Israel and the two-state solution

For years I have pondered the efforts of the four-party talks and the two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians living there. It never made sense that a country would willing divide itself up and give half the land to another group to establish their own country. However, it wasn’t after some research that I discovered the two-state solution is over 60 years old.

Following the division of the British Mandate “Palestine” into Arab Palestine (also known as Tranjordan) and Jewish Palestine, tension started to grow between the Jews and Arabs. Increase in Jewish migration into the tiny state started to displace the native Arab inhabitants. Even though the influx of Jewish settlers transformed and improved the conditions of the otherwise desolate region, some of the native Arab residents viewed the Jewish migration as an invasion. Soon, both sides began staging guerilla-style attacks against each other. The British security forces in the Mandate were either incapable or unwilling to put an end to the tension, despite international calls for intervention.

The United Nations established the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) in 1947 to determine what to do with the Mandate. After careful investigation and debate regarding the Arab and Jewish positions, a majority endorsed dividing the Mandate up into two equal parts along demographic lines, while leaving Jerusalem under a United Nations oversight. The two “states” would exist within the Mandate, with open borders between the two divisions to allow travel across the scattered land. While the Jews tentatively accepted the proposal, the Arab parties rejected it – a conclusion that was anticipated and unavoidable.

The next few years of history are well known. When the government of Israel declared independence, the Middle East erupted into war, with armies from multiple sides of the new state battling to remove the Jewish invaders. For sixty years, the war has continued; sometimes with bullets and sometimes with words. But through all of this, the concept of a two-state solution keeps popping up. Why?

I do not know if others share my opinion on Israel, but I believe that there shouldn’t be a two-state solution but rather a one-state solution. By trying to carve up the country to create a Palestinian state that is separated by a Jewish state will only add fuel to the racial and religious tension between the two. This means there will be more walls erected plus the installation of a special highway that cuts across the Jewish State to connect the two pieces of the Palestinian State together.

However, if the borders between the Jewish and Palestinian regions were to disappear, and a Constitution drafted for the whole of Israel, there is a chance that peace might finally be achieved. This new Israel would be strictly a secular government, in many ways similar to modern Turkey. By having a secular government, the citizens of the state would not be burdened under a complex set of religious laws made up of both Arab and Jewish traditions. Additionally, by having both Jewish and Arab members in the government with the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the state, any domestic terrorism will be treated as a criminal act – regardless of religious affiliation. Peace might take a while, especially with decades of distrust ingrained on society. However, it is my view that peace is more likely to be achieved by bringing the two sides together into a single cause, rather than tearing them apart.