PALESTINIAN ISRAELI CONFLICT AND TWO STATE SOLUTIONS

Brig Gen Ali Mohammad Ali Al-Mufleh was commissioned into the Jordan Army
on 14 Nov 1984. He has served in various appointments in Jordanian Special Forces
as well as in different positions in Jordan army. He holds a Master Degree in
Management and Strategic Studies (Mutah University, Jordan)

ABSTRACT

This research is about one of the most likely scenarios in reaching an agreeable
solution to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a two-state option, and how the
two-state solution would impact Jordans national security from a political, security,
economic, and social perspective. The research problem was to examine the reason
why Palestine and the rest of Arab states prefer the two-state solutions. This research
argues that the establishment of a sovereign, independent, Palestinian state under a
two-state solution will achieve security and stability, also end the struggle of the
Palestinian for a long time. In addition, it offers the best solution for Jordans
national security. This research focuses on achieving three objectives, which are to
examine how the Palestine- Israel conflict started since 1947, secondly, to identify
why Jordan and Palestine prefer the two-state solutions recently. Finally, it is to
examine how the Palestine Israel conflict impacts Jordans national security. In
order to answer the purpose of this research, the primary and secondary data
collected were from Arabic and English based resources. The theory of neorealism
was used to identify the national interests and how the international system shapes
other countries national interests based on this conflict. Findings of this research
suggested that the two-state solution is better for both Palestine and Israel because
they both can attain their sovereignty, while Jordan national security is protected.
Therefore, the two-state solutions will contribute to the stability of the region due to
the sovereign Palestine state while not neglecting the Israel existence.
INTRODUCTION
At the end of World War I, just as the Ottoman rule in the region ended, the League of
Nations (the precursor body to the United Nations) and the occupying powers chose to
redraw the borders of the Middle East. Consequently, the territory of Transjordan and
Palestine historically and geographically was known as the southern part of Levant
Bilad Al-Sham, and this was under the British mandate that continued until the end
of World War II.1

Since the British mandate was in place in the early 1920s, Jordan faced
numerous challenges that threatened its political existence. The 1917 Balfour
Declaration recognised a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. In this
Declaration, the British government pledged two things. Firstly, was to use their best
endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this objective. Secondly, is that nothing
should be done to interfere with the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish
communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any
other country.2 Despite the promise, it seemed impossible in due time to reconcile the
new Jewish state and, while maintaining the civil and religious rights of the
Palestinian Arabs living on the land. In fact, there was a long-standing question
regarding Britain's decision to carve Transjordan out of the mandatory territory.
Firstly, it was the decision itself. Secondly, the decision to prevent the Jewish
community from residing or moving into the area. The late King Abdullah succeeded,
along with the British government in excluding the Transjordan from the Balfour
Declaration.3 The British finally asked the United Nations to approve an end to British
Mandate rule in Transjordan. With that, King Abdullah was declared as the first
governor of Transjordan
The Palestine-Israel conflict is one of the longest conflict, the most notorious
and ingrained conflict of the twentieth,4 this conflict impact all region from many
dimensions, security, economy, socially, and politically, the region becomes
instability, low economic grow and increase the militate and Jihadist groups in the
region. Jordan national security was threatened as a result of their geopolitics position,
and the historical relationship between Jordanian-Palestinian. The Palestinian issue is
a sensitive one for Jordan, and the government builds its relation based on its interest

1
Khalidi, R. 2006. The Iron Gage - The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood.
Boston: Beacon Press: p. 31.

2
Shlomo, S. 2010. The Invention of the Jewish People. Tel Aviv: University of Tel Aviv: p. 55.

3
Mishal, S. 1978. West Bank/ East Bank - The Palestinians in Jordan. Yale: University Press:
p.13.
4
Harms, G. 2012. The Palestine-Israel Conflict: A Basic Introduction: p. 288
at the international level, Jordan has played a pioneering role in activating dialogues,
and the peace initiatives with the Israeli side.

