The Slow Death of the Two State Solution

Recently, Secretary of State John Kerry said that "The Two State Solution has, at best, two years to live. We have to come up with a solution in that amount of time." In my classes, there is agreement between my various professors that the two state solution is dying, or may already be dead. This is coming about because of several factors. One is the slow but steady Israeli settlement and building projects in the West Bank, which no one in the international community is disinclined to stop at this time, and is slowly taking more and more of the West Bank for Israel. Israeli settlements, roads, and military bases are scattered across the West Bank, leaving the Palestinian controlled areas in the region looking like a checkerboard on the map. Another factor is the continued Palestinian fixation with demands that have very little chance of ever being granted, such as the Right of Return of Palestinian refugees and part or all of the city of Jerusalem. Israel is steadfast in its refusal to these two demands, but the Palestinian leadership still talk about them as if they are viable negotiating points. Another factor is the fact that neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis know what they want in an agreement between the two sides. Israelis do not know what borders they want, preferring to be vague rather than present a specific map. The Palestinian leadership still periodically talks of taking back the entirety of Palestine, an impossible undertaking. Also, if any agreement is reached, it is likely that many of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank will remain, along with, in all probability, Israeli troops, in order to handle security. The Israelis will insist on keeping the strategic Jordan Valley along the Jordan River for defense purposes, ensuring that any future Palestinian state is fully surrounded by Israeli forces. Altering perspectives for just a bit, another obstacle to reaching a solution is the fact that the Palestinians are not united. The Palestinians have two governments that distrust each other almost as much as they distrust the Israelis, one based in the Gaza Strip and one in the West Bank. The terrorist organization Hamas rules Gaza with an iron fist, and they are opposed to any reconciliation with Israel. They are the guys you see on the news that periodically fire rockets at Israel. The Palestinian party Fatah controls the West Bank. While they are, on paper, in favor of a two state solution, their leadership is plagued by inconsistent language. In English, they talk of peace; in Arabic, they persist in telling their people that they will take back the whole of Palestine. Needless to say, the Israelis don't trust either group. The last factor I will talk about is the withdrawal of the United States from the peace process. With the Cold War won, and with it the critical need of reaching an agreement between the Palestinians and Israel, U.S. Presidents have started looking at the crisis, in the words of Thomas Friedman, "As a hobby". The importance of the conflict has receded from view as the United States focuses on other matters. Along with this, the U.S. is no longer dependent on Middle Eastern oil, robbing the Arab states of their greatest weapon to bring the United States to the table. Because of Israel's slow advance across the West Bank and little or no international incentive to stop them, experts have proclaimed that the two state solution is in critical condition. In my classes here, this turn of events has resulted in intense discussion. Various proposals have been advocated. One of them is the three state solution, with independent Palestinian states in Gaza and the West Bank, which would take care of the problem of Palestinian disunity. Another option is a bi-national state, where Palestinian and Jew live together in one state stretching from the Jordan to the sea. Israel opposes this option because that would spell the end of the Jewish state; the first election would see a Palestinian majority in the Knesset, and the first act would be changing the name of the country from Israel to Palestine. Another option that received a lot of debate and seemed to be viewed in favor by most of the students is bringing the Jordanians in and having them annex part or all the West Bank into Jordan. Because Jordan was originally part of the territory called "Palestine" until it was split off by the British in 1922, and because of the majority of Jordan's population being Palestinian, it was argued that Jordan could be the Palestinian state that is being called for. The Israelis would support such a measure, because the only country that they trust in the Middle East is Jordan. The Palestinians and the Jordanian monarchy will have no part in such a plan, however, so the debate is academic. One of my classmates jokingly suggested that we give the Palestinians Detroit, because "They can't do a worse job with it than we have, and they just might fix it." Regardless of the viewpoint, the issue of "where do we go from here" has consumed several class periods, with ideas and solutions being bounced around, defended, and critiqued. One class kept track of the ideas that were put forth, and at the end of the class 56 different options were on the board. Regardless of what you believe should be done, I think we can all agree that a finding a solution will not be easy.