Sunday, May 04, 2025
The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Origins, Evolution, and Pathways to Resolution
I. Introduction
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict stands as one of the modern world's most enduring, intricate, and deeply polarizing disputes. At its heart, it is a struggle over land, self-determination, national identity, and security waged within the contested territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine.1 Its roots stretch back over a century, intertwined with the rise of competing national movements, the legacies of colonialism, major wars, mass displacement, and decades of occupation.3 The conflict's reverberations extend far beyond the immediate region, impacting international relations, global security dynamics, and humanitarian concerns.6
This report seeks to provide an expert analysis addressing the fundamental questions surrounding this conflict: how it began, how it evolved through critical historical junctures, and what potential pathways, however fraught, might exist for its resolution. It will trace the emergence of Jewish Zionism and Palestinian Arab nationalism, examine the pivotal role of external powers, particularly Great Britain during the Mandate period, and analyze the transformative events of 1948 and 1967. Furthermore, the report will dissect the core issues that remain points of contention – borders, settlements, the status of Jerusalem, the fate of Palestinian refugees, and security demands – and explore the significant obstacles that have consistently thwarted peace efforts. Finally, it will evaluate the roles played by international actors and assess the viability of proposed solutions, including the two-state, one-state, and confederation models, in light of current realities.
Understanding this conflict requires acknowledging its profound complexity and the deeply held, often clashing, narratives of the peoples involved.3 The human cost has been immense, marked by cycles of violence, dispossession, and trauma affecting generations of both Israelis and Palestinians.11 While maintaining analytical objectivity, this report recognizes the gravity of these human dimensions. The analysis will proceed chronologically and thematically, examining the historical foundations, the major wars and uprisings, the persistent core disputes, the impediments to peace, the influence of external powers, and the challenging prospects for a just and lasting resolution.
II. Seeds of Conflict: Nationalism, Land, and Mandate (Late 19th Century – 1947)
The origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict lie in the convergence of two nascent national movements laying claim to the same territory in the waning years of the Ottoman Empire and the tumultuous period of British mandatory rule that followed.
Emergence of Competing Nationalisms:
The late 19th century witnessed the rise of political Zionism in Europe, largely as a response to pervasive anti-Semitism and pogroms.2 This movement sought to establish a national home, and ultimately a state, for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland, Palestine (Eretz Yisrael in Jewish tradition), where a small Jewish community had always existed.1 Beginning around 1882, waves of Zionist immigrants (Aliyot) arrived in Ottoman Palestine, driven by this ideology.1 Organizations like the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish National Fund actively promoted this immigration and financed the purchase of land for Jewish settlement.5 Concurrently, Arab nationalism was also developing throughout the Ottoman Empire, including among the predominantly Arab Muslim and Christian population of Palestine, who had inhabited the land for centuries and were developing their own aspirations for self-determination as the Ottoman Empire weakened.1World War I and British Involvement:
World War I proved a critical juncture, as Great Britain sought strategic advantages against the Ottoman Empire.14 In its efforts to secure support, Britain made ambiguous and ultimately conflicting commitments to both Arabs and Jews. Through the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence (1915-1916), Britain appeared to promise support for Arab independence in the region, including Palestine, in return for an Arab revolt against the Ottomans.1 Simultaneously, driven by a mix of imperial interests, strategic calculations (controlling the land bridge between Egypt and India), and sympathy among some leaders for Zionist aims (including religious convictions), Britain issued the Balfour Declaration in November 1917.5
The Balfour Declaration was a pivotal document, marking the first time a major world power publicly endorsed Zionist goals.24 It stated that the British government viewed "with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people," pledging to "use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object".15 However, the declaration was intentionally vague, using the term "national home" which had no precedent in international law, rather than "state".24 Crucially, it also included a caveat: "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".14 At the time, these "non-Jewish communities" – Palestinian Arabs – constituted roughly 90% of the population.26 The Declaration significantly boosted international support for Zionism, particularly within Jewish communities worldwide 15, and later became integral to the legal framework of the British Mandate.24 However, it is also widely regarded as a primary catalyst for the subsequent conflict and the Palestinian Nakba, promising a national home for one people in a land overwhelmingly inhabited by another.24 Its inherent contradictions and the competing interpretations it fostered laid fertile ground for future strife.14The British Mandate for Palestine (1920-1948):
Following the Ottoman defeat, the League of Nations formally granted Britain the Mandate for Palestine in 1922 (coming into force in 1923).5 The Mandate system, ostensibly designed to guide former Ottoman territories towards self-governance, often functioned as a form of continued colonial control.26 The Palestine Mandate uniquely incorporated the Balfour Declaration, tasking Britain with the dual obligation of facilitating the establishment of the Jewish national home while simultaneously safeguarding the rights and position of the existing Arab population.5 This proved an exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, balancing act.21 The territory east of the Jordan River (Transjordan) was included in the Mandate but explicitly excluded from the provisions regarding the Jewish national home.5
Under the Mandate, Jewish immigration accelerated significantly, particularly in the 1930s due to persecution in Europe.2 Between 1922 and 1935, the Jewish proportion of the population rose from about 9% to nearly 27%.26 Concurrent land purchases by Zionist organizations continued, often resulting in the eviction of Palestinian Arab tenant farmers (fellaheen) who had cultivated the land for generations but lacked formal ownership.1 These developments fueled growing Arab opposition and fears of eventual dispossession and political marginalization.2 Intercommunal tensions escalated, leading to violent outbreaks, including riots in Jerusalem (1920) and Jaffa (1921), sometimes instigated by Arab leaders like Haj Amin al-Husseini, who was appointed Grand Mufti by the British.1
The mounting tensions culminated in the major Arab Revolt of 1936-1939, demanding Arab independence and an end to Jewish immigration and land acquisition.1 The British authorities responded with harsh suppression, utilizing large numbers of troops, imposing martial law, and even enlisting Jewish auxiliary forces, resulting in significant Arab casualties and the exile or imprisonment of Palestinian leaders.21
The revolt, along with the looming threat of World War II, prompted a significant shift in British policy. The Peel Commission (1937) first proposed partitioning Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states, but this was rejected.21 Subsequently, Britain, prioritizing stability and its strategic interests (particularly the Suez Canal and oil routes) and deeming Arab goodwill more critical in the face of war, issued the 1939 White Paper.21 This document drastically curtailed Jewish immigration, placing strict quotas and requiring Arab consent for further arrivals after five years.23 It also abandoned partition, instead envisioning the creation of an independent, unified Palestinian state within ten years, with a shared Arab-Jewish government.21 This represented a near-complete reversal of the Balfour Declaration's emphasis and was fiercely opposed by the Zionist movement, which responded by facilitating illegal immigration.21
World War II temporarily muted the conflict, with both many Jews and Arabs supporting the Allied effort.21 However, the Holocaust tragically underscored the Zionist argument for a Jewish state as a refuge, dramatically increasing international sympathy and political pressure for its establishment after the war.2 Post-war, hard-line Zionist militias like the Irgun and Lehi resumed their insurgency against British rule.21 Britain, exhausted by war and facing escalating violence and conflicting pressures, decided to relinquish the Mandate and turned the Palestine problem over to the newly formed United Nations in 1947.2
A fundamental aspect of the Mandate period was the inherent contradiction embedded within its framework. Britain's attempt to simultaneously support a Jewish national home and protect the rights of the existing Arab majority was driven more by shifting imperial calculations than a consistent principle of self-determination for either group.1 The vagueness of the Balfour Declaration 24 and subsequent policy reversals like the 1939 White Paper 21 reflected this underlying tension, sowing confusion and mistrust. This ambiguity, coupled with the colonial nature of the Mandate itself 26, failed to create a stable political structure and instead exacerbated the conflict over land and sovereignty.
Furthermore, the issue of land dispossession was not merely a consequence of the 1948 war but a process rooted in the Mandate era. Zionist land acquisition, while legal under the prevailing systems, often led to the eviction of Palestinian tenant farmers.5 This created tangible economic hardship and a palpable sense of being displaced from ancestral lands, contributing significantly to Arab fears and resistance long before the establishment of Israel.1 These early experiences of displacement formed a crucial part of the backdrop to the events of 1948.
III. 1948: The War, the Nakba, and the New Reality
The year 1948 marks a watershed moment in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, encompassing the UN partition vote, the end of the British Mandate, the declaration of Israeli independence, a full-scale war, and the mass displacement of Palestinians known as the Nakba.
UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181, 1947):
Faced with the intractable situation, the UN General Assembly, following the recommendations of the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), adopted Resolution 181(II) on November 29, 1947.1 The resolution recommended the partition of Mandatory Palestine into two independent states: one Jewish and one Arab, with the city of Jerusalem placed under a special international regime.1 The plan allocated approximately 55% of the land to the proposed Jewish state and 45% to the Arab state.20 This allocation was made despite the fact that the Jewish population constituted about one-third of the total population and owned roughly 7% of the land, while the Arab majority comprised two-thirds of the population and owned the vast majority of the land.1
The Zionist leadership formally accepted the partition plan, although some harbored ambitions to expand the borders of the future state.1 However, the plan was vehemently rejected by Palestinian Arab leaders and the Arab League.1 They argued that the partition was fundamentally unfair, violated the principle of national self-determination enshrined in the UN Charter, and allocated a disproportionate amount of territory, including key agricultural lands and access points, to the Jewish minority, effectively turning the indigenous majority into a minority on much of their ancestral land.2 This perceived injustice in the UN plan itself created an immediate flashpoint. The plan's allocation, favoring the minority population with the majority of the land, disregarded the demographic and ownership realities on the ground, making conflict almost inevitable as both communities sought to assert control over the territory ahead of the British withdrawal.1Civil War (November 1947 – May 1948):
Violence erupted almost immediately after the UN vote.1 What began as sporadic attacks and clashes escalated into a full-blown civil war between the Jewish community (Yishuv) and Palestinian Arabs.1 Jewish paramilitary organizations – the Haganah, the more militant Irgun, and Lehi (Stern Gang) – clashed with Palestinian Arab forces, which included local militias and volunteers organized under the Arab Liberation Army and the Army of the Holy War.1 Initially defensive, the Jewish forces, often better organized and equipped (including many WWII veterans), gradually gained the upper hand by the spring of 1948.1 This period saw increasing territorial gains by Jewish forces and the beginning of a significant Palestinian Arab refugee flow, driven by fear, military offensives, and incidents of violence.1 Notable events like the massacre of Arab civilians at Deir Yassin by Irgun and Lehi forces in April 1948, and subsequent Arab retaliations like the attack on a Jewish convoy to Hadassah Hospital, intensified the fighting and the panic among civilians.33 By mid-May 1948, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians had already been displaced.36Establishment of Israel and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War (May 1948 – 1949):
As the British Mandate officially expired, David Ben-Gurion declared the establishment of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948.2 Immediately following the declaration, armies from five neighboring Arab states – Egypt, Transjordan (later Jordan), Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq – intervened and invaded the territory of the former Mandate, aiming to prevent the establishment of Israel and support the Palestinian Arabs.2 This marked the beginning of the first Arab-Israeli War (known to Israelis as the War of Independence).
Despite the Arab invasion, the newly formed Israel Defense Forces (IDF), consolidating the various Jewish militias, managed to halt the Arab advances and eventually turn the tide.2 After periods of intense fighting interspersed with UN-brokered truces (during which Israel managed to secure crucial arms shipments, particularly from Czechoslovakia 36), Israel emerged victorious.2 By the time armistice agreements were signed separately with Egypt, Lebanon, Transjordan, and Syria in 1949, Israel controlled about 77-78% of the territory of former Mandatory Palestine, significantly more than the 55% allocated under the UN partition plan.1 The armistice lines, later known as the Green Line, became Israel's de facto borders until 1967, although they were explicitly not recognized by the Arab states as permanent political boundaries.1 The remaining parts of Palestine intended for an Arab state were occupied by Jordan (the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, which Jordan subsequently annexed) and Egypt (the Gaza Strip, where an All-Palestine Government was declared but held little real power).1 No independent Palestinian Arab state emerged.The Nakba ("Catastrophe"):
The events surrounding the 1948 war are known to Palestinians as the Nakba, meaning "catastrophe" in Arabic.2 This term refers to the mass displacement, dispossession of land and property, and the shattering of Palestinian society that occurred during this period.19 Approximately 750,000 Palestinian Arabs – more than half of the indigenous Arab population, and over 80% of those living in the area that became Israel – were expelled from their homes or fled due to the violence and fear.1 Sources describe this as ethnic cleansing.1 Over 500 Palestinian towns and villages were depopulated, and many were subsequently destroyed or resettled by Jews and given new Hebrew names.20
While the exact causes of the exodus are debated, contributing factors included direct expulsion orders, military attacks by Jewish forces (including organized campaigns like Plan Dalet, which outlined guidelines for clearing hostile or potentially hostile Arab villages 33), fear of massacres following events like Deir Yassin, psychological warfare, and the general collapse of Palestinian society and leadership.1 The result was the creation of a large and enduring Palestinian refugee population, scattered in neighboring Arab countries (Jordan, Lebanon, Syria), the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, often living in refugee camps.19 Their homes, lands, and property were largely lost and subsequently taken over by the new Israeli state. In 1950, Israel enacted the Law of Return, granting Jews worldwide the right to immigrate to Israel and gain citizenship, while denying the return of Palestinian refugees.1
The Nakba represents a foundational trauma for Palestinians, shaping their collective identity, political aspirations, and demands.19 The unresolved refugee issue, stemming directly from these events, remains one of the most difficult and emotionally charged core issues of the conflict. It is not merely a historical event but is framed by Palestinians and some international bodies as an ongoing process, connected to continued displacement through Israeli policies like settlement expansion, home demolitions, and evictions in the occupied territories.19UN Resolution 194 (December 1948):
In response to the burgeoning refugee crisis, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 194 (II) in December 1948. Paragraph 11 of this resolution states that "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible".19 This resolution forms the basis of the Palestinian demand for the "right of return".1 However, Israel has consistently rejected the implementation of this resolution, arguing it would undermine the state's Jewish character.10 Despite being reaffirmed annually by the UNGA, Resolution 194 remains unimplemented, symbolizing for Palestinians the international community's failure to uphold their rights.19
IV. Occupation and Intractable Disputes (1949 – 1987)
The period following the 1949 armistice agreements until the outbreak of the First Intifada in 1987 was characterized by an uneasy status quo, punctuated by periodic conflict, the consolidation of Israeli control, the rise of Palestinian nationalism focused on the occupied territories, and the transformative Six-Day War of 1967.
The Post-1949 Landscape:
The armistice lines established in 1949 served as de facto borders, but peace remained elusive.5 The Arab states refused formal recognition of Israel, and the region experienced continued low-level conflict, including border skirmishes, Palestinian fedayeen infiltrations into Israel, and Israeli reprisals.5 The 1956 Suez Crisis, involving Israel, Britain, and France against Egypt, further highlighted regional volatility.30 Internally, Israel focused on state-building and absorbing large numbers of Jewish immigrants, including those fleeing Arab countries.28 Palestinians grappled with the aftermath of the Nakba and life under Egyptian control in Gaza and Jordanian rule in the West Bank.28The Six-Day War (June 1967):
This war fundamentally reshaped the conflict's dynamics and geography. Tensions escalated dramatically in the spring of 1967. Contributing factors included increasing Syrian-Israeli border clashes, provocative actions by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser (including the mobilization of troops in the Sinai Peninsula, the demand for the withdrawal of the UN Emergency Force (UNEF), and the closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping – an act Israel considered a casus belli), mutual defense pacts signed between Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, and inaccurate intelligence reports, including a Soviet warning to Egypt and Syria about Israeli troop concentrations that proved false.30 Facing what it perceived as an imminent threat from mobilized Arab armies on its borders, Israel launched a preemptive air assault against Egypt on June 5, 1967, followed by attacks on Syria.30
The war resulted in a swift and stunning Israeli victory in just six days.2 Israel destroyed the bulk of the Egyptian and Syrian air forces on the ground and decisively defeated the armies of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.41 The territorial consequences were immense: Israel captured the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip from Egypt, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.1 This marked the beginning of Israel's long-term military occupation of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.1
The war's aftermath had profound consequences. It created a new wave of Palestinian refugees, estimated in the hundreds of thousands.41 More than one million Palestinians residing in the West Bank and Gaza now found themselves living under direct Israeli military rule.41 The crushing defeat led to widespread demoralization in the Arab world and significant political shifts, including the decline of Nasser's pan-Arabism.41 Critically, the 1967 war shifted the central focus of the conflict from the existence of Israel itself to the status of the territories occupied in the war and the question of Palestinian self-determination within those territories.41 This occupation, now lasting over half a century, became the defining feature of the subsequent phases of the conflict.UN Security Council Resolution 242 (November 1967):
In the wake of the war, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 242 on November 22, 1967.40 This resolution became the cornerstone for most subsequent peace efforts.10 Its key operative clauses affirmed that a just and lasting peace should include the application of two fundamental principles: (i) "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict"; and (ii) "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force".45 It also called for achieving a "just settlement of the refugee problem" and guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways.45
Resolution 242 enshrined the "land for peace" formula, implying an exchange of territory captured by Israel for peace and recognition from Arab states.10 However, the resolution contained a critical ambiguity in its English version, calling for withdrawal "from territories occupied" rather than "from the territories occupied" or "from all territories occupied." The French version, equally authentic, used "des territoires occupés" (from the occupied territories).45 This difference became a major point of contention. Israel and its supporters argued the omission of the definite article "the" was deliberate, allowing for border modifications to achieve "secure and recognized boundaries" and not necessarily requiring full withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines.45 Arab states and Palestinians, citing the French text and the resolution's preamble emphasizing the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war," insisted it mandated a complete Israeli withdrawal from all lands occupied in 1967.45 While providing a widely accepted framework, this inherent ambiguity allowed for conflicting interpretations that would persistently complicate negotiations over the crucial issue of borders.45Rise of the PLO and Palestinian Nationalism:
The 1967 defeat and subsequent occupation significantly galvanized Palestinian nationalism.41 The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), founded in 1964 under Arab League auspices 2, gained prominence. Under the leadership of Yasser Arafat's Fatah faction, which took control in 1969, the PLO emerged as the internationally recognized representative of the Palestinian people, advocating armed struggle to liberate Palestine and establish an independent state.2 The focus of Palestinian aspirations increasingly centered on ending the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.Yom Kippur War (1973):
In October 1973, Egypt and Syria launched a coordinated surprise attack on Israeli forces in the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in Judaism.2 After initial setbacks and heavy losses for Israel, the IDF repelled the Arab forces and launched counteroffensives.2 The war ended with a UN-brokered ceasefire, codified in UN Security Council Resolution 338, which called for the implementation of Resolution 242 and immediate negotiations.28 The war shattered Israel's sense of invincibility and, despite the eventual military outcome, was seen as a political victory in Egypt, paving the way for renewed diplomatic efforts.2Camp David Accords (1978) and Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty (1979):
Following Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's historic visit to Jerusalem in 1977, U.S. President Jimmy Carter convened a summit at Camp David in September 1978 with Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin.47 After thirteen days of intense negotiations, they signed two framework agreements.47 The first outlined principles for peace in the Middle East, including a formula for Palestinian self-government (autonomy) in the West Bank and Gaza for a five-year transitional period, after which the final status would be negotiated.47 The second framework led directly to the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty, signed in March 1979.47 Under the treaty, Israel agreed to withdraw fully from the Sinai Peninsula in exchange for full diplomatic relations and peace with Egypt.38
The Camp David Accords were a landmark achievement, marking the first peace treaty between Israel and an Arab nation and demonstrating the potential effectiveness of sustained U.S. mediation.7 However, the provisions regarding Palestinian autonomy ultimately failed. Palestinian representatives refused to participate in the subsequent negotiations, and the positions of Egypt and Israel on key issues like settlements, East Jerusalem, and the nature of Palestinian self-rule proved irreconcilable.39 The treaty effectively removed Egypt, the most powerful Arab military force, from the Arab-Israeli military equation, significantly altering the regional balance of power.39 Some argue this reduced Israel's incentive to make concessions regarding the West Bank and Gaza, as the threat of a large-scale, multi-front Arab attack diminished considerably.39
V. Uprisings, Peace Efforts, and Fragmentation (1987 – Present)
The period from 1987 onward has been marked by significant Palestinian uprisings (Intifadas), major diplomatic initiatives aimed at achieving a two-state solution, the subsequent breakdown of peace processes, increasing political and geographical fragmentation, and devastating cycles of violence, culminating in the current crisis.