PROBLEM STATEMENT
The Arab-Israel conflict has seen, since Israel occupied Palestine, many wars. Since
1967 war, there were several peace plans and negotiations which have taken place.
There were some successful negotiating precedents, including the negotiations
between Egypt and Israel, and between Israel and Jordan. However, there was no
agreement was reached regarding the fundamental conflict between Palestinians and
Israelis. Peace in the Middle East is important for stability and security of the region
and the entire world. However, Jordan faces many challenges and threats to its
national security from many dimensions according to the geopolitical situation.

The anticipated change from Jordan's 1994 Peace Treaty with Israel has
disappointingly not calmed the state of affairs in Jordan. This decades-long conflict
bears a mass of deeply intertwined problems, such as the question of the occupied
territories, the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian State, the Israeli settlements,
the border placement, the water disputes, the refugees' right of return, the rise of
Hamas and the status of the City of Jerusalem. These issues constitute a direct threat
to Jordan's national security. Security Council resolution 242 in 1967 asked Israel to
withdraw from the West Bank, and respect the sovereignty of all states in the region.

This solution was proposed since 1947 by United Nations General Assembly
that voted to establish two states for the Arabs and Jews when Palestine was under the
British Mandate. However, the Arab countries rejected this solution while Israel
accepted it. During the peace talks, Israel has made it difficult, and the negotiations
could not reach any significant decisions to make peace. The situation has since then,
changed now. The two-state solution is considered to be the viable solution for all
parties. From time to time, Israel had proposed that Jordan to be the alternative
homeland for Palestinians. This solution is advertised by the Israeli Right Wing but
rejected absolutely by both Jordanians and Palestinians. The intriguing issue would be
in the understanding as to why the Palestinians and the rest of Arab states are in
preference of a two-state solution.

TWO STATES SOLUTION

The two-state solutions refer to a solution for the conflict between the Israelis and the
Palestinians, which envisages an independent state of Palestine along the state of
Israel. The main idea of the two-state solution calls for two state for two groups of
people which divides the land on the western part of the Jordan river into two states
for two different communities as per this context. This would specifically be for the
Jews and the Arab Palestinians who are living side by side with mutual respect, and
acknowledgment of sovereignty between one another as independent states.

The conflict between the Palestinians and the Israeli is not an easily resolved
problem. This is due to the complexity of the socio-psychological barriers either
cognitively, emotionally, and motivationally that exists within this context.5 In
addition to the complexities of the problem due to the barriers, there are influential
players involved in this conflict besides the Israel and the PLO, namely the USA, the
European Union, Iran, the Arab countries, and the international community. Jordan is
one of the Arab countries that was heavily affected, and directly involved in the
conflict due to her historical relationship to Palestine. The matter became even more
complex and complicated when the non-state actors such as Hamas (another Palestine
group) and Hezbollah in Lebanon got involved in this conflict. These players had a
different agenda in addressing the conflict which inherently based on their political
ideologies and specific interests. These made the already complicated problem even
more complex which understandably impacted negatively the progress of the peace
process.

The Israelis have exploited the complexity of the conflict by not respecting the
agreement that they agreed with the Palestinians. For the last 20 years, none of the
pledges made by the Israelis in the Oslo peace accords were honoured. For example,
the Israelis had pledged to carry out further withdrawals from the West Bank in
stages, but it was never implemented. The Israeli army is still occupying the regions,
harassing and arresting Palestinians profusely. The main contention by the Israelis for
occupying the territories is mainly for security reason, with the occupation is to
prevent the attacks by the Palestinians against Israeli targets in the West Bank and
inside the green line, such as the situation during the second intifada. Nonetheless, the
idea of having two-state solutions to the conflict remains a valid and plausible option.
The opinion polls conducted by the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research
(Ramallah), and the Truman Institute for Peace Research (Hebrew University,
Jerusalem) which published on 31 December 2013, showed that the majority from
both sides of populations supported the two-state solutions, when 63% of Palestinians
and 53% of Israelis respectively.6

