International Law in the Contemporary World Arena

Posted: July 13th, 2021

INTRODUCTION

Conflict and wars are common phenomena in the various parts of the universe. Although, many countries experience severe wars during the early 20^th century. There were various reasons behind the wars including, nationalism, colonialism and assassination. After many years of wars, many countries have managed maintain peace and unity through agreements and formulation of both local and international laws that protect people’s right and facilitate their well-being. Yet, subsequent to more than 50 years of terrorism, war, human suffering and peace negotiations, Palestine and Israel remain behind when it comes to peaceful settlement. Israelites and Palestinian have been hopeful that a two-state agreement would enhance peace between them.

The creation of a two-state seems to be the best solution to the problem. This is evidenced by the support of leaders and continuous efforts to resolve conflicts through the approach. A two-state is likely to enhance peace and security between Israelites and Palestinians. Besides, it will fulfil the interest of the Israelites, Americans, Palestinians and the world at large. But then, is it possible for the two parties to create a two-state or it is too late? The two-state goal is subject to serious challenges today. There are signs of an emerging perception among the two groups that it will be difficult to attain a two-state solution which meets the respective needs of both parties. The two communities are continuously growing closer physically though they remain detached socially, economically and politically. Perhaps, a two-state solution could be late or not. This paper seeks to examine the Palestine question and explain whether there are hopes of finding a lasting solution to the problem in relation to democracy and international law.

OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM

The Palestine question is a problem that is associated with ongoing conflict and struggle between the Palestinians and the Israelis which started in 20^th-century[1]. The conflict has a great history since it is part of Arab-Israeli disagreements[2]. The key issues behind the conflict include borders, recognition, water rights, security, an Israeli settlement, Palestinian freedom of movement, the refugee question and the control of Jerusalem[3]. The outcomes of the conflicts prompted international concerns and other human rights and security concerns. The following section presents a detailed view of the challenges and major issues that dominate existing debates. Israeli settlements

Israelis colonies also were known as settlements on the land that has been for a long time recognized by the United Nations (UN) as part of Palestine. This is one of the major limitations to the creation of two sovereign states for Palestinians and Israelis. The population in these areas has grown despite international criticism. Israel has constantly declined to dismantle the settlements in the East Jerusalem, Golan Heights and West Bank and violated different moratoriums about new growth.

Water

The land has always had inadequate water.  It is the Israel National Water carrier that contributed to the high population and better standards of living. The carrier pumped and distributed to areas in the south and centre of Israel including Palestine areas. Though the carriers delivered water in many places, it was not enough. River Jordan flows via the territory that is could be considered as part of Palestine. Israel and Palestine are both in need of enough water for Development and survival. They would want to ensure that there is enough supply of water from the available resources but Israel reserved a greater percentage of water for its use in West Bank aquifers.

Israeli domination

Israel’s reacted to Palestine violence during the commencement of the Oslo process by restricting the flow of Palestine workforce to Israel to inhibit the intrusion of terrorists, and through thorough checks at the border. The closing of the border significantly reduced the standards of living of most of the Palestinian. The Palestinians who did not report at work were subjected to long waits at the border and embarrassing searches. The terror attacks at the border or checkpoints provoked nervous Israel Defense Forces (IDF) militias and at times they quickly opened fire on suspected vehicles killing innocent people[4]. The Palestinians found it difficult to get work in Jerusalem and travel to other towns due to the checkpoints in areas around Jerusalem. The IDF killed many Palestinians, deracinated olive groves and destroyed houses. Israeli extremist harassed Palestinians and demolished their properties but the perpetrators were not revealed.

The Palestine state

This was originally created to recuperate all Palestine for Arabs. The PLO indicated that it was going to accept a two-state solution in the late 1980s. The Oslo Consensuses were expected to have facilitated a peaceful resolution. Nevertheless, a continuous Israeli settlement, incitement and Palestinian violence worsened conflicts in late 2000. Some Palestinians demanded a state in Gaza and in the West Bank but the Israelis never wanted to create a state. They argue that terror groups would take advantage and create their base in such states.

Refugees

Many Palestinians refugees fled their homes during the war that took place in the 20^th century. Many refugees live in crowded camps in poor circumstances in Gaza and West Bank, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. The Palestinians claim that the refugees have a right to return back to their homes in Israel under the United Nations General Assembly resolution 194.  According to Israelis, such a move could create an Arab Palestinian mainstream and would be a threat to Israel as a Jewish state. They claimed that approximately, an equal number of Jews fled their homes and settled in Israel in 1948.