The First Intifada (1987-1993):
After twenty years of occupation, widespread Palestinian frustration erupted in December 1987, sparked by an incident in the Jabalia refugee camp in Gaza where an Israeli army truck collided with civilian vehicles, killing four Palestinian workers.37 This event ignited a mass popular uprising – the Intifada (Arabic for "shaking off") – across the West Bank and Gaza Strip.37 The underlying causes were deep-seated, stemming from the cumulative impact of Israeli military occupation, including land expropriation for expanding settlements, economic hardship, repressive measures, and a pervasive sense of humiliation.30
The First Intifada was largely a grassroots movement, initially characterized by civil disobedience (commercial strikes, tax refusal, boycotts of Israeli goods), mass demonstrations, and stone-throwing by youths ("children of the stones").37 While initially largely unarmed, the resistance involved Molotov cocktails and burning tires.37 Local leadership emerged through the Unified National Leadership of the Uprising (UNLU), which coordinated activities via communiqués, and popular committees attempted to foster self-sufficiency.53 The uprising also saw the emergence of the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, as a significant Islamist alternative to the secular PLO, particularly in Gaza.37
Israel responded with an "iron fist" policy under Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin, employing harsh measures including the use of live ammunition against protestors, mass arrests (estimated 18,000 in the first year), deportations, extended curfews, closures of schools and universities, house demolitions, and a notorious policy of "breaking bones".37 The violence resulted in significant casualties, overwhelmingly Palestinian; estimates suggest over 1,300 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces during the Intifada, compared to fewer than 200 Israelis.37
The First Intifada had a profound impact. It shifted the political center of gravity from the PLO leadership in exile to the Palestinians living under occupation.53 It demonstrated Palestinian resilience and agency, acting cohesively and independently.55 The uprising proved politically and economically costly for Israel, tarnishing its international image and generating pressure for a political solution.37 Crucially, it led the PLO, under Arafat, to formally moderate its position in 1988, recognizing Israel's right to exist, accepting UN Resolutions 242 and 338, renouncing terrorism, and adopting the principle of a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders.28 This paved the way for direct dialogue with the US and set the stage for subsequent peace negotiations.37Madrid Conference (1991):
Co-sponsored by the United States and the Soviet Union following the Gulf War, the Madrid Conference brought Israeli, Syrian, Lebanese, and joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegations together for the first time in face-to-face public negotiations.38 While the conference itself did not produce breakthroughs, it launched separate bilateral and multilateral tracks of negotiation, creating a formal structure for peace talks.Oslo Accords (1993 Declaration of Principles, 1995 Interim Agreement - Oslo II):
While the official Madrid talks stalled, secret negotiations facilitated by Norway between Israeli officials and the PLO led to a historic breakthrough: the Oslo Accords.39 The Declaration of Principles (Oslo I), signed at the White House in September 1993, established mutual recognition between the State of Israel and the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people.28 It created a framework for a five-year interim period of Palestinian self-government in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, leading to the establishment of the Palestinian Authority (PA).30 During this interim period, negotiations on "final status" issues – borders, Jerusalem, settlements, refugees, and security arrangements – were to be concluded.58 The Oslo II agreement in 1995 further detailed the arrangements for Palestinian self-rule, dividing the West Bank into three zones: Area A (full PA civil and security control), Area B (PA civil control, joint Israeli-PA security control), and Area C (full Israeli civil and security control, comprising over 60% of the West Bank).28
Initially, the Oslo Accords generated immense hope for a lasting peace.38 The underlying premise was that gradual implementation, security cooperation, and economic improvements would build trust and confidence, enabling the resolution of the core issues.58 However, the Oslo process ultimately failed to achieve a final agreement and collapsed into violence. Several factors contributed to its failure:
Unfulfilled Expectations and Violations: Both sides felt the other failed to meet its obligations.58 Palestinians were deeply frustrated by the continued expansion of Israeli settlements throughout the interim period, which they saw as a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the accords and a preemption of final status outcomes.58 They also felt the PA's territorial control was limited and fragmented, and economic conditions did not significantly improve.58 Israelis pointed to the PA's failure to effectively crack down on militant groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the continuation of anti-Israel violence and incitement, and the PA security forces exceeding agreed-upon armament levels.58
Lack of Enforcement and Ignoring Root Causes: The accords lacked effective mechanisms to monitor compliance or arbitrate disputes over violations.58 Critics argue the process focused too heavily on security management and reforming Palestinians, while ignoring the fundamental issues of ongoing occupation, colonization, and the denial of Palestinian rights.61 The power asymmetry heavily favored Israel, and the US, as mediator, was often seen as failing to hold Israel accountable for actions like settlement expansion.61
Spoilers and Violence: The process was actively undermined by extremists on both sides. Hamas and other Palestinian groups launched devastating suicide bombing campaigns against Israeli civilians specifically to derail the peace process.37 On the Israeli side, the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 by a right-wing Jewish extremist opposed to Oslo dealt a severe blow to the process.64
Deferred Core Issues: Postponing the most difficult issues (Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, borders) to final status talks proved problematic, as these issues continued to fester and realities on the ground (especially settlement growth) made them harder to resolve over time.39
The Process Paradox: Oslo created a process that, while achieving mutual recognition, allowed the core conflict drivers to persist and worsen. The focus on interim steps, security cooperation, and PA institution-building, without halting settlement growth or clearly defining the endgame, inadvertently entrenched aspects of the occupation (like the Area A, B, C divisions) and made the eventual goal of a viable, sovereign Palestinian state based on separation increasingly difficult to achieve.39
Camp David Summit (2000):
In a final push before leaving office, US President Bill Clinton convened a summit at Camp David in July 2000 between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and PA Chairman Yasser Arafat, aiming to broker a comprehensive final status agreement.1 The summit was arguably ill-prepared and premature, particularly from the Palestinian perspective, who feared being pressured into concessions.66 Barak reportedly made unprecedented proposals, offering a Palestinian state on the vast majority (estimates vary, often cited around 91-95%) of the West Bank with land swaps, control over Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, and the dismantling of many settlements.67 However, he insisted on Israeli sovereignty over the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif (allowing Palestinian "custodianship") and demanded an "end of conflict" declaration that would preclude future claims, particularly regarding refugees.70
The summit ended in failure, primarily due to irreconcilable differences over the sovereignty of the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif.66 A bitter blame game ensued. The dominant narrative in Israel and the US held Arafat responsible for rejecting a "generous offer" and demonstrating an unwillingness to make peace, possibly preferring a one-state outcome or fearing the political repercussions of compromise.66 This narrative significantly damaged the Israeli peace movement.66 The Palestinian perspective countered that Barak's offer, while seemingly extensive, still fell short of international legitimacy (UN Res 242), maintained elements of Israeli control (over borders, airspace, resources), demanded unacceptable compromises on the symbolic heart of Jerusalem without adequate Arab backing, and did not sufficiently address the refugee issue.66 Other factors cited for the failure include the deep mistrust and poor personal chemistry between Barak and Arafat, Barak's weakened domestic political position, the rushed nature of the summit, the lack of clear negotiating parameters or red lines, and insufficient international and regional support, particularly for Arafat on the Jerusalem issue.67Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada, 2000-2005):
The collapse of Camp David, combined with simmering Palestinian frustration over the stalled peace process, continued settlement growth, and the perception that Oslo had failed to end the occupation, created a volatile atmosphere.30 The immediate trigger for the Second Intifada came in late September 2000, when then-Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon, known for his hardline views and controversial past (including responsibility for the Sabra and Shatila massacre 63), made a highly provocative visit to the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif complex in Jerusalem, accompanied by a large contingent of armed police.30 This visit ignited widespread Palestinian protests, which were met with lethal force by Israeli security forces.63
The Second Intifada was significantly more violent and militarized than the first.72 It involved large-scale Israeli military operations, incursions into Palestinian cities (like the devastating assault on the Jenin refugee camp 74), targeted assassinations of Palestinian leaders, widespread destruction of infrastructure, and the construction of the controversial Israeli West Bank barrier (separation wall).3 On the Palestinian side, the uprising saw increased use of firearms and, most notoriously, a wave of suicide bombings carried out by groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, primarily targeting Israeli civilians inside buses, restaurants, and public spaces.37 While some argue that non-violent resistance continued to be a major component but was underreported 63, the suicide attacks became a defining feature in the Israeli and international perception. The human cost was immense: estimates suggest around 1,000 Israelis and over 3,000 Palestinians were killed by the time the uprising formally ended with the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit in 2005.63
The Intifada had devastating consequences. It shattered the remaining vestiges of the Oslo process and any trust between the two sides.12 It led to a significant hardening of positions and the decline of the peace camps on both sides.66 Israel used the violence to justify intensified security measures that further entrenched the occupation and fragmented Palestinian territory.63 The Palestinian economy was crippled by closures and destruction.72 The violence and counter-violence created a cycle of trauma and retribution that continues to resonate.Post-Second Intifada Developments:
The years following the Second Intifada saw further fragmentation and stagnation. In 2005, Israel carried out a unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip, removing all its settlements and military forces from the territory.10 While presented by Israel as a move towards peace or security, it was done without negotiation with the PA and led to Gaza's increased isolation.
