The longstanding and still unresolved territorial dispute between Israel and Palestine has several dimensions. The current nomenclature in legal and political sciences used the term territorial dispute. Yet, the Israel-Palestine difference is a clear example of an ongoing dispute that has to do with territory as well as population, government and law domestically, regionally and internationally.
This blog series "Territorial disputes" originally aimed only to briefly introduce conceptual elements (first ten posts of the series) and thereafter present a succinct overview of relevant and current examples. Before we covered the Israel-Palestine difference, we had addressed Kashmir, the Malvinas/Falkland islands, and Gibraltar. The plan was to write and publish only ten posts (like with the rest of the case studies) for the Israel-Palestine difference. Thanks to the comments made by one of our readers, I decided to extend the assessment of this particular case study.
Because of the nature of this series and its platform (a blog), I have covered the basis in relation to the Israel-Palestine difference and the application of the egalitarian shared sovereignty to evaluate a solution. However, there are questions that are more complex and more serious problems to address. I am addressing these questions with future dedicated research. To give an answer to these points deserve a more in depth analysis that will have to include technicalities in terms of statistical information, methodology and content based on the disciplines of reference. In addition to this, I do my best to keep this blog series as accessible as possible for anybody (at least, most people) to be able to get a grasp and participate in the discussion.
Having said that, the last 24 posts (link to the blog below) have enabled us to:
· Be familiar with a brief historical chronology.
· Distinguish historical facts from religious account.
· Understand some key domestic, regional and international reasons behind this difference.
· Introduce the concept of “colourable claim” and explore three different grounds: historical entitlement, legal basis and moral standing. Its main outcome is that both Israelis and Palestinians ought to be part of any negotiation concerning the sovereignty (de jure and de facto) over the disputes territories.
· Introduce the solutions presented in resent years by the United States, United Nations and Arab League.
· Learn that all the aforementioned solutions suggest explicitly or implicitly partition.
· Assess why partition is not a recommendable and fair solution.
· Evaluate by means of an abstract experiment how the egalitarian shared sovereignty may solve the difference and could materialise in terms of population, territory, government and law.
With all this in mind, three main partial conclusions leave the door open for future reflection and analysis:
1. Sovereignty of the disputed territories should not be totally in the hands of only one of the claiming parties either Israel or Palestine.
2. If existing conditions in terms of sovereignty continue, they will only perpetuate a status quo and therefore, a legal and political limbo securing only one result: a volatile area in many ways.
3. United Nations or any other party alien to the dispute (for example, United States, United Kingdom, Russia, Arab League) should not interfere.
There is nothing completely unresolvable if we look together for a solution. Indeed, if we choose not to solve the difference and we do not look for ways to move forward we are not going to find it. It is usually the case in this kind of differences that victory for one party means the other party has to suffer. When we shift the focus and understand we are all human beings and we are all fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters doing our best to let our future generations live in a better world we may have a chance. It is not only up to Israelis to find a solution. It is not only up to Palestinians to do it either. It is up to all of us.
Post 66 (Monday 28th May) introduces another territorial dispute.
Regards.
