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.