In 2006, Hamas won a surprise victory in the Palestinian legislative elections, defeating the long-dominant Fatah party.30 This victory was rejected by Israel, the US, and the EU, who classify Hamas as a terrorist organization, leading to international sanctions and aid cuts to the PA.30 Tensions between Fatah and Hamas escalated into violent clashes, culminating in Hamas forcibly seizing control of the Gaza Strip in 2007.30 This created a deep political and geographical split within the Palestinian polity, with the Fatah-led PA governing parts of the West Bank and Hamas ruling Gaza.30 This internal division has remained a major obstacle to Palestinian unity and effective peace negotiations ever since.2
Following the Hamas takeover, Israel, along with Egypt, imposed a strict land, air, and sea blockade on the Gaza Strip, severely restricting the movement of people and goods.1 Israel argued the blockade was necessary for security reasons to prevent weapons smuggling and attacks by Hamas. However, it has been widely condemned by international organizations for constituting collective punishment and causing a severe, ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.1 Israel began framing its relationship with Gaza primarily through the lens of armed conflict laws rather than occupation law, a position rejected by the ICJ in 2024.1 Several major wars erupted between Israel and Hamas in Gaza (e.g., 2008-09 "Operation Cast Lead", 2014 "Operation Protective Edge", May 2021), causing immense destruction and loss of life, predominantly among Palestinians.1
Meanwhile, the peace process remained largely moribund. Various attempts to restart negotiations, such as the Annapolis Conference (2007) and talks led by US Secretary of State John Kerry (2013-14), failed to gain traction or produce results.1 Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank continued and even accelerated under successive right-wing governments, further diminishing the prospects for a contiguous Palestinian state.1
In 2020, the Trump administration brokered the Abraham Accords, a series of normalization agreements between Israel and four Arab nations: the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco.6 These accords marked a significant shift in regional dynamics, as these Arab states normalized relations with Israel without requiring the prior establishment of a Palestinian state, effectively decoupling normalization from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and bypassing the framework of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative.6 Proponents hailed the accords as a foundation for broader regional peace and cooperation, arguing they could create new dynamics.80 Critics, including the Palestinian leadership, condemned them as a betrayal that sidelined the Palestinian cause, ignored the root issues of occupation, and potentially emboldened Israeli hardliners.30 While economic and security ties flourished between Israel and the signatory states initially, public support in those Arab countries reportedly waned, particularly as Israeli-Palestinian violence escalated.81 The accords largely survived the subsequent Gaza war, but their long-term impact on resolving the core conflict remains highly contested.79
On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched an unprecedented, large-scale surprise attack from Gaza into southern Israel, killing approximately 1,200 Israelis, mostly civilians, and taking around 240 hostages.3 This attack triggered a devastating war, with Israel launching intense aerial bombardments and a ground invasion of the Gaza Strip, aiming to dismantle Hamas and rescue the hostages.3 The war has resulted in catastrophic destruction in Gaza, a staggering Palestinian death toll (exceeding 30,000 by early 2024, according to Gaza health officials cited in sources 78), mass displacement of the majority of Gaza's population, and a severe humanitarian crisis.8 The conflict also led to significant regional escalation, involving clashes between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, attacks by Houthi rebels in Yemen, and direct confrontations between Israel and Iran.7
Amidst the war, international legal scrutiny intensified. South Africa brought a case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging violations of the Genocide Convention in Gaza, leading the court to issue provisional measures ordering Israel to prevent genocidal acts and allow humanitarian aid.30 In July 2024, the ICJ delivered a landmark advisory opinion in a separate case requested by the UN General Assembly.87 The court declared Israel's prolonged occupation of Palestinian territory (including the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza) since 1967 to be illegal under international law.1 It found that Israel's settlement policies, annexation measures, and discriminatory practices violated international law, including the Palestinian right to self-determination and the prohibition on racial discrimination (terming it segregation and apartheid).87 The court mandated that Israel must end its occupation "as rapidly as possible," immediately cease settlement activities, evacuate all settlers, and make full reparations for damages caused.87 It also stated that all UN member states and organizations are obligated not to recognize the illegal situation or render aid in maintaining it.88 Israel formally rejected the ruling, while the Palestinian Authority hailed it as historic.87 The US criticized the opinion, while the EU backed it.87 In September 2024, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution demanding Israel end its "unlawful presence" within 12 months.31
This trajectory highlights a pattern of increasing fragmentation. The political split between Fatah and Hamas 30, the geographical separation and isolation of Gaza 1, the division of the West Bank into Areas A, B, and C 28, and the diplomatic fragmentation caused by the Oslo failure and the Abraham Accords bypassing the core conflict 80 all create layers of division that make a unified approach to peace extraordinarily difficult.
Furthermore, the role of international law appears to be shifting. For decades, key resolutions and legal principles favoring Palestinian rights existed but lacked effective enforcement, often due to the political positions of Israel and the US.1 The recent ICJ advisory opinion, however, represents a significant legal determination by the world's highest court, explicitly declaring the occupation itself illegal and imposing obligations on all states.87 While non-binding and facing political opposition, this ruling provides a powerful legal and moral basis for increased international pressure and potentially alters the diplomatic framework, moving away from a negotiated end to occupation towards an obligation to end it based on its illegality.89
VI. The Unresolved Core Issues
Despite decades of conflict, negotiations, and international attention, the fundamental issues at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute remain unresolved. These core issues are deeply intertwined and represent the major points of contention that any lasting peace agreement must address.
Borders and Land:
The question of borders is central to the conflict, particularly in the context of a two-state solution. The internationally accepted baseline for negotiations is the 1967 Green Line (the armistice lines from 1949), with the understanding that final borders would likely involve mutually agreed land swaps to accommodate some Israeli settlement blocs while ensuring the viability and contiguity of a Palestinian state.1 However, the continuous expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem poses a severe challenge to this framework.1 These settlements, now housing over 700,000 Israelis 91, are considered illegal under international law by the vast majority of the international community, including the UN and the ICJ, as they violate the Fourth Geneva Convention's prohibition on an occupying power transferring its own population into occupied territory.1 The settlements physically fragment Palestinian land, disrupt daily life, consume resources, are a source of friction and violence, and are widely seen as undermining the possibility of a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.1 The recent ICJ advisory opinion unequivocally demanded the immediate cessation of all settlement activity and the evacuation of all settlers from occupied Palestinian territory.87Status of Jerusalem:
Jerusalem holds immense religious and national significance for both Israelis and Palestinians, as well as for Christians worldwide.3 Both sides claim the city as their capital.1 Israel captured East Jerusalem in 1967 and later annexed it, declaring the entire city its "eternal, undivided capital," a move not recognized by the international community.1 Palestinians envision East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state.10 The status of the Old City and its holy sites, particularly the Temple Mount (known to Muslims as Haram al-Sharif), which houses the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock and is the holiest site in Judaism, is exceptionally sensitive.1 Disputes over sovereignty, administration, and access to these sites have been major stumbling blocks in negotiations, notably contributing to the failure of the Camp David 2000 summit.66 Any resolution requires a complex arrangement addressing both national aspirations and religious freedoms.65 The 2024 ICJ ruling explicitly included East Jerusalem as part of the occupied Palestinian territory subject to the finding of illegality.87Palestinian Refugees:
The fate of Palestinian refugees displaced during the 1948 Nakba and the 1967 war remains one of the most intractable and emotionally charged issues.1 Palestinians assert the "right of return" – the right for refugees and their descendants (now numbering over 5 million registered with UNRWA 19) to return to their original homes and lands in what is now Israel.1 This claim is based on international law principles, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and specifically UN General Assembly Resolution 194.1 Israel categorically rejects a large-scale right of return, viewing it as demographic suicide that would undermine its existence as a Jewish-majority state.5 Israel argues refugees should be resettled in a future Palestinian state, integrated into their host countries, or receive compensation.10 Finding a "just settlement" for the refugee problem, as called for in UN Resolution 242 45, requires balancing Palestinian rights and historical grievances with Israeli demographic and security concerns, a challenge that has defied resolution in past negotiations.1Security:
Security is a paramount concern for both sides, albeit viewed through vastly different lenses.1 Israel emphasizes its need for security against threats emanating from Palestinian territories, including terrorism, rocket attacks, and potential military threats from a future Palestinian state.10 It views groups like Hamas as existential threats due to their ideology and actions.10 This focus drives Israeli demands for the demilitarization of any Palestinian state, control over borders and airspace, and the continuation of security measures like the West Bank barrier and the Gaza blockade.10 Palestinians view security primarily through the lens of ending the Israeli military occupation, which entails daily restrictions on movement, military incursions, settler violence, land confiscation, home demolitions, and perceived collective punishment measures.1 They seek full control over their own security forces and territory, free from Israeli interference.10 Reconciling these perspectives requires security arrangements that guarantee safety for Israelis while respecting Palestinian sovereignty and ending the occupation.93Water Resources:
The equitable allocation and management of shared water resources, primarily the underground aquifers beneath the West Bank, is another critical issue.1 Israel currently controls the vast majority of these resources. Any final agreement must address Palestinian water rights and ensure sustainable access for both populations. The 2024 ICJ ruling noted Israel's exploitation of natural resources in the occupied territory as part of its illegal practices.87Competing Narratives and Recognition:
Underlying the tangible disputes are deeply conflicting historical narratives regarding rights to the land, the origins and nature of the conflict, and the legitimacy of each side's national aspirations.1 Issues of mutual recognition are also complex. While the PLO recognized Israel's right to exist during the Oslo process 28, Israel often demands recognition as a specifically "Jewish state," a designation Palestinians resist as potentially prejudicing the rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel and the refugee claim.10 Palestinians seek Israeli acknowledgement of responsibility for the Nakba and the suffering caused by occupation.10 Overcoming these narrative clashes and achieving genuine mutual recognition is essential for reconciliation.