DEFINING A SOVEREIGN PALESTINE

During the early 1980s, the PLO shifted its strategy aiming for a sovereign
independent State in the West Bank and Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital,7 The
5
Bar, D., Tal, Halperin, E. & Oren, N. 2010. Socio-Psychological Barriers to Peace Making:
The Case of The Israeli Jewish Society: p. 28.
6
Zahir, B. 2014. Decline Realistic Two-State Solution. (January).
http://palestine.assafir.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=2728. [12 Aug 2016].
7
Camille, M. 2013. The Palestinian Policy Network, How Sovereign A State. Al-Shabaka (31
July). http://al-shabaka.org/. [23 sep 2016].
four elements of an independent Palestinian state are namely territory, sovereignty,
people, and governance. Even though if they are subject to controversy, their
sovereignty, in particular, is a core issue which can be defined as a governments
control over a territory and a people. This would include monopoly over the use of
force.8 The elements of sovereignty entail control over land, territorial waters, borders,
natural resources, and population.

The Palestinian vision coincides with this definition of sovereignty. While on

the Israeli side the interpretation of sovereignty is at odds not only with the Palestinian
vision but with concepts that are well established and accepted worldwide.
Disagreements between Israel and the Palestinians concern are as such;

Territory - here the issue concerns secure borders and modification of the pre-
1967 borders, the Israelis security concerns not the return of all land.
Right of Return - Israeli rejected the right of return for all but, it may allow
some of them to come back to their homeland in due to consideration.
Compensation to refugees should be the best solution for those who want to
stay in their exile. Note that the UN resolutions guarantee the right of return
for the refugees.

Military forces - due to the Israeli concerns of security they allow police
forces for the Palestinians but with limited arms. This lead to a weak state
cannot able to secure its borders, and lack of the basic necessities of security.

Sovereignty - will not negotiate or acknowledge groups that call for Israels
extinction. Thus, the Palestinian state must meet the responsibility of
sovereignty without allowing any armed of none state actors to challenge its
authority in West Bank and Gaza.

Jerusalem - a complicated issue that each part must ensure the pre-1967 status
should be re-established without conditions, although Israel has been trying for
a long time to create a Judaism Jerusalem, and claim to build the alleged
temple.

JORDANS AND PALESTINIANS PREFER TWO-STATES SOLUTION

Arab states and regional political life have seen a series of changes and challenges in
the last decade. It formed what could indicate a dramatic change in the course of the
entire region. Despite the constant flux in the course of events, and the speed of

8
Diana, B. 2010. The Dangers of Disaggregating Sovereignty. Al-Shabaka - The Palestinian
Policy Network. (6 November). http://al-shabaka.org/. [25 July 2016].
transition from one situation to another, which complicates the ability to predict the
causes of change in various areas, this is because overall these changes have impacted
the nature and course of the Arab-Israeli conflict. These changes affected the
Palestinians and their vision to build a sovereign state in West Bank after the military
resistance failed to achieve their objectives.

On the Palestinian issue, Jordan is an active player both at the regional and
international levels. The Jordanian top national vital interest is the establishment of
an independent viable Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as a capital. This state
should coexist with Israel. The Jordanian- Israeli peace treaty should serve as a model
for peace which should have been emulated. Jordan's policy calls upon the
Palestinians to hold on to their land despite the Israeli aggressive policy, as Jordans
land and resources are not capable of accommodating any further migration waves.
Meanwhile, Jordan sticks to its own policy of extending political, economic, and
humanitarian support for the Palestinians aspiration. Jordans foreign policy
continues to exercise its ultimate diplomatic efforts with the Israeli government.
Jordan is perhaps the only Arab state that has close relations with both the Labor and
Likud parties in Israel. Jordans good relations across the mainstream Israeli political
spectrum basically emerged from the trust developed throughout years of interaction
and cooperation.

