For this week’s entry, I’ve decided to take a closer look into the two-state solution. Unfortunately, many pundits now call for a single state solution so my research was relegated to the earlier part of the 2000’s. What I found was broad, world-wide support for two independent states based upon the borders defined on June 4th, 1967. In this Bloomberg article, the two state solution is called for by President Obama. As the article points out, it was the first time any US President called for such a measure that would, in effect, require Israel to release land holdings back to Palestine. The article continues by delving further into the presenting issues of the agreement (including Israel’s desire for security installations, and the fate of Jerusalem) while also calling question to the Hamas organization. Agreeing in principle with this Bloomberg article, is this translation of a proposed peace agreement originating out of the 2002 Arab Summit. Much like Obama’s call, this Saudi driven peace initiative calls for the relinquishment of Israeli held land while still leaving room for future discussion of Israeli security enforcements. Interestingly though, the initiative calls for Israel to acknowledge the fact that a “just peace is its strategic option as well.” This single statement, while likely the most important, is also the one most widely dismissed.

At the time these calls were made, there was little doubt that a two state solution would not work. The Arab Summit call was made before the Arab Spring and at a time where many of the nations that underwent such dramatic change at the turn of the decade were continuing to “prosper.” Obama’s call, by contrast, was made in October of 2011, directly after the flood of change that came with the Arab Spring. Recognizing the significance of the timing, Obama specifically pointed to the fact that peace must be reached soon. In both of these cases though, separation was believed to be the only way to reach peace.

Separation, however, is a fickle topic. As was evidenced throughout the Arab Spring, the separation of the ruling class of leaders and social elites from the main stream population only led to the brewing of understandable discontent and eventual overthrow. Furthermore, the lines of separation are even more hotly debated. While many of the two state solution supporters believed in the 1967 lines, Israel, to this day, has never, and likely will never, acknowledge the lines. Throughout recent history, and even today, Israel continues to build settlements within both Palestinian areas. Furthermore, the issue of dividing Jerusalem, until recently, was a major area of discontent. So while the idea of separation is agreeable to on paper, the implementation of such brings with it nearly insurmountable issues. Israel’s continual advancement into the West Bank and the Gaza Strip lead directly to Palestine’s unwillingness to negotiate any such two state agreement (the Palestinian Authority will gladly enter into such agreements though as soon as further Israeli encroachments are ceased). Palestine’s government, divided and currently led by Hamas who is labeled as a terrorist organization, is a non-starter for many other proponents of peace talks. It is for these many reasons, that the shift of peace talks have turned to a single state solution. However, that discussion will wait until next week.

Wrapping up my quick look back at the history of conflict between Palestine and Israel, this week I looked into the summer 2014 war that waged for 50 days. In this BBC News article, the generalities of the summer war, and its precursors, were identified. Stating that the war started with the murder of three Israeli teenagers, the article points out that the conflict quickly escalated to air strikes and rocket attacks. After numerous attempted cease-fires, the 9th agreement, brokered by Egypt, brought a long-awaited, open-ended attempt at peace. The article also touches on subjects relating to the issues at hand, and the overall goals of both sides. The prognosis for the future though, while doubted in this article, was better defined in this Guardian article. Agreeing with the BBC News article, this Guardian piece touches on the same issues that led up to the war and that were currently fought over. However, this Guardian piece went further into the issues not dealt with in the agreement and that they state might be cause for further conflict in the future. Noting that the terms of the deal were nearly identical to the failed agreement reached in 2012, the Guardian piece also noted that key elements Hamas sought (notably an airport, seaport, and release of Palestinian prisoners) were not addressed and were further tabled for one month later. For now though, the article states, the conflict is deemed over and the borders are once again “opened.”

This concluding my very brief look into the history of the conflict, it’s difficult not to form prejudices against Israel. Recognizing that both sides are burdened by their own faults, the continued seclusion and mis-matched aggression of the Israelis cannot go unnoticed. As identified by the BBC News article, almost 29 Palestinians perished for every one Israeli. In Gaza, over 17,000 homes were destroyed by Israeli attacks. Leading up to the war, Gazans were essentially under Israeli military arrest as borders were closed and supplies cut off. In short, the level of control and violence enacted by the Israelis is nothing short of mind-boggling.

