Abstract

As currently foreseen, neither the two-state nor the one-state solution offers much hope of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Scenario Planning Program of the Strategic Assessments Initiative (SAI) aims to launch a deeper examination of what a sustainable solution requires by shifting the debate from the idiosyncratic terms of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (one state / two states) to concepts familiar to students of ethnic conflict worldwide (partition / integration). A program team comprising Palestinian and Israeli Jewish intellectuals, along with internationals with extensive policy experience, will engage in a far-reaching investigation with two overall objectives. First, the team will explore the state of the two-state solution, asking if it can in its current and possible configurations successfully resolve the conflict. Second, the team will explore how difficult issues such as sovereignty and self-determination have been handled in other contested instances, and consider what a comparative study might teach about Israel and Palestine. Through a series of working papers, focus groups and seminars, the program participants will refine their ideas in collaboration with major stakeholders. Ultimately, the team will prepare a comprehensive report that covers two-state possibilities, regional options and cooperative power-sharing, as well as suggestions for moving forward. The idea is to reverse the current pessimism by offering policymakers new tools for imagining alternative futures.

Post-Project Summary

Researchers from Strategic Assessments and Public International Law & Policy Group (PILPG) compiled background information on the history of conflicts in Bosnia, Cyprus, Kosovo, Macedonia, Indonesia, Northern Ireland, the Philippines and South Africa in a series of comparative case studies. The eight case studies reflect the current range of international practice and international law concerning statehood and independence, and include both integrated and partitioned states. They produced normative memorandums on a number of concepts common to modern conflicts using the countries in the case studies as examples. "Sovereignty" analyzes the traditional definition of sovereignty, explores how the concept has been modified through recent practice and addresses the range of sovereignty in modern states. "State Structure" evaluates the range in state structures, including unitary, federal, confederate, symmetrical, asymmetrical and autonomous models. "Human Rights Norms" examines human rights in modern states, with emphasis on how these rights are enforced and guaranteed in a range of systems, whether they are guaranteed at the national or local level, and whether they differ at the national and local level. "Apartheid" defines and analyzes the practice of apartheid, catalogs the range of preferential ethnic-based systems in modern states, and evaluates how the practice has been viewed under international law.

PILPG team members contracted Israeli and Palestinian experts to author two brief facts-on-the-ground analyses in preparation for the more detailed analyses planned for Phase III. One of the two memorandums had been completed in time for the End of Year Report 2006, and the other was expected in early 2007. The completed memorandum (on Palestine) also examines current views on the partition/integration debate.

Toward the end of Phase II, the research team recruited a panel of international experts to review the papers drafted and garner feedback on the overall program as it approached the end of the second phase. The experts were selected based on their knowledge of international law, their experience with the chosen case studies and their familiarity with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The team revised the draft memorandums to address concerns and ideas raised by panel members. The project outputs are feeding into policy processes where and when the team is called in for their expertise. A planned third phase of the project did not take place.

Recipient Institution(s)