Palestinians have succeeded in moving the uprising and called the land for
peace, but the ideology of Zionism is an obstacle to the Palestinians way to get their
rights besides the international community has been unable to find a solution to the
Palestinian issue. It does not seem that the Zionist way of negotiation has no changed
so far because of negotiable change at least in the near future, not only because of
convictions ideological and political various political leaders; it is also attributed to
the construction of new settlements bloc, these settlements make it impossible to have
any progress in negotiations of peace.

Jordans main reason for postponing full democratic reforms, with its majority
Palestinian population, is to see whether they would return or be reimbursed by Israel
and the rich Arab countries. Jordan should nevertheless move forward in its
democratic reform process without waiting for the end of the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict, given the enormous internal political facing the Hashemite monarchy. The
regime would therefore need to postpone the fully democratic elections until the rights
of the native Jordanians are fully guaranteed. Jordan knows today, that it cannot fully
disengage from Palestine. It is situated at the geopolitical core of Palestine and has a
large number of citizens of Palestine origin citizens. Jordan would be deeply affected
by whatever developments that take place in the West Bank, whether peaceful or
otherwise. Jordanian nationalists strongly support the two-state solution because they
are eager to see Palestinian refugees make their return to the West Bank and Gaza
Strip. They view this as a means to eliminate the threat of Jordan becoming a
Palestinian republic that would turn the native Jordanians into second-class citizens.
ISRAEL RELUCTANT TO ACCEPT TWO STATES SOLUTION
Thus, the study of the variables surrounding the condition of the Arab-Israeli conflict,
whether Arab and regional factors could lead to the possibility of exploring future
variables that may occur on the conflict in the future. This affects the components and
the nature of trends within this context. Through the study, there were findings on the
possible changes which may have affected directly towards the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Firstly, the process of settlement of the Palestinian Israeli, and secondly was the
Palestinian resistance with their internal and external problems facing the Palestinian
political life today. To a certain extent, this includes the weakness of various
Palestinian communities, such as on the domestic front, as well as the weakness of the
Arab axis which is supposed to be supporting the Palestinian cause on the external
level. Therefore; the two-state solution is a project that will not bring an end to the
conflict. This is not because of Israeli leaders direction with the Israeli right-wing
camp, but because of the Zionist discourse through the silence and absence of
international intervention, and contributed further by the complicity and fragility of
the Palestinian case.

The Zionist political discourse was clear in refusing to any solution the conflict
by the two states, and it appears to be evident that the political common denominator
for all Israeli governments from Oslo until today revolved on two factors. Firstly, was
the continuation of the settlements, such as plundering off the land, and recently the
Judaization of Jerusalem. Secondly, was the absolute rejection of the idea of the
sovereign of a Palestinian state based on the '1967 borders. This is a concern and has
instilled fear for nations security in general, and in particularly on the threat by
Hamas and Jihadists which are not under PLOs control. Every speech of the two-state
solution is seen a maneuver and misleading, and any peace agreement for their side
must be an official recognition from Palestinians of the results of the defeat and
surrender in 19 67 and recognizing the logic of the occupation force.

Peter (2009) discussed the Israel perspective for peace. There was an Israeli
proposal to make Jordan the official homeland for the Palestinians living in the West
Bank. Nearly half of the Knessets 120 members had agreed on the proposal. This is
within the context of having the two states, for two people, on the two banks of the
River Jordan.9 The idea of Jordan to become as a homeland to Palestinian has been
founded since a long time in Israel, but this has never obtained the support from the
international community. This proposal led to more instability in the region, which has
in turned increased the spread of extremism and threatened Jordans national security.
The Israelis dream was not just with Palestine. Shlomo Sand (2003) explains that
Palestine is holy land, rather than a homeland to the Jewish community. These borders
were deemed to be expanding, and yet untenable, while the borders of the Talmudic
commandment were considered to be too narrow. In the east, the Syrian Desert, the

