The military and political conflict between Israelis and Palestinians continues to devastate the lives of many people. It has been a major source of concern for the leaders of many countries.
This paper will argue that at this point one-state solution will be the best outcome for each side of the dispute. Moreover, there are examples showing that a single government can represent different ethnic groups; in particular one can speak about South Africa.
Certainly, these cases have differences but there are ways of negotiating peaceful agreement that can benefit both sides. Moreover, it will not necessarily lead to the segregation of the ethnic groups.
One of the first points that should be made is that ethnic conflicts were present in the history of many nations, but many countries were able to overcome them at least to some degree, for example, it is possible to mention the apartheid in South Africa and its legacies.
This country was able to rejoin after long years of segregation due to several factors. First of all, international community pressured the government of this country to abolish apartheid policies. Secondly, those people who opposed to institutional racism did not choose terrorism as a means of achieving their goals.
Certainly, there were violent responses to the actions of police, but they were a reaction the state violence such as the Sharpeville massacre (Lodge 214). In most cases, protesters avoided terrorist act. Furthermore, the government of South Africa began to pursue the policies of affirmative action that empowered black citizens of the country.
These are the conditions that are necessary for reconciliation of several ethnic groups. Unfortunately, the relations between Israelis and Palestinians were marked by terrorism, state violence, and unwillingness to search for a compromise.
Nevertheless, one-state solution is still the most optimal decision for both Israelis and Palestinians. First of all, one should mention that among Palestinian leadership there are many extremists who hold extremely anti-Semitic views; in particular, one has to speak about Hamas (Gleis & Berti 142).
The agenda of this political party implies that Israelis and Jews are responsible for every wrong that takes place in the Middle East or even the entire world (Gleis & Berti 142). They are not willing to enter any negotiations with the Israeli state (Gleis & Berti 142).
Currently, Hamas enjoys support among many Palestinians, and it is possible that this organization will be at the core of the newly created state. It might be dangerous to legitimize this political movement through a two-state solution.
This is one of the reasons why a single government should be preferred. Such an approach can turn Palestine into a totalitarian state that will pose a threat to many countries.
Additionally, people should take into consideration that the creation of the Palestinian state will require significant amount of time and investment. It will be necessary to create a variety of governmental institutions that will not be able to work effectively from the very start.
In contrast, the Israeli state is now one of the most developed in the world. It can better take care of the needs of people who live in Israel and Palestine.
Apart from that, one should take into account that there are many Israeli settlements and many infrastructural projects in Palestine, and it is not likely, that Israeli government will be willing to abandon them (Akram, 285).
This is why one can say the complete autonomy of the Palestinians is impossible in the near future. Certainly, such a view may appear too biased because it takes into account only the Israeli perspective.
Yet, many other countries such as the United States will have a very similar view on this problem, and one will have to accept it as a given.
A great number of politicians, political activists and diplomats speak about the so-called two-state solution. The thing is that both ethnic groups believe that the state should have a national identity (Demerath & Beckford 673).
In other words, it has to be either Jewish or Palestinian (Demerath & Beckford 673). Yet, at this moment, animosities existing between these ethnic groups can prevent the two states from interacting with one another in a peaceful and meaningful way.
Apart from that, the Israeli state is now forced to pursue the policy of affirmative action. In particular, they are obliged to invest more in the education and healthcare of Palestinians (Shalit, 246).
Probably, this policy will help to reconcile these Israelis and Palestinians and there will be no need for separation of two ethnic groups.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to be a major problem for the international community. It has already affected the lives of many people who do not even a certain political affiliation.
A one-state solution that has been discussed in this paper can be effective provided that both sides move toward reconciliation. It should be based on such strategies as elimination of anti-Semitism, affirmative action policies, and search of compromise.
Works Cited
Akram, Susan. International Law and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Rights-Based Approach to Middle East Peace, New York: Taylor & Francis, 2011. Print.
Demerath, Jay & J. Beckford. The SAGE Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, New York: SAGE, 2007. Print.
Gleis, Joshua and J. Berti. Hezbollah and Hamas: A Comparative Study, Baltimore: JHU Press, 2012. Print.
Lodge, Tom. Sharpeville : An Apartheid Massacre and its Consequences: An Apartheid Massacre and its Consequences, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print.
Shalit, Joel. Israel vs. Utopia. Jerusalem, Jerusalem: Akashic Books, 2009. Print.