Is the “Two-State Solution” Really Viable?

The conflict between Israel and Palestine has been going on for several decades, creating instability in a region already wracked with violence. Pre-dating the state of Israel by several years, the conflict stems from existing tensions between the Zionist and Arabs living in the state of Palestine during British rule. Today, these tensions have broadened to encompass a conflict that has consumed the area, drawing Israelis and Palestinians alike into its gravitational pull. While the situation has multiple facets, some of the main points of dispute include the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. This fluid barrier between the two actors reveals not only a look into the causes behind the conflict but also a greater look into how this situation can be viewed through the lens of realism.

Beginning with the creation of the Israeli state in 1948, the region has been embroiled in both existing and new tensions. From as early as 638 AD, when Arab Muslims conquered the region 500 years after the Jews were exiled from the area, dysfunction has marked the Arab-Israeli relationship. The rise of Zionism in the 1940s did more to mar relations, culminating in the creation of the state of Israel on May 15, 1948, a day known to many Palestinians as “The Catastrophe.” Since that time, both sides have engaged in military combat almost without cessation.

The most influential of these military actions was the Six Day War in 1967, a conflict that would shape much of the contentions of the entire Middle East crisis. The hostilities began when Israel seized Gaza and the Sinai Province from Egypt in the south and pushed Jordanian forces out of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This unprecedented expansion alienated Israel’s Arab neighbors and the international community, which was deeply divided over the validity of Israel’s action. It is estimated by the United Nations that over 500,000 Palestinians were displaced by the hostilities. Despite international pressure, Israel continued to occupy the West Bank and Gaza for several years, a situation that would lead to several more military conflicts between Israel and its Arab neighbors, as well as international condemnation.

In the 1970s, under the leadership of Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian Liberation Organization launched a series of attacks against Israeli forces that expressed the anger of many Palestinians who had suffered at the hands of the Israeli occupation. The PLO would continue to engage with the Israeli military for several decades, until the Oslo Accords in 1993. Under the newly elected leadership of the leftist Labor Government, Israel slowly began exploring reconciliation with the PLO. The PLO, in turn, was eager to negotiate due to the relative weakness of its position because of the Gulf War. The Palestinians agreed to recognize the Israeli state in exchange for the dismantling of the Israeli occupation, unprecedented progress that eventually culminated with the signing of the Declaration of Principles, a high point in Israeli-Palestinian relations that unfortunately was not to last.

The year following the Accords was relatively peaceful, seeing the application of the Declaration in most areas. The PLO jubilantly returned to formerly Israeli occupied territories as the Palestinian Authority. Arafat was elected president, and Palestinian self-rule in Gaza began. However, conflict continued to reign, and the statutes of the Declaration were quickly abandoned by both parties. In a last ditch effort to staunch the rising tide of violence, a second Oslo Accords were held. This second agreement divided the West Bank among Israeli and Palestinian authorities, a compromise which left both players unhappy. Later years saw the rise of Hamas, an Islamic militant group that would lead a campaign of guerilla warfare against Israeli forces for the next several decades. Attempts at reconciliation among the two states arose periodically, but none led to lasting change. The latest development in the region, Palestine’s bid for UN recognized statehood, comes at a time of continued deadlock between both parties, and the results of this move remain to be seen.

A joint Palestinian-Israeli poll from March 2010 shows that 57 percent of Palestinian and 71 percent of Israelis support the idea of an independent Palestinian state. Many western countries, including the US, have also voiced support for a Palestinian state. However, what many supporters of Palestinian statehood have overlooked is the fundamental obstacles to Palestine achieving sovereignty within the region, obstacles that most clearly stand out when approached from a realist viewpoint.

The theory of realism is at its core a belief in the self-interest of states. When faced with a world where the only certainty is self-certainty, actors have no other choice but to act according to their own agenda. Similarly, states must then believe that all other actors will only carry out actions in their own best interest. This leads to a mindset of suspicion on both sides, because without certainty nation-states have very little with which to base their security. Thus, security becomes reliant on the actions of the state itself, which encourages things like proliferation. When trust cannot exist between two actors, then it is difficult for stability to exist.

The real world effects of realism can be seen quite clearly in the conflict in the Middle East. Due to their long history of violence, and conflicting agendas, Israel and Palestine have never been able to foster trust in one another. As seen in the violent unrest after the Oslo Accords, any agreement that is made will quickly fall to the vagaries of both civic and public apprehensions. The constant threat of violence from both forces is used to excellent effect to erode any goodwill pushes towards reconciliation. Furthermore, there is a lack of political will in such a situation. Neither party wants to give up security. If Palestine were to become a sovereign, UN endorsed state; concessions would have to be made on both sides. Palestine would be forced to crack down on the actions of Hamas, and take a serious look at the legitimacy of its government, which has been called into question for corruption and human rights abuses. Israel, on the other hand, would be forced to pull out of its occupied territories, and would lose its status as the only “legitimate” authority in the region. Furthermore, if Palestine does receive enough international support to achieve statehood, an achievement that seems rather unlikely, it would nonetheless erode the significance of Israel’s support from the US. Thus, the situation would actually devalue the power of both states, which makes the probability of statehood that much less likely. Compounded with such an obvious clashing of agendas, visible areas of contention, and a fundamental lack of trust on both sides, and the idea of a “two-state solution” seems increasingly non-viable from a realist perspective.

Works Cited

Snyder, Jack. "Once World, Rival Theories." Foreign Policy. (2004): 53-56. Print.

Cohen, Michael. "Think Again: The Two State Solution." Foreign Policy. (2011): n. page. Web. 21 Sep. 2011. .

"A History of Conflict." BBC News. BBC, 2009. Web. 21 Sep 2011. .

Herzog, Michael. "The Perils of Palestine's Big Moment at the UN." Financial Times 20 Sep 2011. n. pag. Web. 21 Sep. 2011. .