Israelites and Palestinians have been involved in various negotiations since 1991 to achieve a two-state solution. The Madrid Peace Conference that was held in 1991 brought Palestinians and Israelites in a one on one negotiation for the first time. During the meeting, the two parties agreed that the ultimate solution to the problem entails the creation of two states. Thus, the state of Israel (Gaza existing peace and security) as well as a Palestinian state in the West Bank. The main subjects of the negotiations included the destiny of Israelites settlement in West Bank, the borders of the two states, How Jerusalem was going to be shared and how to resolve refugee problems[5]. Despite the efforts to reach an agreement and substantiate these considerations, no deal was made.

Since then other negotiations meant to find a lasting solution to the problem have also failed in spite of the 2007 poll which indicated that most of Palestinians and Israelis preferred two-state solution over other alternative ways. It has been a 25 year of diplomacy including the Camp David Summit, Oslo Accords, the Taba Summit, the Arab Peace Initiative, the Kerry Peace Efforts and the Middle East Road Map among others. Yet, all have done little to resolve the conflicts.

Following the change of leadership in Israel and the United States in early 2009 and Israel- Hamas conflict that took place in late 2008 and January 2009, peace negotiations between the two parties which used to take place during the final year of Bush leadership did not resume. However, President Barack Obama demonstrated his commitments towards achieving a two-state solution a few days after his inauguration[6]. Obama appointed Senator George Mitchell (an efficacious mediator in the Northern Ireland conflict in the 1990s) as the US special diplomat for peace in the Middle East. Additionally, Obama’s early 2009 speech in Egypt reaffirmed the United States goal to create Israel and Palestine state in accordance with the “Land for peace” standards of the United Nations (UN) Security Council resolutions 242 as well as 338.

After Obama’s speech, many discussions have been based on whether matters like Palestinians factional progress ad unity and Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem and West Bank should be solved before or after the recommencement of final-status negotiations[7]. The Obama’s administration failed to secure some agreement. For instance, the agreement to restrict settlement building.

THE TWO-STATE AND THE TENETS OF THE POLICY

It is over 16 years since Palestine Liberal organization and Israel agreed to the Oslo Accord of 1993. Nonetheless, there is an observable difference between the two groups in matters pertaining to settlements, refugees, borders, security as well as the status of Jerusalem.  These issues have not been fully resolved despite the third party interventions by various international actors, the US to be specific. When talks do not yield desirable results, the parties involved go back to the negotiating table. Many believe that this move will always remain viable if it is supported by political actors. Even though, other people believe that the two-state negotiations could survive the process where talks are put on hold and recommenced an unknown number of times without a conclusion. Geopolitical changes, as well as the existing realities, exacerbate the doubt concerning the survival of the two-state solution. In the course of a closed-door trilateral meeting held in September 2009 in New York, Obama told Abbas and Netanyahu that they had done enough talks and hence there was the need to end the conflict[8]. In a nutshell, this meant that there is an opportunity which could be lost is the necessary actions are not taken.

The fall of hope in the feasibility of a two-state solution has increased the willingness among some analysis as well as policymakers to seek other alternatives to attain key goals. For instance, Palestinian statehood before the “border’s first” deal or final-status agreement. Further loss of hope made Israelis and Palestinians consider alternative solutions which are not in line with the United States policy. The alternatives include “Jordanian”, “regional”, “One-state solution” and others. It is necessary to embrace alternatives and ignore the US two-state policy? What are the implications of this move?

A two-state solution has always been considered as the best solution than all other alternatives. Despite the loss of hope, it is important not to disregard the alternative. The United States diplomats are still concerned about the two-state policy[9]. Diplomatic efforts by the US government under the administration of President Donald Trump seem to focus on redefining key issues that is the refugee and Jerusalem in a way that alienates European and Palestinian allies. Nonetheless, the factors of a two-state are well-established and may not need to be reestablished. Regardless of the unquestionable despondency associated with the conflict both sides still support the factors or parameters of the US policy. The policy is centred on the following tenets.