The profound interconnectedness of these core issues makes finding a solution exceptionally challenging. Progress on borders is tied to settlements; Jerusalem impacts borders and religious claims; refugees relate to demography and historical justice; security depends on borders and trust. This complex web means that partial or sequential approaches, like the Oslo interim model, have often failed because unresolved issues inevitably undermine progress elsewhere.61 A comprehensive approach addressing all core issues simultaneously appears necessary, yet the sheer complexity and the conflicting demands associated with each issue make such a comprehensive agreement incredibly difficult to achieve.67
VII. Obstacles on the Path to Peace
Numerous formidable obstacles have consistently hindered efforts to achieve a lasting peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. These impediments are often interconnected, creating a challenging environment for diplomacy and conflict resolution.
Israeli Settlements: The continued existence and expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem represent perhaps the most significant physical and political obstacle to a two-state solution.1 These settlements fragment Palestinian territory, making the creation of a viable, contiguous Palestinian state extremely difficult.11 Their presence violates international law 1 and is a constant source of friction, violence, and Palestinian grievance.11 The persistent growth of settlements, often encouraged or supported by Israeli governments, signals to Palestinians and the international community a lack of genuine Israeli intent to withdraw from the occupied territories, thereby undermining trust and the feasibility of partition.8 The recent ICJ ruling demanding their evacuation underscores their illegality but faces immense practical and political hurdles for implementation.87
Palestinian Political Divisions: The deep schism between the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority (PA) governing parts of the West Bank and the Hamas movement ruling the Gaza Strip since 2007 is a critical internal obstacle.11 This division prevents a unified Palestinian political strategy, weakens Palestinian negotiating power, and raises questions about the ability of any agreement signed by one faction to be implemented by the other. Numerous reconciliation attempts mediated by regional actors like Egypt and Qatar have failed to bridge the gap.76 Israel has also been accused of exploiting or preferring this division to avoid negotiations on a final status agreement.11
Israeli Political Landscape: The Israeli political spectrum has shifted considerably to the right over the past decades.3 Recent coalition governments have included strong religious-nationalist parties explicitly opposed to Palestinian statehood, supportive of settlement expansion, and advocating for annexation of parts or all of the West Bank.3 The traditional Israeli peace camp advocating for a two-state solution has significantly weakened.66 Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's longest-serving leader, has repeatedly expressed his opposition to the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state, citing security concerns.29 This political reality makes it extremely difficult for any Israeli government to make the necessary compromises for a two-state agreement.
Violence and Extremism: The conflict is plagued by recurrent cycles of violence involving state and non-state actors.2 Major wars (1948, 1967, 1973, Gaza wars), uprisings (Intifadas), Palestinian terrorism (including suicide bombings and rocket attacks by groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad), Israeli military operations causing high civilian casualties, and escalating violence by extremist Israeli settlers against Palestinians all contribute to an atmosphere of fear, hatred, and insecurity.1 This violence consistently undermines peace efforts, erodes trust, hardens positions, and empowers extremist factions on both sides who reject compromise.11
Lack of Trust and Mutual Demonization: Decades of conflict, broken agreements, violence, and hostile rhetoric have fostered profound mistrust and deeply negative perceptions between the two societies.12 Each side often views the other's actions through a lens of suspicion and hostility, making genuine dialogue and compromise difficult.12 The failure of past peace processes, particularly Oslo, has led to widespread cynicism about the possibility of a negotiated solution.58
Leadership Deficits: A persistent challenge has been the absence of strong, courageous, and credible leaders on both sides who are simultaneously willing and politically able to make the painful compromises required for peace and effectively sell those compromises to their respective populations.11 Leaders have often been constrained by domestic political considerations, fragile coalitions, internal opposition, and fear of assassination or political suicide.13 The weakness and perceived lack of legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas, and the political survival priorities attributed to Benjamin Netanyahu, are frequently cited examples.3
Asymmetry of Power: The fundamental power imbalance between Israel, as the militarily and economically superior occupying power, and the Palestinians, as the occupied and fragmented population, significantly shapes the conflict dynamics and negotiation possibilities.3 This asymmetry affects leverage in negotiations and the ability of Palestinians to resist occupation policies.
Failure of Diplomatic Frameworks: Past diplomatic approaches and frameworks, including the Oslo Accords, the Road Map for Peace, and numerous rounds of negotiations, have ultimately failed to deliver a final status agreement.1 This history of failure contributes to pessimism and disillusionment. Some argue that the "peace process" itself became a mechanism for managing the conflict rather than resolving it, allowing the status quo of occupation to persist while providing diplomatic cover.39
These obstacles do not exist in isolation; they are deeply interconnected and often reinforce one another. For instance, settlement expansion fuels Palestinian anger and violence, which in turn hardens Israeli security positions and empowers right-wing parties opposed to concessions. Palestinian divisions provide Israel with a rationale for avoiding negotiations. Leadership weaknesses prevent decisive action to overcome these cycles. This creates a negative feedback loop, a complex knot of intertwined problems that makes breaking the cycle of conflict exceedingly difficult and requires simultaneous progress on multiple fronts – a task that has so far proven insurmountable.11
VIII. The Role of External Actors
External actors have played significant, complex, and often contradictory roles throughout the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Their involvement, driven by a mix of geopolitical interests, historical ties, humanitarian concerns, and domestic politics, has shaped the conflict's trajectory and influenced attempts at resolution.
United Nations (UN):
The UN has been involved since the conflict's early stages, most notably through the 1947 Partition Plan (Resolution 181).1 Its resolutions, particularly Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), form the bedrock of the internationally recognized framework for peace, establishing the "land for peace" principle.1 General Assembly Resolution 194 (1948) underpins the Palestinian claim to a right of return.19 The UNGA consistently votes with near unanimity to reaffirm Palestinian rights, condemn settlements, and call for a two-state solution on the 1967 lines.1 In 2012, the UN granted Palestine non-member observer state status, a significant diplomatic step.1 UN agencies like UNRWA provide critical humanitarian assistance to Palestinian refugees 1, while OCHA monitors and reports on the humanitarian situation in the occupied territories.1 The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN's principal judicial organ, has issued significant rulings, including the 2004 opinion on the illegality of the West Bank barrier and the landmark 2024 advisory opinion declaring the Israeli occupation itself illegal.87 However, the UN's effectiveness is often hampered by its lack of enforcement mechanisms and the ability of permanent Security Council members (primarily the US) to veto resolutions critical of Israel.3United States (US):
The US has been the most influential external actor, particularly since the 1970s.10 It has served as the primary mediator in numerous peace initiatives, including the Camp David Accords (both 1978 and 2000), the Madrid Conference, the Oslo signing ceremony, the Wye River Memorandum, and various other negotiation rounds.1 Simultaneously, the US is Israel's strongest ally, providing substantial military, economic, and diplomatic assistance and often using its UN Security Council veto to shield Israel from international censure.3 This dual role has led many, particularly Palestinians and Arabs, to question US impartiality as a mediator.3 US policy has seen shifts: while traditionally supporting a two-state solution, the Trump administration broke with long-standing positions by recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital, moving the embassy, endorsing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, cutting aid to the PA, and brokering the Abraham Accords which bypassed the Palestinian issue.6 The Biden administration reverted to supporting the two-state solution rhetorically but has focused on expanding normalization and has not launched a major peace initiative, while also facing tensions with the current Israeli government over its policies and conduct in the recent Gaza war.6 The US role remains critical but complex, often caught between its alliance with Israel and its stated goal of achieving a two-state solution. Some suggest its "no surprise" policy towards Israel and reluctance to exert significant pressure have limited its effectiveness as a mediator.68European Union (EU):
The EU, often acting collectively and through individual member states, is a significant economic actor (Israel's major trading partner, largest donor to the PA 12) and a diplomatic player, notably as part of the Middle East Quartet (along with the US, UN, and Russia) which formulated the 2003 "Road Map for Peace".100 The EU generally supports the two-state solution based on 1967 lines and international law.104 However, its political influence has been limited by the need for consensus among its member states, which hold diverse positions regarding the conflict, leading to often cautious diplomacy.78Russia:
As a member of the Quartet and a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia retains a diplomatic role.100 Its influence has fluctuated, and in the current geopolitical climate, it is sometimes viewed by Western actors as a potential spoiler rather than a constructive partner in peace efforts.9Regional Powers:
Neighboring Arab states and other regional powers play crucial roles:
Egypt and Jordan: As the only Arab states with long-standing peace treaties with Israel 6, they are key players. Egypt frequently mediates between Israel and Hamas regarding Gaza ceasefires and prisoner exchanges.7 Both countries have significant stakes in regional stability and host large Palestinian refugee populations.8
Saudi Arabia: As a major Arab and Muslim power and custodian of Islam's holiest sites, Saudi Arabia holds significant political weight.6 It authored the Arab Peace Initiative (API) in 2002, offering collective Arab normalization with Israel in exchange for full withdrawal from occupied territories and a just solution for refugees.1 The kingdom is seen as the key prize in US-led efforts to expand the Abraham Accords, potentially holding leverage to extract concessions for Palestinians as a condition for normalization.6 Its role conception in the region is evolving.103
Qatar: Has emerged as a crucial mediator, particularly in facilitating communication and agreements between Israel and Hamas, hosting Hamas's political leadership, and providing significant financial aid to Gaza.7 Its regional role is also adapting.103
Iran: Represents a major antagonistic force to Israel in the region.7 It provides significant support (financial, military, political) to anti-Israel militant groups, including Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Lebanon's Hezbollah, forming part of its "Axis of Resistance" strategy.3 The Israeli-Iranian rivalry is a major source of regional tension and instability.7 Iran is often viewed as a spoiler in peace efforts.97
Turkey: Generally supportive of the Palestinian cause and critical of Israeli policies, Turkey seeks to exert regional influence.8
UAE, Bahrain, Morocco: Signatories of the Abraham Accords.6 Their normalization shifted the regional dynamic away from the API's conditions. Cooperation with Israel has focused mainly on economic, technological, and security matters.77 Their regional roles are also in flux.103
The involvement of these diverse external actors creates a complex diplomatic landscape. While international mediation is often seen as essential given the power imbalance and deep mistrust between Israelis and Palestinians 101, the interventions themselves can be problematic. Driven by national interests, strategic alliances (especially the US-Israel relationship), and sometimes conflicting goals, external actors have, at times, failed to act as impartial brokers, lacked the political will to enforce international law or UN resolutions, or pursued initiatives (like the Abraham Accords) that bypassed the core conflict dynamics.3 This creates a paradox where necessary international involvement can inadvertently hinder a just and sustainable resolution if not grounded in principles of equity, international law, and accountability for all parties.
