needed to be a change so he made it one of his life goals to create a successful movement in which Jews founded a Jewish state. One of his main arguments was that discrimination against Jews could be eliminated if they had their own Jewish State, and so modern Zionism was formed. The idea of modern Zionism is so pertinent to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because much of the reason for Israel becoming a Jewish state is behind the fact that Jews were perpetrated throughout the years before Zionism even came into play of the situation.

The big question we ask ourselves today is, will Israel and Palestine ever agree to stop fighting? The conflict between Israel and Palestine has been traced all the way back to 1948 through 2005 in The Israel Palestine Land Settlement Problem, written by Charles Rowley and Jennis Taylor. However, this conflict did not end in 2005. This article was written in 2006, so anything within the last 10 years is not included. The conflict between the two counties still continues to this day and still remains a major problem. Israelis and Arabs have been fighting over Gaza on and off for decades now. The three issues laid out in this article are the four major wars that took place, the refugee problem, and the conflict between religions. It concludes with the road map to peace. Throughout his whole book, The Israel-Palestine Conflict, Gelvin speaks of the same historical events that occurred between Israel and Palestine, while the article reveals there are still other conflicts, the land settlement problem has been the major conflict between Israel and Palestine since 1948.

Of course it is known that it is in the best interest of both people to find a solution. Many on both sides want a two state solution, but each side has yet to come up with a plan that is workable. Economically, it would be in the best interest of the Palestinians to have peace with Israel. Israel is one of the most advanced nations in the world when it comes to medicine, pharmacology, and technology" ("Stick a label on it; Israel and Palestine."). "They have their own weapons industry, are able to grow crops in the desert, have advanced universities and technical schools. If Palestinian children could share in this they would be able to overcome their stunted past. Socially, both groups share so many of the same features. Their dietary laws are similar, language is similar, even holidays hold similarities. But, they do not seem to be able to get over the fact that so much has transpired that split them apart" ("Primer on Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli

Furthermore Israel’s extreme control will not allow the two sate solution happen henceforth not letting peace happen because of their selfishness. On the other hand Israel has extreme control because they deserve that land. In today’s world Palestine and Israel have a constant battle because of the fact that Israel controls almost every decision when it comes to the change in the government. In fact “Israel controls more than half of the west bank and all of east Jerusalem” (Abu) confirming that Israel is not ready to give up the land that belongs to Palestine. However the majority of those who live in east Jerusalem are Jewish. For that reason “Sources such as Water are to be kept under Israeli authority” (Abu), not only controlling the life style of the Palestinians but also controlling the agricultural in

The conflict between Israel and Palestine is just one of the many facets that have shaped modern day politics in the Middle East. It is a conflict rooted in generations of violence, discrimination and prejudice that is complicated by a history older than any of the modern day superpowers. Ever since the creation of the state of Israel by the 1947 UN partition of Palestine

After listening to the Israel-Palestine panel, it became clear to me that a two-state solution is the only viable option. The panelists from Friends of Israel, J Street U, and Jewish voices for peace all clearly stated their support for and belief in the two-state solution. From discussion during the panel, I gathered that a two-state solution would include Israel as a Jewish, democratic state that will coexist peacefully alongside and independent Palestinian state. Borders in this solution would be based on pre-1967 lines with agreed land-swaps to allow each state to incorporate large population centers on the other side, and of course, there would be compromises over Jerusalem, as well as mutual access to all holy sites.

Throughout the period of World War II, many Jewish people had fled to Israel seeking a place for sanctuary due to Hitler’s reign of terror, but who knew that one of the most largest movements in the history of Europe would cause one of the biggest renowned issues that still remains today. We can easily conclude that both Palestinian and Israeli people both believe that Israel is a land of sacred, where both religions had made history in this land. Although one of the biggest issues that still remains today is who really deserves the land the most. The Palestinian people currently live in the land of Israel before the Jews had made their movement, but after letting in countless Jewish refugees into their land, the Jewish people had realized

After more than 50 years of war, terrorism, peace negotiation and human suffering, Israel and Palestine remain as far from a peaceful settlement as ever. The entire Middle Eastern region remains a cauldron waiting to reach the boiling point, a potent mixture of religious extremism, (Jewish, Christian and Islamic), mixed with oil and munitions.

Since the early 20th Century, Israelis and Palestinians have been fighting over the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. With the assumption that Palestine is a state to facilitate discussion, this report sketches out the most significant elements of the conflict on the three levels defined by Kenneth Waltz, and applies the Realist theory of international relations (IR) to the “Two-State” solution.