- In this series, we've learned about the Israelis,
the Palestinians and the nearly hundred years
of potential peace plans for the region.
Some of those have succeeded
like between Israel and Jordan and Israel and Egypt,
but many others have failed,
namely between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
So what makes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
seem so insurmountable with all the failed efforts so far?
Is there any hope for peace?
And how do the peace plans currently being discussed
address some of the stickiest issues?
(upbeat music)
When you boil it down enough,
always been four or five core issues under discussion.
Originally, the disagreement revolved around borders,
security, Jerusalem, and refugees.
After the Six-Day War though,
when Israelis started to live in the West Bank,
the issue of Israeli settlements was added to the list.
If you've watched the previous episodes in this series,
and if you haven't, you should,
you know that while the Jews accepted
the Peel Commission Plan, the Arabs rejected it.
At this time, there weren't refugees yet,
but the plan would have created the equivalent
of refugees by moving people around
so they were living in their respective country.
The UN Partition Plan failed, but it did result
in what Israel calls the war of independence
and Palestinians call the Nakba or catastrophe.
The war resulted in massive land gains for the Jews
and around 700,000 Palestinian-Arab refugees
who fled to Arab states.
Unrest in Arab countries created
around 800,000 Jewish refugees who fled to Israel
while Palestinian-Arabs in the West Bank
became Jordanian citizens
and Gazans lived under Egyptian rule.
19 years later, the Six-Day War or June War again resulted
in massive land gains for Israel.
Immediately after the Six-Day War,
Israel said they'd trade land they had conquered
for a lasting peace with Arab states.
This offer was cemented into international law
with the passing of UN Resolution 242
the UN's next attempt at quote,
the establishment of a just
and lasting peace in the middle East.
One caveat though, there's disagreement
over whether 242 calls on Israel to withdraw from
all the land they conquered or just some of it.
Either way, Israel's offer was especially bold
considering that three months earlier,
the Arab league had come together
and signed the Khartoum resolution.
Famous for its Three No's, no peace with Israel,
no recognition of Israel and no negotiations with Israel.
In 1973 Egypt invaded,
sparking what's known as the Yom Kippur War
or the Ramadan War.
Five and a half years later,
the Egyptians signed a peace agreement with Israel,
which included giving back land
and establishing recognized borders,
uprooting Israeli settlements,
Egyptian recognition of the Jewish state
and agreements on security measures.
In 1994 Jordan signed its own treaty with Israel,
which included agreements on borders,
security, Jerusalem, and refugees.
Around that same time, there was the Oslo peace process.
Here, for the first time
the Palestinians get their name up on the chart.
The Oslo Accords were ratified in two separate agreements
in 1993 and 95 and were mostly an agreement
to agree on things in the future.
Right off the bat, they tabled discussions on final borders,
Jerusalem and refugees until they reached a final agreement.
Borders were obviously tricky since they'd been arguing
over those for more than 50 years.
Jerusalem was especially problematic
because while Palestinians wanted East Jerusalem
as their capital city, most Israelis
did not wanna redivide the city.
Refugees were complicated because Israel absorbed
the 800,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries
and felt that Arab States should absorb
the Palestinian refugees.
The Palestinians agreed to recognize the state of Israel
and Israel recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization
or PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people,
but Israel didn't recognize Palestinian state
as one didn't exist.
On the security front the PLO agreed to renounce terror
and Israel agreed to withdraw from certain areas
creating three types of areas.
Area A, under full Palestinian control,
area B, under full Palestinian civil control
and joint Israeli Palestinian security control
and area C, which included Israeli settlements
under full Israeli civil and security control.
Ongoing Palestinian terrorism created a massive debate
among Israelis over continuing negotiations and concessions,
especially giving the Palestinians increased autonomy
and land that could potentially enable further terror.
Meanwhile, continued settlement expansion
while never part of the agreements left Palestinians feeling
that Israel wasn't serious about negotiating.