IX. Pathways to an End? Analyzing Potential Solutions
The persistent failure to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has led to ongoing debate about the most viable pathway forward. Several potential frameworks are discussed, each with its own theoretical basis, proponents, and significant challenges, particularly in light of the complex realities on the ground.
The Two-State Solution:
Framework: This remains the most widely endorsed framework internationally.1 It envisions the establishment of an independent, sovereign State of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, existing alongside the State of Israel.28 Borders would generally be based on the pre-1967 lines, with mutually agreed, equivalent land swaps to allow Israel to annex some large settlement blocs adjacent to the Green Line, while ensuring Palestinian state contiguity and viability.1 East Jerusalem would serve as the capital of Palestine, while West Jerusalem would be Israel's capital, likely with special arrangements for the Old City and holy sites.10 The framework necessitates a "just and agreed" solution for Palestinian refugees, typically interpreted as involving return to the state of Palestine, compensation, and potentially limited return to Israel based on humanitarian considerations or family reunification.1 Security arrangements would need to address Israeli concerns while respecting Palestinian sovereignty.10
Support: This model has been the basis for decades of negotiations (Oslo, Camp David 2000, Annapolis, Kerry talks) and is supported by the UN, the EU, the Arab League (via the Arab Peace Initiative), the Palestinian Authority, and historically, by mainstream Israeli political parties (though not the current government).1 Public opinion polls have often shown majority support, albeit fluctuating, among both Israelis and Palestinians.29 For many, it represents the only way to fulfill the national aspirations of both peoples while preserving Israel's character as a democratic state with a Jewish majority.95
Challenges/Viability: Despite broad international consensus, the feasibility of the two-state solution is increasingly questioned, with many analysts and observers declaring it moribund or effectively dead due to irreversible changes on the ground.35 The primary obstacle is the sheer scale and strategic location of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which house over 700,000 settlers 91 and severely fragment potential Palestinian territory.62 Implementing the necessary evacuation of potentially hundreds of thousands of settlers presents immense political, logistical, and security challenges for any Israeli government.65 Other major hurdles include the unresolved status of Jerusalem, the Palestinian refugee issue, the deep political divisions among Palestinians (Fatah-Hamas split), the lack of trust, and the absence of strong political will and leadership on both sides, particularly within the current right-wing Israeli government which openly opposes Palestinian statehood.11
The One-State Solution:
Framework: This approach proposes the creation of a single state encompassing all the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea (Israel, West Bank, Gaza).23 This concept encompasses vastly different visions:
Democratic/Binational State: A unitary or federal state granting equal citizenship, political rights, and national rights to both Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs.16 This model aims to resolve the conflict by integrating both peoples into a single political entity, acknowledging their shared geography and history.
Annexationist / Unequal State: This vision, often associated with parts of the Israeli right, involves Israel annexing the West Bank (or parts of it) but potentially denying full and equal rights to the Palestinian population, thus formalizing a system of inequality or apartheid.16 Some versions might encourage Palestinian emigration.99 Many observers argue this unequal "one-state reality" already exists de facto due to the occupation.1
Palestinian/Arab Dominance: The slogan "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is interpreted by many Israelis and some analysts as a call for a single state under Palestinian or Arab control, implying the dismantling of the State of Israel.16
Support: Support for a democratic one-state solution remains relatively low among both mainstream Israelis and Palestinians, often confined to intellectuals, activists, and diasporas.16 Some on the Israeli right support annexationist versions.16 The "one-state reality" argument often serves as a critique of the failing two-state paradigm rather than an endorsement of a specific alternative plan.95
Challenges/Viability: A democratic one-state solution faces immense obstacles. It fundamentally challenges the core Zionist aim of a Jewish-majority state, as Palestinians would likely eventually form a majority or near-majority, raising existential fears for many Israeli Jews.16 Reconciling two distinct national identities, deeply conflicting historical narratives, and decades of hostility within a single political structure seems extraordinarily difficult, potentially leading to perpetual internal conflict or civil war.16 Practical questions regarding political representation, security arrangements, language rights, symbols, and resource allocation are immense. The annexationist version is widely condemned internationally as leading to apartheid or ethnic cleansing and violating fundamental principles of international law.89 Most analysts consider a mutually acceptable one-state solution currently infeasible.16
Confederation Models:
Framework: Emerging as a potential "third way," confederation proposes two independent, sovereign states (Israel and Palestine, likely based near 1967 lines) that choose to share certain powers and institutions in specific areas of common interest, while maintaining separate national identities and primary political structures.65 Key features often include: open borders allowing freedom of movement and residency for citizens of either state in the other (subject to laws); shared institutions for managing security, economy, infrastructure, and resources; shared sovereignty or a special joint regime for Jerusalem, keeping it an open city; and mechanisms allowing Israeli settlers to remain in Palestine as Israeli citizens with residency rights (abiding by Palestinian law) and Palestinian refugees to gain residency rights in Israel.65
Rationale: This model attempts to overcome the practical impossibilities of complete separation inherent in the traditional two-state model (especially regarding settlements and Jerusalem) and the existential challenges of the one-state model.65 It acknowledges the deep interdependence and shared geography of Israelis and Palestinians, proposing partnership instead of segregation.65 It aims to reconcile the right to self-determination for both peoples with the need for pragmatic solutions to core issues like refugees and settlers.65
Support: While not yet a mainstream political proposal, confederation ideas are gaining interest among academics, peace activists, and some former officials on both sides.65 It is presented as a more realistic and potentially more just alternative given current realities.65
Challenges/Viability: Confederation is inherently complex, requiring intricate agreements on power-sharing, legal frameworks, security coordination, and dispute resolution.94 It demands high levels of trust and cooperation between two entities emerging from decades of conflict.94 Defining the precise balance of sovereignty and shared authority, especially regarding security and Jerusalem, would be extremely difficult.94 Like other solutions, it requires significant political shifts and strong leadership on both sides, as well as robust international support and guarantees.96
Comparison of Potential Conflict Resolution Frameworks
To clarify the distinctions and challenges, the following table compares the key features of the main proposed solutions against the current reality:
This comparative overview underscores that while the two-state solution remains the internationally preferred framework, its practical implementation faces enormous hurdles created by decades of occupation and settlement activity. The one-state solution, in its democratic form, struggles with fundamental questions of national identity and political feasibility, while its unequal version aligns with descriptions of apartheid. Confederation emerges as an attempt to navigate these challenges by blending elements of separation and integration, but its complexity and the need for unprecedented cooperation make its realization uncertain. The current reality, meanwhile, is widely seen as unsustainable and unjust.
The discourse around these solutions is heavily influenced by the very realities that make peace difficult. The decline in the two-state solution's perceived viability fuels interest in alternatives, yet these alternatives lack broad political consensus and face their own significant obstacles. This dynamic suggests that finding a mutually acceptable "solution" requires not only a viable framework but also fundamental shifts in political will, leadership, and the underlying conditions on the ground.
