Israel/Palestine Options

This blog looks at hypothetical ways out of the current state of conflict in Gaza between Israel and Palestinians

Introduction
 
Continuation of the current state of conflict in Gaza is likely to be increasingly unacceptable and intolerable for the world outside Israel. It creates traumas likely to persist for generations among those most affected. The way in which military action is being conducted undermines one key principle on which the state of Israel’s own claim for legitimacy is based – the principle that each life should be treated as having equal worth. 
 
In theory, there are three ways out of the current situation. Each has their own drawbacks.
 
The ‘Two State’ option
 
The ‘two state option is the option most frequently cited. It dates from the 1993 Oslo accords.
 
The option
Under this option a state of Palestine would be created comprising Gaza and the West Bank. It would probably involve the creation of a technocratic government, at least initially, with an elected authority following on. One of the main functions of an interim technocratic government would be to act as an administrative channel for reconstruction aid. It would also establish the currency of the new state – possibly tied to a basket of currencies.
 
The drawbacks
There are drawbacks to this option from both an Israeli perspective and from a Palestinian viewpoint. 
 
From the Israeli perspective, security is the issue. The external borders might be seen to be vulnerable to the supply and reinforcement of arms and extremists. An elected government to replace any interim government of technocrats could also allow for the resurgence of Hamas or its supporters under another name.
 
From the Palestinian perspective the first issue is insecurity. The new state would feel vulnerable to any new Israeli incursion on whatever pretext. The second issue is property rights. Palestinians see some Israeli settlements on the West Bank as illegal and would not only wish to see them removed but also have assurances against future attempts at settlement. At the same time, Palestinians would wish to see the restitution of former Palestinian property in Israel or at least substantial reparation payments.
 
Property rights might be kicked into the long grass but security and insecurity cannot. Insecurity will feed extremism and instability into the two-state option on both sides.
 
One state amalgamation
 
The creation of a single unified state of Israel & Palestine is another option.
 
The option
In this option Gaza and the West Bank would become part of a combined state of Israel/Palestine. The government would necessitate a form of power sharing between the communities, based on coalition government and proportional representation. Key government ministries would be under joint control. Broadly speaking it would have to follow a consociationalist form of government that recognises deep differences within a single polity. Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands are usually cited as examples. Some form of legal pluralism will be needed to respect Judaic law, Islamic law and international commercial and contract law.
 
There are two important advantages under this option. First Israel will have effective control of its external borders. Secondly, it provides a basis on which all citizens can be treated as having equal worth.
 
The drawbacks
There are three main drawbacks to consociationalist forms of government. First, the precise form of consociationalism would have to be agreed. Secondly, power sharing in whatever form can mean that a consensus on actual policies will be difficult to reach. Secondly, minorities can gain extra leverage in coalitions by playing what is known as a ‘hold out’ game where the price for providing a coalition with a majority is acceptance of the minority position. 
 
The Condominium alternative
 
The third option would involve condominium government.
 
The option 
In this option Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem would be jointly administered by Israel and a Palestinian authority, technocratic or elected. It would offer Israel control over its external borders and a way of ensuring that Hamas does not re-enter Palestinian government. It would restore to Palestinians a shared control over Jerusalem.
 
The drawbacks
The cost to Isreal would be that joint administration of Jerusalem would restore the pre-1967 situation in Jerusalem. The cost to Palestinians is that it could postpone indefinitely the possibility of Palestinian statehood. 
 
No good options?
 
This brief summary of ways out of the current state of conflict suggests that each option caries costs and benefits to each of the parties to the conflict. Property rights would remain an unresolved question under each. Resolution of property disputes would probably require separate treatment by an international tribunal for redress, restitution and reparation. 
 
There are two underlying issues. 
 
Identity
The first is around identity. Palestinians gain a geographical and locational focus for their identity in the case of the first two options, but less so in the third. Israeli identity loses a claim to exclusivity in its locational expression in the second. The first option is a segregationist option and could motivate a further separation of the two communities.
 
Security/Insecurity
The second underlying issue is around security/insecurity. This is a major weakness in the first option. The other options offer either power sharing or joint administration as the approach.
 
The international rule of law?
 
In theory each of the options would be consistent with ideas of an international rule of law. However, the more immediate issue is the motivation of the big powers to involve themselves and to destabilise any settlement. The point of entry could be provided indirectly through international organisations. Even those administering humanitarian aid would likely introduce partisanship and big-power politics into the scene. Bilateral aid arrangements would bring in big power politics more directly and would likely entrench corruption as donors try to create client relationships. 
 
To prevent this happening under any of the options, Israel and Palestine would need to agree and jointly approve external sources of assistance. Possibly an international aid consortium with membership approved by each side would have a role. in the case of property rights and arrangements for restitution, redress and reparations, a jointly agreed process with jointly agreed forms of adjudication would also be needed. 
 
A line would also have to be drawn under allegations of past violations of human rights. Under any of the options, both Palestinians and Israel would wish to exclude any role for the ICC.