Essay Example on the Oslo Peace Process: A Failed Attempt to Settle Arab-Israeli Conflict?

Secret negotiations between the Palestinian government and the Israelian government held in Oslo gave rise to the Oslo Peace Process in 1993. The two nations got recorded as the major players in the Arab- Israeli conflict. In a bid to end conflicts, the officials of the nations agreed that the Oslo peace agreement was indeed the right move. The reality recorded, however, was different; the conflicts did not seize. Currently, many argue that there is a need for the adoption of an alternative to the two states solution (Sara 2002). The following write up will explore the new alternative of the one-state solution, determining if it is going to be feasible.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The one-state solution aims at merging Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip into one big country. It may get looked at from two different angles. The first one is that Israel will annex the West Bank while instead forcing out the Palestinians or denying them the right to vote. This notion is, of course, supported by some rightists and the Israelis. Some leftists and the Palestinians fully support the other, and it intends to create a single democratic country. In this appeal, the Arab Muslims will outnumber the Jews; hence Israel will be known as a Jewish State.

Having two states as the option gives rise to different sources of conflict that were initially non-existent. The main one being border conflicts. The question of who owns what will come in with each country seeking to own the part of the land that is more profitable. Adding disputes to disputes will not be helping anything. Maintaining the one-state solution will aid the two states to solve the already present problems, and the parties could find a long-lasting solution that keeps both of them happy and appreciative of one another.

The one-state solution could also be a benefit since it provides what the two states have been yearning for peace and security. Since the onset of the two-state solution, the two states have gotten engulfed in a series of wars. The wars signified the end of peace and security that they had previously known. Their citizens live in constant fear of the next outburst and what it would likely affect. Israel opted to deploy its' military to solve the issues, but the force is never the right answer to long-lasting security given the concept of payback. Alternatively, through compromise and negotiation, the Palestinians' grievances will be sorted amicably, and peace and security will prevail.

The nature of one state also forces the Palestinians and the Israelis to integrate. The state of co-existence will invoke less bitterness and distrust. Two different people living together develop mutual interdependence. At this point, they share a common land, resources, future, and the tendency to reap benefits from the land. The need or desire to harm the other then seizes, and they work together from every end to try and help each other (Leila 2011). Accepting the one-state solution means an end on wars for the Israelis such that they could focus their energy on other activities that make them a better state altogether. For the Palestinians, it implies an economically viable state. This means that with the one-state solution, the living standards of its citizens will improve tremendously.

The one-state solution will also aid in improving the image of the Israelis within the neighboring community. Over the years, Israel formed very harsh policies against the Palestinians. The countries looking indefinitely did not like this. The countries fought back using frequent boycotts. This meant no peace for Israel, a state. It got compared to apartheid South Africa and got addressed as a country that always turned to violence as a way to solve its problems. Being a single state would mean that no one remained to fight regularly (Barakat 2018). This will open up Israel to the world as they will perceive it as a non-violent nation. It will be open for business and travel. The economic status will improve with every day, making the nation a profitable one.

For the Palestinians, a one-state solution helps them because the Israelis were not going to allow them to be an independent state. The Israelis are hungry for control, and this hunger does not seem to subside. They formulated policies that gave them control over the Palestinians with every chance they got during the two-state solution. The Palestinians, on the other hand, made compromises after compromises. Eventually, Palestinian land would get fully controlled Israelis, and their chance of having equal rights over the land and resources will be long overdue. Adopting this solution will allow them to have equal rights over the land and resources. With this, they even get the privilege of having what the Israeli's have as theirs.

The Palestinian population would also benefit from an end in oppression all together. As a two-state nation, the Israelis formulated policies that were not in favor of the Palestinians. Being a weak nation, they were always under oppression. Settlement on their land was slowly creeping in, and the policies forced them to keep giving out the land (Leila 2011). With it being one nation, the Israelis feel no need to steal land that is rightfully their own. The Palestinian citizens will feel safe to live, buy, and build in the land as the Israelis will not be after that land. They will have the freedom they have always wished for and always deserved. The season of living like refugees in their land will seemingly come to a halt.

The Palestinian population will recover their rights to national self-willpower and sovereignty in their land. Palestinians consider themselves a vulnerable society due to the original condition of statelessness. With this merge, they tend to earn these rights. The one-state solution apportions this right fairly among the Palestinians (Barakat, Rana, 2018). Sovereignty gets shared between two peoples, and each gets to enjoy a fair share. In this case, for the Palestinian government, it is better to have a little sovereignty than having no sovereignty at all. Their self-determination may make them rise again and be self-sufficient.

Moreover, the Palestinians with the one-state solutions will now have space for the house is many people. The Palestinian population has been increasing with space to house them. Many of its citizens eventually ran off to other countries to seek shelter and peace. With the one-state rule, the Palestinians will now afford to live anywhere that supports life in the state. This will eventually lead to the Israelis and the Palestinians considering themselves as one. If they are one, the less the conflicts and what seemed to be impossible will now be possible.

Finally, the Israelis will have continuous access to land that had historical value to them. The Israelis have sought continuously to maintain their Jewish rule. With this, they consider the Arab Muslims to be infringing in their personal space. If they merged into a one-state, it means the Israelis will be able to access every area that they would like; hence there would be no reason to have conflicts over it.

The merge would, however, not be as smooth as it seems. The Palestinian seem to be letting go and making compromises yet another time. It seems like the rule goes to the Israelis for yet another period. While they were a two-state life they made compromises and ended up gaining nothing. At this point, it may not seem fair to the Palestinians, but what they stand to gain is more than the loss they get to look at now (Sara 2002).

Conclusion

In conclusion, one state solutions seem from every angle more profitable than the already existing two-state solution. Hence, I support the implementation of the one-state solution wholeheartedly. It offers the states things they currently do not have. Peace, security, a thriving economy, a right name, and equality are some of the things the two states seek to gain from their merge. The two-state solution just continues harming and taking from the Palestinians and keeps giving to the Israelis. With the merge, they will be able to focus on other things. The Palestinians will stop focussing on border conflicts and improve economically. The Israelis will stop focussing on waging wars; instead, they will shift their eyes to maintaining a positive image and improving their relations with other nations.

Works Cited

Barakat, Rana, “Writing/righting Palestine studies: settler colonialism, indigenous sovereignty and resisting the ghost(s) of history.” Settler Colonial Studies. 2018, Vol. 8:3

Black, Enemies, and Neighbours: Arabs and Jews in Palestine and Israel, 1917-2017

Leila Farsakh, "The One-State Solution: Palestinian Challenges and Prospects," Middle East Journal, vol. 172, Winter, no. 1. 2011 (BB)

Sara Roy, “Why Peace Failed: An Oslo Autopsy,” Current History, Jan. 2002, (EJ)