Israeli Palestinian Conflict

What is the big deal about It? Why is it so important? The big issue is that in 1967, Israel claimed land after winning the Six Day War which the Palestinians now want back. This land, the Gaza Strip and West Bank, is considered contested territory, and both the Israelis and Palestinians are settling In It.

A multitude of solutions to this conundrum have been proposed: the one-state solution, the two-state solution, the here-state solution, and the list goes on. These solutions are all based around the distribution of territory between the groups. I for one support the two-state solution which would divide the territory to form a Palestinian state separate from Israel. My first reason for this solution is that the one-state solution, which is rather popular. Wouldn’t accomplish anything. Both groups wish to gain something for their own people, and one state shared between the two of them would undoubtedly cause more violence.

Both the Jews and Palestinians have terrorist groups that combat the opposite nationality. These groups consist of average citizens in the area who claim to represent their people, so, we can infer, each nationality has at least some sort of, either miniscule or massive, inbred aversion to each other. They would continue to fight within this state’s borders with even more ease. With as much rivalry as they have for each other, one state allowing free movement of these individuals would only make anti-Semitic or anti-lilacs terrorism easier.

Another reason for the two-state solution Is to protect Israel’s existence. One can assume that since groups like Hams are the semi-organized authority over the Palestinians, and these groups don’t recognize Israel’s authenticity as a country, many Palestinians don’t recognize Israel. As a result of this, if there were to be one shared state, the Palestinians would have even more reason not to recognize Israel and to undermine the Israelites authority. Also, most people In the region support an end to violence and look forward to an era of peace.

The best way to achieve peace would be through separating both nationalist groups into two distinct democratic states. They wont have anything to fight over, and a common goal between the two would be achieved. An article by The Jerusalem post noted that, In a poll, “63% of Palestinians and 70% of Israelis express their support for an end to violence, an Increase of 2% for Israelis and 5% for Palestinians over last year. ” Many against the two-state solution may argue that two separate states cannot peacefully coexist when the Arabs don’t recognize Israel’s existence.

While this statement does have some merit, the main reason for this, in my opinion, Is due to the Palestinians’ forced reliance on fellow Arab states. The Palestinians were driven out of their homeland and Into other Islamic-Arab nations, This only gives them 1 OFF reason not to accept Israel. It Israel were to allocate land tort a Palestinian state, the Palestinians might lessen their rivalry towards and may even exhibit support for Israel. Another opposition to my standpoint is that nobody has definitive right to the contested land.

Miramar Gadding, former dictator of Libya stated, “… Neither the Palestinians, nor the Jews can be called the rightful or historical owners of the land. There have been many people on that land, and it would be best to accept that they would simply have to live together, as Jews have been able to live amidst Muslim people… ” Unfortunately, the Holy Lands have strong significance to both groups. However, if the Holy Lands were evenly distributed between the Jews and the Palestinians and the borders were to be officially recognized, both groups could be appeased.

They would both maintain a piece of the land their Holy scripts were based off of, but they wouldn’t be forced to live alongside one another. Finally, we can compare the two most prominent resolutions, the one-state solution and the two-state solution, side by side. The two-state solution will develop two independent countries, and, while the land allotment may not be ideal, it would resolve the warfare between both groups. The One-state solution would give both roofs equal rights to all of the land, but it wouldn’t stop the Palestinians or the Jews from battling over prominence in the territory.

If we use an analogy to represent this impasse, we can relate Israel and Palatine’s relationship as a cancer patient, the two-state as chemotherapy, and the one-state solution as palliative care. If we treat the “patient” with “chemotherapy’, they have a favorable chance of getting better, although they will suffer unfavorable drawbacks. On the contrary, if we treat the “patient” with “palliative care”, they will feel better for an indeterminate amount of time, but assuredly die eventually. In conclusion, the two-state solution, although not perfect, is the least flawed of all the proposals to resolve this contention.