One, two, three, or four-state solution?

Recently the Board of Deputies, the UK's "Jewish parliament", voted on a resolution concerning an approach to the Mid-East peace process. By a large majority, they defeated a proposal by the executive which, inter alia, called for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. The totally justified reasoning behind this rejection was the feeling that it is not up to Diaspora Jews to prescribe what solution should be adopted by the Israeli government to problems which, in essence, affect their own citizens.

However, an additional reason might well be offered: namely, the two-state solution seems only one of many possible outcomes - and by no means the most likely. For example, it is entirely possible to envisage 1,2,3 or even 4-state solutions.

One state solution: This is the one favoured by the Islamic world - a national entity including essentially the current boundaries of Israel and the Palestinian Authority with a single government. Demographically, this would rapidly become just another Muslim state in the area, removing what many Muslims consider a blot on the otherwise totally Islamic texture of the region. This joining-up of two different ethnic or religious groups within the one area is precisely the opposite of what was done, for example, in the case of India and Pakistan in order to avoid internecine strife. This particular end of the Jewish nature of Israel – another ”final solution” - is likely to be resisted by the government of Israel, and so it won’t happen.

Two-state solution: The mantra of a two-state solution is currently being chanted by all the pundits. This completely disregards the wishes of the democratically-elected government of Gaza – and the fact that Hamas is totally opposed to such an outcome. In their speeches to their publics in Arabic it also appears that this would not be a satisfactory ultimate outcome for the Fatah rulers in the PA. Given the situation in Gaza vis-à-vis Israel, after Israel’s withdrawal from that strip of land, it is not clear that anything other than a totally disarmed region would be acceptable to most Israelis either – and unlikely that the PA would accept such restrictions.

Three-state solution: Given the ferocity of the enmity between Hamas and Fatah, it is unlikely that these two groups could co-exist within the same national entity. This opens up the possibility of three co-existing states; Israel, a PA-ruled region -essentially what is termed the West Bank – and a Hamas-ruled Gaza.

Four-state solution: It is estimated that at least half of Jordan’s citizens are Palestinians. The “Jordan option” has always been considered as a viable one, but is mainly resisted by Arabs who see this as a reduction of their territorial claims to the whole region, if it is considered as the only state for Palestinians. But with the addition of the West Bank and Gaza, this would seem a generous area to fulfill Palestinian ambitions. Given the recent upheaval in Egypt, and the resulting echoes in Jordan, it is by no means impossible that the Palestinian residents of that state would express their desire for autonomy, as a step towards the creation of their own state.

So, with a bit of lateral thinking, it is clear that a two-state solution is not the only one, and perhaps not even the most viable one.