In an article in today’s “Observer” newspaper, Dov Waxman and Dahlia Scheindlin consider a two-state solution, a one-state solution, and their recommended confederal approach.<\/p>\n
As regards the usual option for a resolution of the conflict, they write:<\/p>\n
“The two-state solution \u2013 the creation of two separate countries divided by a border roughly along the 1949 armistice lines (with some territorial adjustments) \u2013 has long been regarded by diplomats and experts, and for the last two decades by a majority of Israelis and Palestinians, as the best way to resolve the conflict. But it now appears to be in serious jeopardy.<\/p>\n
Much of the Israeli government adamantly opposes it, and prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu\u2019s support for it is rhetorical at best. The Palestinian leadership, split between Fatah and Hamas, is bitterly divided on the issue. Israeli and Palestinian public support is gradually declining.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
They consider briefly an alternative solution of a single state:<\/span><\/p>\n
“This approach proposes full equality for all the Palestinians now living under Israeli control, with full civil rights, including national voting rights. However, a single, democratic, civic or binational state is highly unlikely to emerge in the foreseeable future. Most Israelis and Palestinians want their own state, to fulfil their collective desires for national self-determination.<\/p>\n
A single state is likely to generate a relentless competition for power and control, which could easily turn deadly. Further, given Israel\u2019s superior economic and military power, a single state is more likely to become a Jewish ethnocracy than the secular democracy that its leftwing proponents envisage.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
If both these solutions cannot work, should we just give up and accept the stays quo? They opine:<\/span><\/p>\n
“With both two-state and one-state solutions seemingly impossible, it is easy to fall into despair. We believe this is dangerous. Such despair fosters passivity and perpetuates the status quo. And the violence is a brutal reminder that the status quo is deadly for Israelis and Palestinians alike.”<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This leads Waxman & Scheindlin to propose a confederal approach with an open border between the two sovereign states, freedom of movement and residency, and some limited shared governance. Citizenship and residency would be de-linked which would enable a new approach to the issues of Palestinian refuges and Jewish settlers.<\/span><\/p>\n
They conclude:<\/p>\n
“However far-fetched it [the\u00a0<\/span>confederal\u00a0solution] may appear, it is the most realistic approach because it accommodates the demands of Israelis and Palestinians for national self-determination and also accepts the fact that they have become too intermingled and too interdependent to separate from each other, however much they wish to. Anyone truly concerned about the future for Palestinians and Israelis should seriously consider the potential of this approach.”<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
You can read the full article with more details of the confederal model\u00a0<\/span>here<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n