Time for a new model to address Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Making international headlines, Benjamin Netanyahu supposedly retracted his support for a two-state solution in the final days of Israel’s recent election campaign. The U.S. White House is now reassessing its options, with many suggesting that it will withhold its use of the veto if the UN Security Council decides to tackle the Israeli-Palestinian peace process head-on. The American veto of Palestinian-backed resolutions at the UN has, to date, reflected Washington’s commitment to uphold a particular interpretation of the 1995 Oslo II agreement, namely that neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians would take any unilateral steps to alter the status of the territories under dispute. If the United States were to allow the Security Council to pass a resolution establishing the parametres of a final-status agreement and calling for an Israeli withdrawal, it would bring an end to one of the fundamental tenets of the peace process, specifically that any peace treaty that ends the conflict must be negotiated between the two parties. In effect, no serious high-level negotiations have taken place between Israel and the Palestinian Authority since 2008. Yet more important than any particular Israeli prime minister’s stance on the matter are the Jewish state’s fundamental security imperatives in the region’s current geopolitical climate. Although they were on solid footing from a short-term, military-strategic perspective, Israel’s withdrawals from South Lebanon and the Gaza Strip last decade increased Hezbollah and Hamas’s domestic clout while upping their power projection capabilities in the regional theatre. There is a justified fear that an Israeli departure from the West Bank would lead to a consolidation of power by Islamist forces in a territory within striking distance of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. In order to prevent such an outcome and ensure the security of the Jewish state, Israel would have to control the Jordan Rift Valley, the airspace over the West Bank, strategic highpoints in the Judean and Samarian hills, and several arteries of transportation that cross over the Green Line (the 1949 armistice line that separates Israel proper from the West Bank). No Palestinian leader would accept even one of these criteria as a permanent fixture on the map, let alone all of them. This has led many observers to suggest, quite rightly, that no negotiated two-state solution is possible at the current juncture. In order for one to become viable, the region’s geopolitical situation would have to stabilize, thus allowing Israel to feel more secure in making substantial territorial concessions. However, the alteration of the Middle East’s present-day geopolitical realities does not guarantee the advent of a negotiated two-state resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Further Israeli settlement construction over the next few years combined with increasing international recognition of Palestine could make such an outcome impossible. In the coming years, it may be time to consider alternatives to the two-state solution. Here’s where Canada could make a unique contribution: Rather than continue to tow the American line on this file, Ottawa could contribute its expertise in federalism and push for a federal outcome to the conflict. One of the principal reasons that Israel did not annex the West Bank and the Gaza Strip following the Third Arab-Israeli War in 1967 was the fear among Israel’s leaders that the country’s Jewish majority would ultimately erode. Although there is disagreement among experts concerning demographic projections, a simple look at Israel’s recent Knesset elections can provide some insight. Suppose, for instance, that Israel were to annex the West Bank and provide all of its inhabitants with full citizenship and all of its associated privileges. Israel’s Arab population would roughly double, adding 2.1 million citizens to the present-day 1.6 million. The Arab Joint List currently holds roughly 10 per cent of the seats in the Knesset (13 out of 120 mandates). Even if one factors in increased Arab voter turnout following the annexation mentioned above, Israel’s mainstream parties would still hold roughly 70 per cent of the Knesset’s mandates. Including the Gaza Strip in these calculations makes things slightly more complicated. It may thus have to become an autonomous, self-governing territory within the federal framework, receiving funding and certain services from Jerusalem but not participating in national elections. This proposal is but one of several possible permutations that could generate a federal outcome—one state but several governments—for Israelis and Palestinians. There would be no need to divide what is dear to both peoples. Both Jews and Palestinian Arabs would be sovereign peoples in the homeland they share. Canada is on the rise. The two-state proposal has been stagnant for years. Let’s lead the way in putting new ideas on the table. Zach Paikin is a Hill Times columnist based in London, United Kingdom. news@hilltimes.com The Hill Times

Time for a new model to address Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Israel’s 21st-century version of pogrom

Predictions for Israel as it moves further right and democracy degrades

Relaunched parliamentary group seeks to work for ‘undivided Jerusalem’ as Israel’s capital

Israel’s 21st-century version of pogrom

Solidarity pitch behind Green Party’s Ukraine trip

‘After many long days, nights and weekends of hard work, we’ve reached fair and competitive deals for employees’: feds, PSAC reach tentative deal after 12-day strike

Liberal Party president Cowan calls internal probe into leaked confidential details from national board of directors, according to memo

High-level party operatives, experts identify election interference attempts as ‘extremely disturbing,’ call for more communication between intelligence agencies, parties

Twitter has ‘the most violent, misogynistic, appalling, anonymous, horrific messages,’ says Green Party leader May

Israel: it’s all about Bibi

Why Netanyahu, Hamas are ‘objective allies’

Netanyahu stalls

As a true friend of Israel, Canada needs to condemn Netanyahu’s West Bank annexation plans

Pompeo’s mission: a deal in Jerusalem?

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Time for a new model to address Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Get The Foreign Policy and Diplomacy Newsletter