The Israeli Palestinian Conflict: Declining Hope For A Two State System

Name
Professor
Course
Date
The Israeli Palestinian Conflict: can a one-state solution end the conflict?
Declining Hope For A Two State System
The Israeli-Palestinian war has been a source of conflict between Israel and Palestine since 1948. The Zionist movement's activities initiated the war by bringing Jews into Palestine in the 1930s and 1940s (AbuZayyad 1). The activities set the stage for a confrontation between the Arabs in Palestine and the Israelites. Notably, one of the major outcomes of the war was creating the Israeli state and the uprooting of Palestinians, who became refugees in their land. The Palestinians have continued to demand to return to their home, which since then became an Israeli state. They approach the issue as a right defined under the international law stipulated by the General Assembly's resolution 194 (AbuZayyad 1). Based on the international law and the events leading to the Palestinians' displacement, they have the right to claim Palestine. However, establishing a Palestine state where the Palestinians enjoy full rights and freedom to return to, with guaranteed security and piece of restoration, remains a challenging process. Several wars have followed since the 1948 war, including the six-day war (Nakba) and the Gaza war of 2014. The conflicts illustrate challenges in international relations politics between Israeli and Palestine. Some proposals recommend establishing a one-state resolution to bring the politics and the conflict to an end. Reaching this solution would be beneficial as Palestinians and Israelis would leave mutually and end resources wastage to an eternal war.
Several international players have considered a two-state proposal as the probable solution to the conflict. The EU remains one of the major proponents of the two-state solution asserting that Israel is violating international laws and their occupation of the Palestinian region is unlawful and a breach of human rights (Harpaz 1). Moreover, the EU observes that Israeli’s occupation of the Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, West Bank, and East Jerusalem obstructs the path to peace as they violate international law. The EU position has been maintained since the Venice Declaration of 1980, which resulted in the EU asking Israeli and Palestine. In 1999, to make an agreement and peace that would result in a two-state arrangement (Harpaz 4). The view resulted in several sanctions, including rejection of products produced in the annexed region and further emphasis that Israeli exit the region based on the 1949 Greenline border outlined before the 1967 Seville Declaration. The proposal for a two-state arrangement has taken a long to believe that it would become effective soon. The existing stalemate from the Israeli government demonstrates its unwillingness to accept such a proposal. International governments mediating in the case should propose multiple alternatives that would bring change to the conflict and give the Palestinians freedom to exercise their right over the Palestinian region.
The arguments for a two-state system have encountered changes that the proposal is no longer feasible. O'Malley observes that facts on the ground and in mind have changed since the 1967 agreement (1). Moreover, the article notes that the idea has been abandoned with the progressive unfolding of four key events. the 2006 Gaza outcomes and developments, the 2014 Gaza war, Israel's growing religiosity, and events such as the Syrian uprisings, Islamic militancy, and ISIS have made the deal impossible. The events have disrupted the negotiation context in the 1967 deliberations as the jews have become more reli8gion-oriented in the talks. Benjamin Netanyahu has insisted that negotiations resume upon recoignitio0n that Israel is a Jewish state (O'Malley 3). Opponents and Palestinians agree that the proposal would deny the Palestinians their heritage and negate their appreciation of the Nekhab as the center and source of their power and identity. The Palestinian liberation organization demands the settlement frozen for them to resume negotiations (O'Malley 3). Notably, the two positions are opposed to each other and therefore counter any possibility of negotiating a two-state arrangement. Moreover, O'Malley also notes that both sides have not approached the hope of a new deal consistently. They have invested little attention, resources, and campaign to rally their people towards accepting the possibility. Therefore, the jews and Palestinians do not understand what constitutes a two-state negotiation and would not know what they are voting for if they had to. Besides, the lack of information on the matter allows politicians from both sides to radicalize the masses. Therefore, the possibility of a two-state arrangement cannot be negotiated at this point. There must be a new consideration, which might involve a one-state negotiation.
Palestinians are becoming doubtful of Israeli's commitment to a two-state arrangement. A statistics by a left-wing organization. B'Tsalem observed that 45% of the Israeli and Palestinians perceived the Israeli government as establishing apartheid rather than channeling its efforts towards establishing a two-state agreement (Lazaroff). Only 13% were sure that the government was committed to a two-state system. The statics indicates growing doubt among the population than those that are hopeful. A review of events in the region demonstrates that that doubt is based on facts. For instance, the Israeli government has taken control over the entire region, ruling from the Mediterranean sea to River Jordan (Lazaroff). The study had a wider population sample obtained from various regions. There were 600 Jewish Israelis from Israel, 200 Israeli-Arab in Palestine, 315 Palestinians from the Giza strip, and another 598 in East Jerusalem and West Bank. The population sample diversity makes the study significant. However, its outcome might be biased due to the organization's focus on promoting a two-state system. Nevertheless, the outcomes are informative on the population perception. The majority of the studies people have relinquished any hope for a two-state government, and the growing doubt makes it challenging to accomplish.
Arguments for a one state system
Working together towards a common enemy presents the hope for Palestine and Israeli to form a one-state system. ISIS is spreading its activities across the middle east and has captured Gaza, which poses a threat to the Israelis and Palestinians (Habib 196). The disillusioned youths have become a target for recruitment into the ISIS forces and possess perpetual threat should they be allowed to continue in the region. Therefore, Habib proposes a possibility whereby the Israeli and the Palestinian leaders might consider cooperating towards the common enemy. However, this possibility offers a challenge should they defeat ISIS and find themselves in a relationship without purpose. Notably, defeating ISIS and the youths recruited in Gaza, which would imply restoring Gaza to common and accept...