Many international organizations and states, including the United States, has declared Hamas to be a terrorist organization. While I cannot argue with the application of this designation, I also can not stand idly by as witness to the oppression of the Palestinian people by the Israelis. Therefore, if Hamas is to be labeled a terrorist organization, shouldn’t Israel be labeled such as well?

For this weeks blog, I decided to take a further look into the more recent peace talks and efforts that were made to resolve the issues of the Israeli-Palestinian Issue. Focusing in on the most recent talks held at Camp David in July 2000 by President Clinton, I found two articles that, unplanned, held the same viewpoint of the outcome. In this Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre release, a brief overview of the talks was followed by a quick note of failure in which the Palestinians were blamed. In this New York Times article, a very similar, albeit expanded, account of the talks is offered. According to this article, discussions were proceeding fairly well until the issue of Jerusalem was discussed. It is noted that while both parties entered seeking full control of the religiously important city, it was only Ehud Barak, Israeli Prime Minister, who eventually offered a token of negotiation with the prospect of a Palestinian East Jerusalem. At this point, negotiations reached an impasse and the talks were called off. Barak was praised, and Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, was blamed for the failed talks. Tensions remained high as the parties retired to their respective countries due to the threat of Arafat unilaterally declaring a Palestinian state by September 13th.

Looking back at a point in history, and its associated news media publications, is highly intriguing as we know the outcome of events. In this case, no agreement was made by September 13th and, as we all know, tensions grew to the point of widespread violence. To this day, no peaceful solution is within sight. The more interesting points though, are the slivers of information found in quotes and soundbites that give us a glimmer of the inner workings of the various leaders, their people they represent, and the feelings at the time. In this case, Barak was ousted from office only a few short months later and Arafat, while holding his post longer, was also voted out. Both leaders were condemned for their lack of, and willingness to, negotiate.

As a last exercise, I’ve attempted to classify the two leaders according to their political perspective. I would venture to classify Arafat as a Political Realist. Realizing that strong states need to remain the key actors, I believe that Arafat’s mixed general assessment, and willingness to declare what he believes is his, pushes him to the realist side of politics. Barak, on the other hand, I would classify as a Political Liberal. His more liberal outlook on issues, as well as a broadened horizon of players, keeps him away from the realist side.

Before diving into my identified topic of the two-state issue of Palestine and Israel, I decided to complete some initial background research. As is the case with the issue itself, the history of the conflict is heavily biased and depends on the source. For this entry, I’ve identified two sources that seem to present a more even-keeled view of the conflict. The first, a BBC News timeline of events begins its recounting of the conflict in 1250 BC (though it quickly moves into, and really begins with, the 19th century). Working its way through modern history beginning at the turn of the 19th century, the timeline offers a general view of the events that affected the conflict. Similarly, this this PBS publication begins its account of the issue at the end of the 19th century. Working its way through the timeline of major events in the 20th and 21st centuries, this publication offers its own accounting of the issue, and further dives into the events by outlining the two different viewpoints held by the Israelis and Palestinians.

Interestingly, both publications seem to identify the recurring theme of constant displeasure of the state of affairs held by both parties. Whether it be the conclusions outlined within the Balfour Declaration, or the more recent Oslo Track agreement, both parties, even after reaching a mutually agreed-upon plan within the Oslo Track, were stricken with extremist or terrorist groups within their respective nations that brought a speedy end to any forward progress made. As evidenced in our recent discussions, the stability of a democratic government, or even the pre-cursor to one such government, was not evident within either nation and thus, the respective governments were left powerless against the extremist groups who continued to tear apart any thread of peace agreements.

In this blog exercise, I shall dig deeper into the issues surrounding the questions of single or dual statehood. I aim to sit at both sides of the negotiating table and try to understand the positions and arguments held by each party as a lasting peace agreement continues to be hashed out across the worldwide stage. In the end, I hope to be more educated about the issue, and be able to offer my own opinion of how such a peace deal could be established.