For about a century now, the Israel-Palestine conflict has continued to drag on despite the many peacemaking efforts. The dispute began when the Israeli were instituted in Palestine. This institution did not sit well with not only Palestine but also the Arab world. The dispute was further stirred by the fact that Palestine together with other Arab countries has constantly failed to perceive Israel as a sovereign state while other nations, in the same spirit, have opted not to recognize Palestine as a country. This research, therefore, explores the possibility of having two states as the final solution to the conflict.

The two-state solution involves the creation of two different nations by a proper drawing of borders and division of resources so that Israel and Palestine can be two independent states. The solution first appeared in 1937 in the Peel Commission report by the British mandate of Palestine (Yaalon, 2017; Djerejian, Muasher, & Brown, 2018). The report proposed a partition which was strongly opposed by Palestine and the Arab community but was well received by most leaders in the Jewish community. The two-state solution has then been under constant criticism but supported by other leaders, citizens, and the international community for decades now. In my opinion, the approach will weaken all rejectionist elements between the parties by making both factions sovereign states.

The conflict has four main characterizing elements: disagreements over borders, refugees, Jerusalem, and security. The two-state solution may attend to all these problems if adopted. To handle the border issue, official border negotiations will be carried out for the recognition and drawing of borders (Miller, 2016; Yaalon, 2017). The division of boundaries will occur by equity, demography and territorial exchanges that have been agreed upon by both parties. Secondly, the Palestinians displaced during the Arab-Israeli War that took place in 1948 and has since multiplied will be attended to. The issue will be addressed by both parties holding negotiations with the aim of giving the refugees meaningful rehabilitation. Thirdly, Jerusalem is considered as capital, cultural heritage and religious center by both the Israeli and Palestinian communities. Both parties may opt to have their share of the city based on demographic composition. The Jewish neighborhood may be left for the Israeli while the Palestinian neighborhood may be part of Palestine. The holy sites will be given maximum security while all religions will be granted the freedom of worship in the sites. Besides, security has been a significant issue for both parties (Djerejian, Muasher, & Brown, 2018). The Israeli are in constant worry of having the West Bank taken over by terrorist groups such as Hamas while the Palestinians have to live with foreign military occupation. This issue can be handled in the two-state approach by having the Israeli forces withdraw from the Palestine territory while both parties can opt to support the Palestinian Authority in the Jordan Valley, to keep away the terrorists.

Conclusively, a solution with the establishment two-state will ensure the equitable allocation of important state factors such as infrastructure and development resources while taking into consideration each party’s interest. When this is done, both parties will have their equal sovereignty of state upheld; hence the long conflict will officially be squashed.

References

Djerejian, E. P., Muasher, M., & Brown, N. (2018). Two States or One: Reappraising the Israeli Palestinian Conflict. Washington D.C: Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Miller, B. (2016). Israel–Palestine: One State or Two: Why a Two-State Solution is Desirable, Necessary, and Feasible. Ethnopolitics, 15(4), 438-452.

Yaalon, M. (2017). How to Build Middle East Peace: Why Bottom-Up Is Better Than Top-Down. Foreign Affairs, 1(1), 73-84.

 
Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?