Conditions for Any Sustainable Peace: Regardless of the specific framework, achieving any sustainable peace requires addressing several fundamental conditions:
Committed Leadership: Leaders on both sides must possess the political will, courage, and popular mandate to make difficult compromises and navigate domestic opposition.11
Addressing Core Issues: A comprehensive agreement is needed that provides mutually acceptable solutions to all final status issues: borders, Jerusalem, refugees, security, and settlements.1
Ending the Occupation: For Palestinians and according to international law (as affirmed by the ICJ), the end of Israel's military occupation is a non-negotiable prerequisite for peace and self-determination.1
Mutual Security: Arrangements must credibly address the legitimate security needs of both Israelis and Palestinians, likely involving international guarantees and demilitarization or limitations on armaments, based on equal sovereignty.10
Constructive International Role: Sustained and coordinated international engagement is likely necessary to mediate, apply pressure, provide guarantees, fund reconstruction, and support implementation.3 The impartiality and effectiveness of key actors like the US remain critical questions.78 Regional actors, particularly Egypt, Jordan, and Gulf states, must play supportive roles.6
Reconciliation: Beyond political agreements, processes addressing historical grievances, promoting mutual recognition of rights and narratives, and fostering people-to-people understanding are crucial for long-term stability.10
X. Conclusion
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, born from the collision of competing national aspirations in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, has evolved through phases of Mandate-era tension, transformative wars in 1948 and 1967, decades of occupation, popular uprisings, and ultimately unsuccessful peace processes. The historical trajectory reveals a pattern of missed opportunities, broken agreements, and escalating violence, deeply entrenching the core issues that lie at the heart of the dispute.
Fundamental disagreements over borders, the status of Jerusalem, the fate of Palestinian refugees displaced since 1948, Israeli security demands, and the pervasive presence of Israeli settlements in occupied territory remain profoundly unresolved.1 These issues are not merely technical negotiating points but touch upon the existential needs, historical narratives, and national identities of both peoples.
The path towards a resolution is obstructed by formidable and interconnected barriers. The physical reality of settlements increasingly renders a viable two-state solution based on partition difficult to implement.62 Deep political fragmentation within both Israeli and Palestinian societies, particularly the Fatah-Hamas split, hinders the emergence of unified leadership capable of negotiating and implementing a lasting agreement.11 Cycles of violence and extremism fuel mutual distrust and empower hardliners who reject compromise.11 Decades of failed diplomacy have fostered widespread cynicism and despair.61 Furthermore, the significant asymmetry of power between the occupier and the occupied continues to shape the dynamics on the ground and at the negotiating table.3
In this context, the traditional two-state solution, while remaining the internationally preferred framework, faces a crisis of feasibility.65 Alternative proposals, such as a democratic one-state solution or various confederation models, attempt to address the shortcomings of partition but confront their own immense challenges related to national identity, security, and political viability, lacking broad consensus.16 The current trajectory, absent a significant shift, points towards a continuation of the conflict, characterized by Israeli control over the entire territory, denial of Palestinian self-determination, and recurrent violence – a reality increasingly described in terms of illegality and apartheid under international law.1
Achieving a just and sustainable peace necessitates overcoming these deep-seated obstacles. It requires the emergence of courageous and credible leadership on both sides, committed to compromise and reconciliation.93 It demands a comprehensive approach that addresses all core issues based on principles of international law, equality, and mutual security.78 Constructive, sustained, and potentially forceful international engagement, including from regional powers, appears indispensable to bridge gaps, provide guarantees, and ensure implementation.93 The recent landmark advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, declaring the Israeli occupation illegal and mandating its end, adds significant legal and moral weight to the imperative for resolution and places clear obligations on the international community.87
While the prospects for a near-term resolution appear bleak, history demonstrates that seemingly intractable conflicts can reach unexpected turning points.11 The immense human cost of the ongoing violence underscores the urgency of finding a pathway that ends the occupation, fulfills the legitimate national aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians, and establishes a future based on equal rights, justice, security, and peace.
Works cited
Israeli–Palestinian conflict - Wikipedia, accessed May 4, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict
Arab-Israeli conflict | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/military-history-and-science/arab-israeli-conflict
The Global South and Mediation between Israel and Palestine: The Conflict Needs a New Paradigm and Renewed Third Parties - CEBRI, accessed May 4, 2025, https://cebri.org/revista/en/artigo/156/the-global-south-and-mediation-between-israel-and-palestine-the-conflict-needs-a-new-paradigm-and-renewed-third-parties
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - Brookings Institution, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/israeli-palestinian-conflict/
History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict - Wikipedia, accessed May 4, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict
Saudi-Israeli normalization is still possible—if the United States plays it smart, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/saudi-israeli-normalization-is-still-possible-if-the-united-states-plays-it-smart/
How Regional Security Dialogues Can Address the Grim Realities in the Middle East, accessed May 4, 2025, https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/04/regional-security-middle-east-israel-iran?lang=en
Ending the New Wars of Attrition: Opportunities for Collective Regional Security in the Middle East | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, accessed May 4, 2025, https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/03/ending-the-new-wars-of-attrition-opportunities-for-collective-regional-security-in-the-middle-east?lang=en
Israel: Major Issues and U.S. Relations - Congress.gov, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44245
What Is U.S. Policy on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict? | Council on ..., accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-us-policy-israeli-palestinian-conflict
Obstacles and Opportunities in the Pursuit of Israeli-Palestinian ..., accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/obstacles-and-opportunities-pursuit-israeli-palestinian-peace
Security vs. Justice—Israel and Palestine: Diverging Perceptions of the Middle East Conflict since the Beginning of the Second Intifada and their Influence on the Peace Process, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.marshallcenter.org/en/publications/occasional-papers/security-vs-justice-israel-and-palestine-diverging-perceptions-middle-east-conflict-beginning-second
The Challenges of War and Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict with Aaron David Miller and Larry Mantle - Jews United for Democracy and Justice, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.jewsunitedfordemocracy.org/blog/challenges-of-war-and-peace-in-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/
The Promise of a Jewish National Home: The Balfour Declaration - Institute for Curriculum Services, accessed May 4, 2025, https://icsresources.org/the-balfour-declaration/
Balfour Declaration - History.com, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.history.com/articles/balfour-declaration
What is the “One-State Solution,” and Why is it Unlikely to Work? | American University, Washington, D.C., accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.american.edu/sis/news/20231121-what-is-the-one-state-solution-and-why-is-it-unlikely-to-work.cfm
Why Mediations Fail (1) - eCampusOntario Pressbooks, accessed May 4, 2025, https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/app/uploads/sites/3480/2023/08/Why-Mediations-Fail-1.docx
Palestine - British Mandate, Zionism, Conflict | Britannica, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/place/Palestine/World-War-I-and-after
About the Nakba - Question of Palestine - the United Nations, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.un.org/unispal/about-the-nakba/
Nakba - Wikipedia, accessed May 4, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba
How did the conflict in Israel/ Palestine begin? - Imperial War Museums, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-did-the-conflict-in-israel-palestine-begin
www.aljazeera.com, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2018/11/2/more-than-a-century-on-the-balfour-declaration-explained#:~:text=The%20Balfour%20Declaration%2C%20which%20resulted,for%20the%20Jewish%20people%E2%80%9D%20there.
One-state solution - Wikipedia, accessed May 4, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-state_solution
Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, accessed May 4, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
The Historical Significance of the Balfour Declaration - Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, accessed May 4, 2025, https://jcpa.org/article/historical-significance-balfour-declaration/
More than a century on: The Balfour Declaration explained | Features - Al Jazeera, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2018/11/2/more-than-a-century-on-the-balfour-declaration-explained
The implications of the Balfour declaration - International Viewpoint, accessed May 4, 2025, https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article5707
Two-state solution | Definition, Facts, History, & Map - Britannica, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/two-state-solution
Two-state solution - Wikipedia, accessed May 4, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict | Global Conflict Tracker - Council on Foreign Relations, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/israeli-palestinian-conflict
History of the Question of Palestine - the United Nations, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.un.org/unispal/history/
Milestones: The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 - Office of the Historian, accessed May 4, 2025, https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war
Nakba Fact Sheet - Jewish Voice for Peace, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/JVP-Nakba-Fact-Sheet.pdf
What Were the Causes and Consequences of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War?, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.e-ir.info/2014/01/15/what-were-the-causes-and-consequences-of-the-1948-arab-israeli-war-2/
THE ONE STATE SOLUTION An Alternative Vision for Ending The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - CUNY Academic Works, accessed May 4, 2025, https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1110&context=cc_etds_theses
1948 Arab-Israeli War | Summary, Outcome, Casualties, & Timeline | Britannica, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/event/1948-Arab-Israeli-War
Intifada | History, Meaning, Cause, & Significance - Britannica, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/intifada
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Timeline - CFR Education - Council on Foreign Relations, accessed May 4, 2025, https://education.cfr.org/learn/timeline/israeli-palestinian-conflict-timeline
Israeli–Palestinian peace process - Wikipedia, accessed May 4, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_peace_process
The 1967 Arab-Israeli War - Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations - Office of the Historian, accessed May 4, 2025, https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/arab-israeli-war-1967
Six-Day War | Definition, Causes, History, Summary, Outcomes ..., accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/event/Six-Day-War
United Nations Resolution 242 (1967) | Definition, Land for Peace, Summary, & Facts, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-Nations-Resolution-242