9
Tom, A. P. 2009. Israeli Proposal: Make Jordan The Official Palestinian Homeland.
Christian Science Monitor Ilene R: Prusher.
eastern border of the Land of Israel should not be precisely demarcated. The Lands
eastern borders will be diverted eastwards, and the area of the Land of Israel will be
expanded.10 From Israelis perspective, a key concern was security. This was due to
the major Palestinian figures and institutions were trying to fight terrorism, promoting
tolerance, and encouraging co-existence with Israel, especially after the second
intifada and political success of Hamas. The outcome has convinced many Israelis that
peace and negotiations were not possible, and a two-state system is not the answer.11

CONCLUSION
It is concluded that the two-state solution will be the best-case scenario from the
Jordanian national interests, as well as both of the Palestinians and Israelis. In the
anarchic international system, as proposed by the neorealist, states have to be on their
own to survive. This scenario also assumes a broad international intervention, namely
from the US, are in support of the peaceful process. The interest of the external actors
and non-state actors does have an impact for this solution to be achieved. This
scenario depends on what was done in the context of peace agreements, agreement
building, with charters and treaties serving as the guiding principles. The final solution
of the conflict from the perspective of this scenario requires Israels to adopt a two-
state solution. This would be based on the borders of the Fourth of June 1967. The
Palestinian refugee issue must be taken into account especially on their right of return,
and the same can be said on the Jerusalem issue. On the other hand, the prospect of a
Jordanian-Palestinian confederation has never been clearly defined, and at times has
raised objections from nationalists in both countries. For some, it implies that there
has been less than full sovereignty for either people in this context. For others, it raises
the spectre of the alternative homeland solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
which the Israeli Right Wing had frequently brought it up. This was considered to be
absolutely unacceptable to Jordan. Furthermore, some Palestinians feared that a
confederation would be the mark of the end for their hope of an independent
Palestinian State.

REFERENCES
Bar, D., Tal, Halperin, E. & Oren, N. 2010. Socio-Psychological Barriers to
Peace Making: The Case of the Israeli Jewish Society.

Camille, M. 2013. The Palestinian Policy Network, How Sovereign A State.

Al-Shabaka (31 July). http://al-shabaka.org/. [23 sep 2016].

10
Shlomo, S. 2003. The Invention Of The Land Of Israel From Holy Land To Homeland: p.
217.
11
Slater, J. 2001. What Went Wrong? The Collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process.
Political Science. Vol. 116. Issue 2: p.p. 171-199.
 Diana, B. 2010. The Dangers of Disaggregating Sovereignty. Al-Shabaka
The Palestinian Policy Network. (6 November). http://al-shabaka.org/. [25 July 2016].
Harms, G. 2012. The Palestine-Israel Conflict: A Basic Introduction

Geraldine, C. 2010. Jordan: A Refugee Haven. Migration Policy Institute.

Lynch, M. 1999. State Interests and Public Spheres: The International Politics of
Jordan's Identity. Columbia: University Press.

Khalidi, R. 2006. The Iron Gage The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for
Statehood. Boston: Beacon Press.

Mishal, S. 1978. West Bank/ East Bank - The Palestinians in Jordan. Yale:
University Press.
Morris, B. 2008. 1948 A History of The First Arab-Israeli War. Yale:
University Press:

Mishal, S. 1978. West Bank/ East Bank The Palestinians in Jordan. Yale:
University Press.

Shlomo, S. 2003. The Invention of the Land Of Israel from Holy Land to
Homeland.

Slater, J. 2001. What Went Wrong? The Collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian

Peace Process. Political Science. Vol. 116. Issue 2. (pp.: ???)

Shlomo, S. 2010. The Invention of the Jewish People. Tel Aviv:

University of Tel Aviv.

Tom, A. P. 2009. Israeli Proposal: Make Jordan the Official Palestinian

Homeland. Christian Science Monitor Ilene R: Prusher.
Zahir, B. 2014. Decline Realistic Two-State Solution. (January).
http://palestine.assafir.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=2728. [12 Aug 2016].