In July, 2000 US president Bill Clinton
and Israeli's prime minister Ehud Barak
drafted a final agreement that they presented
to Palestinian president Yasser Arafat
that finally addressed all the issues.
Giving the Palestinians all of Gaza
and 90% of the West Bank, parts of East Jerusalem,
monetary compensation to Palestinian refugees
and the uprooting of Israeli settlements
except for the largest ones,
which would remain Israeli territory,
sort of like peninsulas stretching into the West Bank.
But the Palestinians rejected the offer
and made no counter-offer.
Then in 2008 Israel made an unprecedented offer.
Using the idea of land swaps,
they offered the equivalent of 99% of the West Bank in Gaza,
East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital
with the old city of Jerusalem under international control.
Monetary compensation for refugees
and a symbolic number of refugees allowed
to return to Israel and the destruction
of Israeli settlements except for the largest ones.
Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas rejected the offer.
In an interview with chief Palestinian negotiator,
Saeb Erekat, he quoted Abbas saying Abu Mazen too
answer with defiance, saying,
I am not in a marketplace or a bazaar,
I came to demarcate the borders of Palestine,
the June 4th, 1967 borders without detracting a single inch,
without detracting a single stone from Jerusalem
or from the Holy Christian and Muslim places.
This is why the Palestinian negotiators did not sign.
This was essentially the end of official negotiations
between Israel and the Palestinians.
With the end of the peace process, Israel,
the Palestinians and the international community have
for the most part turned to managing
the conflict rather than seeking a solution.
But that doesn't mean there aren't plans being discussed.
So let's get an understanding of what's out there.
One idea floated to varying degrees of outrage
is the one-state solution.
Where in everyone who lives between the Jordan river
and the Mediterranean sea would become citizens
of a binational democratic state.
Michael Terazi, a Palestinian-American lawyer
and former advisor to the PLO wrote in the New York times
that the one-state solution is simply the recognition
of the uncomfortable reality that Israel
and the occupied Palestinian Territories
already function as a single state.
While many Israelis argue that the demographic changes
would lead to a Jewish minority
and the end of a Jewish state as we know it,
there are Jewish-Israelis who support
the one-state solution.
Some left-wing Israelis argue that there is no longer
a need for Jewish state while some right-wing Israelis
who support the plan say that there is no risk
to the Jewish nature of the state
arguing that Palestinian population numbers are inflated.
So while they're both Israelis and Palestinians
who support the one-state solution,
which solves the issues of Jerusalem settlements
and theoretically security,
they still disagree on some of the thorniest issues.
Most importantly, the existence of a Jewish state.
They also disagree about what to do
with the 5 million Palestinian refugees
living in other countries and whether
or not to include Gaza in this one-state.
Since Gaza is currently a hotbed
of terrorism led by Hamas who can't even form
a unified government with the West Bank Palestinians
much less a unified government with the Jewish state.
There are many in Israel
that argue against pursuing more negotiations.
They point to the history of failed negotiations,
the seemingly unsolvable issues and the pattern
of negotiations actually increasing terror attacks
as part of terrorist groups' efforts
to sabotage those negotiations.
Instead, many Israelis support managing
the conflict through a combination of unilateral moves
and improving life for Palestinians.
Now this isn't about a utopian peaceful end to the conflict,
but rather a way to give Palestinians
more control while still ensuring Israel security
and Jewish democratic character.
Of course, the solutions I've mentioned
aren't the only ones out there.
With my personal favorite
being the Onion's 317-million-state solution
that grants an independent state
to each and every person living in the entire middle East.
While, obviously a joke,
I think the plan speaks to the reality
that coming up with a solution to this problem
is really hard and everyone has their own opinion about it.
Or as HL Mencken wrote in 1920,
there is always a well-known solution
to every human problem, neat, plausible and wrong.
So while we may not have solved
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict here,
we hope you have a better understanding
of this complex issue.
Thanks for watching, see you guys next week.
(upbeat music)