The international framework

In 1967, the United National Security Council solidly embrace resolution 242, forming the ideologies that were meant to guide the negotiations for Israel-Arab peace settlement. The Goal of the resolution is to attain “acceptable settlement and peace”[10]. This means reaching an agreement based on the principles of resolutions rather than those imposed upon involved parties.  The standards embodied in the UN Resolutions 242, as well as 338, should provide directions for negotiations. The first paragraph of the UN security resolution confirms that the adherence of the principles of the chapter involves the establishment of a fair, just and eternal long-lasting peace in the Middle East through the application of the following principles.

1. Withdrawal of the armed forces of Israel from the areas occupied in the latest conflicts.
2. The cessation of all assertions or state of war and the acknowledgement of political independence of each state, regional integrity, sovereignty and respect for all nations in matters pertaining to their right to live in recognized, peaceful and secure boundaries which are free the act of the force or threats. Resolution 242 calls for a fair solution to the refugee problem.

Territory and settlements.

The negotiations regarding territory and on the ultimate acknowledged and secure border between Palestine and Israel will be in line with 4^th June 1967 borders. Alterations of the borders ought to be agreed and must be based on an agreed-upon territorial conversation, in accordance with the special needs as well as demographic considerations and territorial contiguity. A settlement freeze, either wide-ranging or outside the areas to be integrated within the borders of Israel, as jointly agreed by the two sides in any final settlement ought to be executed.

Jerusalem:

   The metropolitan area of Jerusalem will serve as respective capitals of Israel and Palestine based on the 1967 border while acknowledging the standard that the Palestinian neighbourhood ought to be part of Palestine and Israel neighborhoods should be part of Israel[11]. The freedom of worship and access to holy places will be given to all religions and the Old City within the wall will be under an exceptional regime.

Security:

      Through the withdrawal of the armed forces of Israel from Palestine territory, armed special security measures, non-militarized Palestine state as well as the possible deployment of international forces in the Jordan Valley will be subject to the agreement between the two parties, in relation to the development of regional security measures that are in line with the requirements referred to in the Israeli-Jordanian and Israeli-Egyptian peace treaties.

Resources

The ultimate solution to the conflict will take account issues concerning justifiable a reasonable allocation of shared resources

State-to-state resolution.

 The relationships between one state and the other should be based on the rule of equal sovereignty of states thus creating an enabling environment for good neighbourhood relationships between the states.

Infrastructure and development:

   Significant support for construction of physical as well as institutional infrastructure in Palestine state should be provided. This move will encourage the growth and development of a stable, secure, prosperous and democratic state.

Regional relations

Development and progress in Israeli and Palestine peace process will be an important part in encouraging an all-inclusive and comprehensive peace Israel and Islamic and all Arab nations as stated in the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002.

Refugees

 A broad resolution of the Palestinian refugee issue will be negotiated and all parties will be expected to reach an agreement. Major international and regional assistance will be needed in addressing this problem to provide refugees with reasonable options and rehabilitation.

These parameters constitute the essential elements of the peace plan[12]. The conflict was prompted by many factors and hence these tenets cannot effectively address the problem in the absence of other potential solutions. Indeed, there are other issues that must be considered. For instance economic regimes, specific security measures, investments and timelines. However, failure to deal with core issue may not lead to a sustainable solution. The US two-state policy covers critical issues and considers various international laws and democratic issues[13]. Besides, the principles and elements under the policy can lead to an effective solution to the problem than other alternatives.

The central and most important idea in US policy is the reaching a mutually accepted and permanent territorial border between Palestine and Israel based on the 4^th June 1967  border lines coupled with an agreed land swap leading to the end of occupation. A map that describes Palestine and Israel boundaries is a key ingredient in moving the peace process to the next level. A clear understanding of border issues would make it possible for Israel to incorporate the established areas of settlement into the accepted territory of Israel and facilitate the relocation of settlers to agreed areas. An agreed alteration of the border would enable more than 70% of Israeli to stay where they are living currently. The arguments presented in this section show the adoption of the US policy will yield a desirable result and therefore, even if people question its viability, the policy cannot be ignored.  Maybe, this explains Donald Trump and other diplomats are still expressing their concerns over the policy.

With the US policy seemingly becoming unachievable, people have begun focusing on alternative solutions[14]. Other options for more incorporated political framework include one-state solution among others. All the options have pros and drawbacks and others appear better than others. According to the latest research conducted in the Middle East, only one-third of the Palestinians and Israelites supported a single state solution, result that show how the support for an amicable solution has increased among the Israelis over the past few years with greater backing from Arab Israelis who support any peace plan at high rate[15]. Approximately 30% of Palestine’s supported the move for a two-state confederation in 2018.

