Israeli-Palestinian Strategies

By: Gershon Baskin

I have been looking for strategies to try to turn the Israeli-Palestinian conflict back toward a viable and credible peace process that can win support in both communities and internationally. I'd like to share some of my thoughts.
The Oslo framework was envisioned as a two-state solution based on the model of separation (some have called it divorce) in which a Palestinian state would be created on 22% of the land and Israel on the remaining 78%. Because of the Israeli settlements, for that to happen, Israel would have to annex at least 5% of the West Bank and make a 1:1 land swap of land inside the Green Line. While this annexation and land swap may place about 75-80% of the Israeli settlers under Israeli sovereignty, the remaining 70,000-100,000 settlers will be left behind. Meaning that they would either have to return to Israel itself or to the annexed area. It is very unlikely that they will be allowed or choose to remain within the State of Palestine. The expansion of Israeli settlements and Israeli control of land and infrastructure in the West Bank, coupled with the fact that settlers in remote areas are the most ideological and extremist settlers, makes this option very unlikely. Combined with the objection of the majority of Palestinian youth and the majority of Israelis to this option, the Oslo model of the two-state solution seems completely unworkable.

Another paradigm for the two-state solution is the so-called "Two States, One Homeland" now called "Land for All". This model recognizes the importance of the entire land to both peoples, and instead of being based on a model of separation it is based on a model of cooperation. In their statement of principles, they wrote: “Our vision precludes the supremacy of one nation over another. Our vision is equal national and individual rights for everyone who lives in this homeland… Israel and Palestine will be two independent sovereign states with full control over their lands, with borders drawn according to the lines of June 4, 1967.. The two states will establish a joint superstructure of effective and joint institutions that operate on the basis of equality and are agreed upon by the two states...Each state will have full sovereignty over its territory.However, the borders will be open to the citizens of the two independent states...With the borders set for political separation between the two states, but not Demographic or geographic separation…” Therefore, in this model, Israeli settlers can remain where they are as citizens of Israel but as residents of Palestine. Returning Palestinian refugees may be Palestinian citizens but are residents of Israel. This seems far fetched, but it is a model that attempts to deal with the realities on the ground of settlers who, for the sake of peace, should not be removed from their homes.
The fastest model to gain support among Palestinians and foreigners appears to be the one that focuses on citizen rights and less on national self-determination. This model argues that the two-state solution is dead. They claim that the option of dividing the land was rejected by Israeli decisions to continue building settlements throughout the land. It is also rejected by the Palestinians, who see Palestine as more than the West Bank and Gaza. There are those who speak directly about the one-state solution and there are others who do not talk about a solution, but only talk about the urgent need to obtain equal rights. The motto of this model is very simple and hard to dismiss: one person, one vote. The need to protect the national, ethnic and religious identities of both peoples living on the land can be done by mutual agreement through democracy within the basic framework of equal right to equal rights. Both peoples want to protect their identity and their historical connection to the land. Both peoples claim religious ties to the same holy places and it is conceivable that they would be willing to respect these ties if there were a full reciprocity and equality of these rights.
I think there is little point to the classic two-state solution. Most people on both sides don't seem to think that's possible. The international community and those who benefit domestically from the status quo remain its main defenders. I tell these people to either recognize the state of Palestine now or stop talking about the slogan of two states. I say this mainly to the United States and the European Union countries that have not recognized Palestine but also to Japan, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and other large and important countries.
I think serious Israelis and Palestinians need to sit down and discuss other models of federation or confederation (land for all is a confederal model) or other hybrid solutions. I also believe that Palestinians should embrace a global call for full equality (and this includes Palestinian citizens of Israel). The Palestinians' embrace of "one person, one vote" must be part of a real and widespread embrace of a Palestinian commitment to the continuation of nonviolence. This does not mean acquiescence to the reality of the occupation and the absence of political and human rights, which is their current reality. Once the claim for full equality which is the essence of "one person, one vote" is accepted there must be an understanding that ultimately it is a statement of true willingness to live with Israeli Jews in full peace and equality.
Our main challenge is that the vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians do not believe that there is any chance in the foreseeable future for peace or even a viable peace process. Public opinion is a good reflection of the utter absence of real leaders on either side who themselves believe in true peace. Public opinion on both sides can and will change when there are leaders on both sides who recognize the legitimate existence of the other and are genuinely willing to discuss and negotiate all claims and possibilities for conflict resolution.