Parallel Realities - Resolution 242 And The Aftermath Of 1967 | Shattered Dreams Of Peace | FRONTLINE | PBS, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oslo/parallel/8.html
Consequences of the 1967 War | The Washington Institute, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/consequences-1967-war
United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia, accessed May 4, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242
1967 | The wisdom of Resolution 242 - Fathom, accessed May 4, 2025, https://fathomjournal.org/1967-the-wisdom-of-un-resolution-242/
Camp David Accords and the Arab-Israeli Peace Process - Office of the Historian, accessed May 4, 2025, https://history.state.gov/milestones/1977-1980/camp-david
Camp David Accords - Wikipedia, accessed May 4, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accords
Mideast peace process - Ministry of Foreign Affairs, accessed May 4, 2025, https://embassies.gov.il/hague-en/aboutisrael/themiddleeast/Pages/Mideast-peace-process.aspx
The Players of Camp David - The Cairo Review of Global Affairs, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.thecairoreview.com/essays/the-players-of-camp-david/
The History of the Arab-Israeli Peace Process - Foreign Policy Research Institute, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.fpri.org/article/2014/12/the-history-of-the-arab-israeli-peace-process/
The First Intifada 1987 – Causes and Consequences, by Liam Jackson, accessed May 4, 2025, https://manchesterhistorian.com/2024/the-first-intifada-1987-causes-and-consequences-by-liam-jackson/
Palestinian Intifada Begins | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/palestinian-intifada-begins
AN ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACTS OF THE FIRST PALESTINIAN UPRISING (INTIFADA) ON THE ISRAELI ECONOMY - DergiPark, accessed May 4, 2025, https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1946639
First Intifada - Wikipedia, accessed May 4, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intifada
First Palestinian Intifada, December 1987 - 40 Years Of Israeli Occupation, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.arij.org/atlas40/chapter2.5.html
palquest | the first intifada, 1987-1993 - interactive encyclopedia of the palestine question, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.palquest.org/en/highlight/29773/first-intifada-1987-1993
Why the Oslo Accords Failed - My Jewish Learning, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/why-the-oslo-accords-failed/
The Oslo Accords and the Arab-Israeli Peace Process - Office of the Historian, accessed May 4, 2025, https://history.state.gov/milestones/1993-2000/oslo
Is it Time to Declare the Failure of the Oslo Accords? - Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, accessed May 4, 2025, https://jcpa.org/article/is-it-time-to-declare-the-failure-of-the-oslo-accords/
30 years on, Oslo's legacy of failure | Middle East Institute, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.mei.edu/publications/30-years-oslos-legacy-failure
two-state solution - Herbert C. Kelman - Harvard University, accessed May 4, 2025, https://scholar.harvard.edu/hckelman/files/one_country_two_state_solution.pdf
Palestinian Intifada: How Israel orchestrated a bloody takeover ..., accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/9/28/palestinian-intifada-20-years-later-israeli-occupation-continues
11_thomson - Contemporary Voices: St Andrews Journal of International Relations, accessed May 4, 2025, https://cvir.st-andrews.ac.uk/index.php/up/article/view/I19/955
Two States, Together: An Alternative Vision for Palestinians and Israelis, accessed May 4, 2025, https://tcf.org/content/report/two-states-together-an-alternative-vision-for-palestinians-and-israelis/
2000 Camp David Summit - Wikipedia, accessed May 4, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit
Israeli–Palestinian Peacemaking | The Camp David approach, 2000 - Chatham House, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2018/07/israeli-palestinian-peacemaking/camp-david-approach-2000
Lost in the Woods: A Camp David Retrospective, accessed May 4, 2025, https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2020/07/lost-in-the-woods-a-camp-david-retrospective?lang=en
Why did the 2000 Camp David Summit Fail? : r/AskHistorians - Reddit, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/174gryc/why_did_the_2000_camp_david_summit_fail/
Camp David Summit 2000 - ADL, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/camp-david-summit-2000
en.wikipedia.org, accessed May 4, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit#:~:text=Clinton%20and%20Barak%20insisted%20that,be%20resolved%2C%20the%20summit%20ended.
2000 - The Second Intifada | Arab News, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.arabnews.com/node/2597328/amp
Second Intifada - Wikipedia, accessed May 4, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Intifada
Second Palestinian Intifada, September 2000 - 40 Years Of Israeli Occupation, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.arij.org/atlas40/chapter2.6.html
Intifada | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/intifada
Predictable in Their Failure: An Analysis of Mediation Efforts to End the Palestinian Split, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13533312.2024.2338410
From New to Normal: Two Years after the Abraham Accords, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.giga-hamburg.de/en/publications/giga-focus/from-new-to-normal-two-years-after-the-abraham-accords
Obstacles to Peace between Israel and Palestine - CIDOB, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.cidob.org/en/publications/obstacles-peace-between-israel-and-palestine
The Abraham Accords After Gaza: A Change of Context, accessed May 4, 2025, https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/04/the-abraham-accords-after-gaza-a-change-of-context
A Saudi Accord: Implications for Israel-Palestine Relations - Quincy Institute, accessed May 4, 2025, https://quincyinst.org/research/a-saudi-accord-implications-for-israel-palestine-relations/
Abraham Accords | Peace Declaration, Summary, Trump, Israel, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Morocco, & Sudan | Britannica, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Abraham-Accords
Forget 'peace,' did Abraham Accords set stage for Israel-Gaza conflict? | Responsible Statecraft, accessed May 4, 2025, https://responsiblestatecraft.org/abraham-accords-peace-middle-east/
As the Israel-Hamas war continues, the Abraham Accords quietly turns four - Atlantic Council, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/abraham-accords-anniversary-gaza/
Assessing the Abraham Accords, Three Years On - Arab Center Washington DC, accessed May 4, 2025, https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/assessing-the-abraham-accords-three-years-on/
Israeli and Palestinian Societies Have Little Remaining Hope of Peace, accessed May 4, 2025, https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/10/israel-palestine-peace-settlement-challenges
The Reality of Gaza's Fragile Ceasefire: Current and Future Risks for Atrocities in Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel - Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.globalr2p.org/publications/the-reality-of-gazas-fragile-ceasefire-current-and-future-risks-for-atrocities-in-occupied-palestinian-territory-and-israel/
ICJ case on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories - Wikipedia, accessed May 4, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICJ_case_on_Israel%27s_occupation_of_the_Palestinian_territories
Implementation of ICJ Advisory Opinion: State, GA, SecCo obligations - Position Paper of the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel - Question of Palestine, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.un.org/unispal/document/position-paper-commissionof-inquiry-18oct24/
Experts hail ICJ declaration on illegality of Israel's presence in the occupied Palestinian territory as “historic” for Palestinians and international law | OHCHR, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/07/experts-hail-icj-declaration-illegality-israels-presence-occupied
Israeli occupation of Palestine: strong reactions after ICJ ruling - Justice Info, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/134447-israeli-occupation-palestine-strong-reactions-tough-icj-ruling.html
The ICJ, Israel's Occupation and the Realization of Palestinian Rights - DAWN, accessed May 4, 2025, https://dawnmena.org/the-icj-israels-occupation-and-the-realization-of-palestinian-rights/
The ICJ's Paradigm Shift on Palestine | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, accessed May 4, 2025, https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2024/07/icj-israel-occupation-palestine-ruling-us-effects
A Pathway Towards Sustainable Peace in Palestine and Israel - The Elders, accessed May 4, 2025, https://theelders.org/news/pathway-towards-sustainable-peace-palestine-and-israel
REIMAGINING ISRAEL/PALESTINE - Columbia SIPA, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.sipa.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/migrated/migrated/documents/USCIA_FOR_PUBLICATION.pdf
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict | Pros, Cons, Debate, & Arguments - Britannica, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/procon/Israeli-Palestinian-conflict-debate
The 'state-plus' framework: A confederal solution for Israel-Palestine - Brookings Institution, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-state-plus-framework-a-confederal-solution-for-israel-palestine/
Pathways to a Durable Israeli-Palestinian Peace | RAND, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3486-1.html
Israeli and Palestinian Societies Have Little Remaining Hope of Peace, accessed May 4, 2025, https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/10/israel-palestine-peace-settlement-challenges?lang=en
One-state solution | Explained, Two-State Solution, Israel, & Map | Britannica, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/one-state-solution
The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Historical and Prospective Intervention Analyses - The Carter Center, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.cartercenter.org/documents/1435.pdf
The Israeli-Palestinian Peace Conundrum -.::. UCLA International Institute, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.international.ucla.edu/israel/currents/article/205993
Two-State Solution vs. Confederation Model: Ways out of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGDZWXmH8Qw
Great and Regional Powers in the Middle East: The Evolution of Role Conceptions, accessed May 4, 2025, https://pomeps.org/great-and-regional-powers-in-the-middle-east-the-evolution-of-role-conceptions
The Global South and Mediation between Israel and Palestine: The Conflict Needs a New Paradigm and Renewed Third Parties - CEBRI, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.cebri.org/revista/en/artigo/156/the-global-south-and-mediation-between-israel-and-palestine-the-conflict-needs-a-new-paradigm-and-renewed-third-parties
(PDF) Mediation and the Transformation of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ResearchGate, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242138011_Mediation_and_the_Transformation_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_Conflict
The Case for the One-State Solution - The Cairo Review of Global Affairs, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.thecairoreview.com/essays/the-case-for-the-one-state-solution/
The One-State Solution: An Alternative Vision for Israeli-Palestinian Peace - Palestine-studies.org, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.palestine-studies.org/sites/default/files/attachments/jps-articles/jps_2011_xl_2_62.pdf
A Framework Agreement for an Israeli-Palestinian Permanent Peace | Baker Institute, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/framework-agreement-israeli-palestinian-permanent-peace
-
The National Unity Government (NUG) of Myanmar is a government formed by revolutionary forces and pro-democracy forces in respon...
-
For much of the recent past, China has stood as the undisputed manufacturing powerhouse of the world. This dominance was built significantl... -
အိမ့်မက်လှလှ မက်ဖို့ရာ ငြိမ်းချမ်း ပျော်ရွှင်မှုလေးတော့ ရှိဖို့လိုပါတယ်။ အဂ္ဂ မြန်မာ့စစ်အုပ်စု စစ်ရှုံးပြီးနောက် တိုင်းပြည်တည်ငြိမ်အေးချမ်းရ...
-
.jpg)
Ten years ago, Perth, Australia, hosted a pivotal gathering of religious leaders and representatives from across the Asia-Pacific region. T... -
During 1946 - 1964 , Myanmar is one of the most progressive and modern countries in Southeast Asia, offering numerous jo...
-
The future of the US dollar (USD), considering the concerns you raised about US debt, foreign bond holdings, and the growing desire of some ...
No comments:
Post a Comment