DEMOCRACY, POLITICAL CONSIDERATION, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PUBLIC   OPINION

Whereas talks and political trends related to the Palestine question seem discouraging, public views are dynamic. Some people believe that trust and hope can be rebuilt depending on the kind of leadership. A leadership approach that promotes peace and democracy through the formulation of policies and international law that promote peace and unity brings about a desirable outcome. There have been little chances of attaining an ultimate agreement that will bring to an end the Israeli- Palestinian conflicts for different reasons: there is a mutual mistrust between corresponding leadership; gaps in historical narratives have grown wider over the years; the parties involved are far much apart from a permanent solution to the problem; leaders have been reluctant to take effective steps and have appeared not ready to take the risks related to the creation of peace[16]. Lately, there was no dependable broker who could facilitate the negotiation process. Moreover, the developments that have occurred in the larger Middle East and in the Arab world in the past few decades have complicated the nature of the conflicts and the relationship between the two groups thus lessening the urgency of the issue. Additionally, there are domestic hindrances as explained in other sections.

The public indicates that the key subject includes security, settlement and Jerusalem. Israelis and Palestine do not highly favour a two-state solution due to the failure of the policy, though no alternative solution is highly favoured. All they want is an effective solution. Among the suggested alternatives, the US still stands out as the most effective one[17].  Previous reports by the National Security Index enlightens key points on people’s opinions regarding the conflict.  It shows that Israelis are not in a hurry to find a solution. They are confident that the government will be able to contain threats and deal with existing challenges.

Furthermore the support for creating a Palestine state has declined. In 2010, the support for a two-state solution rose to 58% in 2010 due to the speech that was made by Benjamin Netanyahu (prime minister) at Bar Ilan University. The prime minister declared his backing for the US policy but later the support for creating a Palestine state progressively declined to 43% in 2017. The Israelis have indicated greater support for the US policy[18]. Unlike Palestine, Israeli support stood at 55% in 2017. This percentage is lesser than the percentage in previous years.

A summary of the entire outcome of the polls shows that many people support a two-state solution.

Security remains a critical issue in Palestine and Israel. Most Israeli Arabs support the creation of a Palestine government in the West Bank.They also encourage the development of an international force that will enhance security and promote the rule of international law associated with human rights and peace is not only in a Palestinian state but also in the Israeli state. A great number of Israeli Jew stated that they would back an agreement that describes Palestinian state as having an independent and democratic political administration that is based on freedom of expression, a strong parliament, and the rule of law, an independent judiciary as well as equal rights irrespective of religious and ethnic backgrounds.

The reasons behind these opinions and trend pertinent to the conflict and possible solution are the perception that the two-state solution is no longer viable. Palestinians have come to believe that Israeli Jewish do not support the US policy. They think that Israelis do want them to be peaceful and Israelis cannot be trusted. It is the distrust that limits the willingness of Palestine to take risks and engaged in meaningful negotiations[19].  With the huge mistrust, diplomats and world leaders cannot rely on public opinion to implement an effective solution.

CONCLUSION

In an environment that is characterized by loss of hope and the need for an urgent solution, policy communities are likely to express their views about various policy options and suggest new ways of solving the problem. Nevertheless, all possible solutions must be examined. The alternatives must consider an appropriate measure of integration and separation. Thus, although Palestinians are Israelis are economically and geographically intertwined, they have different needs. The alternative or proposal should provide a balance that will fulfil the needs of the two groups. Also, they must consider the general constitutional model and the potential consequences. For instance, the nature of violence, labour and economic opportunities, access to holy places, the freedom of movement and other basic needs. Moreover, any political resolution requires the parties involved to gain adequate support from the internal constituencies of both sides. To achieve this, the solution should provide some level of space to spoilers but ensure that it does not alienate one side.

In conclusion, the discussion above reveals that the two parties are less likely to execute a solution and attain peace soon. The longer it takes for the Israelis, Palestinians, diplomats and democrats and the international community to finalize talks are reach a solution, the worse the situation becomes. In such a surrounding, it is necessary for the parties involved to determine the conditions that will support the success of the future agreement. Both parties must accept these conditions. Developing such a condition can bring about a sense of hope which is important for peacemaking. The recent concern and advancement made by Donald Trump and his administration bring back the hope to for the Palestine question and the hope for a two-state solution. But then, other world leaders including Israelis and Palestine must come together and make a mutual agreement. Altering the previous principles of the policy could be a good move to advance it. Hence, it not yet late for the US policy.

REFERENCES

Allegra MP Napolitano, ‘Two States or Not Two States? Leadership and Peace Making In the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict’ (2011) 16 Mediterranean Politics

Edward P, ‘Two States or One? Reappraising the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse’ (2018) Middle                           East politics.

Farsakh L, ‘The One-State Solution And The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Palestinian Challenges And Prospects’ (2011) 65 The Middle East Journal

Hollis R, ‘Palestine and the Palestinians in British Political Elite Discourse: From ‘The Palestine Problem’ To ‘The Two-State Solution’’ (2016) 30 International Relations

‘Israeli–Palestinian Impasse’ (2002) 8 Strategic Comments

Jarbawi A, ‘the Failure of the Two-State Solution: The Prospects of the One State in The Israel–Palestine Conflict’ (2014) 7 Contemporary Arab Affairs

Kelman H, ‘A One-Country/ Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict’ (2011) 18 Middle East Policy

Mirilovic ND Siroky, ‘Two States in the Holy Land? International Recognition and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict’ (2015) 8 Politics and Religion

Shany Y, ‘Forty Years after 1967: Reappraising the Role and Limits of the Legal Discourse on Occupation in the Israeli-Palestinian Context’ (2008) 41 Israel Law Review

Telhami S, ‘the United States and Middle East Peace: The Case for Arbitrating Israeli-Palestinian Disputes’ (1995) 13 the Brookings Review

‘The Forgotten Palestinians: A History of the Palestinians in Israel’ (2012) 49 Choice Reviews Online

[1] Telhami S, ‘the United States and Middle East Peace: The Case for Arbitrating Israeli-Palestinian Disputes’ (1995) 13 the Brookings Review

[2] Allegra MP Napolitano, ‘Two States or Not Two States? Leadership and Peace Making In the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict’ (2011) 16 Mediterranean Politics

[3] Farsakh L, ‘The One-State Solution And The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Palestinian Challenges And Prospects’ (2011) 65 The Middle East Journal

[4] Farsakh L, ‘The One-State Solution And The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Palestinian Challenges And Prospects’ (2011) 65 The Middle East Journal

[5] Allegra MP Napolitano, ‘Two States or Not Two States? Leadership and Peace Making In the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict’ (2011) 16 Mediterranean Politics

[6] Allegra MP Napolitano, ‘Two States or Not Two States? Leadership and Peace Making In the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict’ (2011) 16 Mediterranean Politics

[7] Edward P, ‘Two States or One? Reappraising the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse’ (2018) Middle                         East politics.

[8] Edward P, ‘Two States or One? Reappraising the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse’ (2018) Middle                         East politics.

[9] ‘Israeli–Palestinian Impasse’ (2002) 8 Strategic Comments

[10] Edward P, ‘Two States or One? Reappraising the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse’ (2018) Middle East politics.

[11] Edward P, ‘Two States or One? Reappraising the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse’ (2018) Middle                                   East politics.

[12] Jarbawi A, ‘the Failure of the Two-State Solution: The Prospects of the One State in The Israel–Palestine Conflict’ (2014) 7 Contemporary Arab Affairs

[13] ‘The Forgotten Palestinians: A History of the Palestinians in Israel’ (2012) 49 Choice Reviews Online

[14] ‘Israeli–Palestinian Impasse’ (2002) 8 Strategic Comments

[15] Edward P, ‘Two States or One? Reappraising the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse’ (2018) 3 Middle                East politics.

[16] Farsakh L, ‘The One-State Solution And The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Palestinian Challenges And Prospects’ (2011) 65 The Middle East Journal

[17] Kelman H, ‘A One-Country/ Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict’ (2011) 18 Middle East Policy

[18] Mirilovic ND Siroky, ‘Two States in the Holy Land? International Recognition and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict’ (2015) 8 Politics and Religion

[19] Shany Y, ‘Forty Years after 1967: Reappraising the Role and Limits of the Legal Discourse on Occupation in the Israeli-Palestinian Context’ (2008) 41 Israel Law Review