Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Here's the key to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Palestinian and Israeli flags painted on a wall
Tuomas A. Lehtinen/Getty Images

Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework" (Springer, 2014), has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.

The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is among the most complex conflicts in the world today – and in the history of the world. The war launched by Hamas against Israel, the latest piece of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is immensely complicated, notably because Hamas militants have used Palestinian citizens, especially women and children, as shields.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is rooted in rival conceptions of what happened when the Middle East was reshaped after World War I followed by the events of 1948, when Israel issued its Declaration of Independence and six Arab countries attacked the new nation. The roots go even deeper – all the way back to ancient times.

Any resolution of the conflict would have to deal with many issues, including the abundance of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the status of Jerusalem, the governance of Gaza after the current war and of course the very question about whether Palestinians will get a homeland.


There are two things that must happen for any resolution to be possible. They are the most basic impediments that have prevented peace for generations, one applying to Israel and one applying to the Palestinians. Israel must recognize that the Palestinians have a right to exist and to a homeland, and some group of Palestinians with a degree of authority must recognize that Israel has a right to exist and to a homeland. Both sides tried this approach with the Letters of Mutual Recognition in 1993, but the Oslo Accords were never implemented.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Israel already has a homeland, and thus the question here would be whether any parts of Israel need to be given to the Palestianians. The Palestinians do not have a state that is recognized by Israel and many other countries (although some land is recognized as Palestinian by the United Nations, notably the West Bank and Gaza).

Hamas, which represents Palestinians in Gaza, stands for the annihilation of Israel (as does Iran), although the Palestine Liberation Organization has gone back and forth on the position of seeking to annihilate Israel. Israel does not recognize a Palestinian state yet since 1947, with the United Nations Partition, it has frequently affirmed the right of Palestinians to have their own state.

The Palestinian position (and Iran's position), at least from the standpoint of Hamas, is a much more difficult obstacle to overcome because it is so extreme. Even Adolf Hitler did not stand for the annihilation of the countries (or all the citizens of those countries) he was fighting, notably France, England, Russia and the United States. He wanted territory, natural resources and naked power. What Hitler did stand for was the annihilation of the Jews, and he led an effort that killed two-thirds of the Jews of Europe.

There are a considerable number of Palestinians and Israelis (who count 2 million Arabs, mostly Palestinians, among their population) who want either a two-state solution or a confederation solution. Moreover, many major world powers, including the United States, Russia, China and a number of European nations, are also advocating for some form of a two-state solution.

It must be emphasized that there are not "two sides" in this conflict in any clear sense of the term, both because the Palestinians are divided and because Hamas, which has governed Gaza since 2007, is not governing it now. Moreover, Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israeli government, which many regard as extremist, could be replaced in the near future.

Thus the process of achieving peace over the next few years – especially with the United States and some Arab countries, notably Qatar, acting as brokers – is a very fluid situation. It is not even clear if Hamas or the Netanyahu government would be at the table when peace was achieved, let alone when monitoring would follow a peace deal.

However the politics evolves, it is still the case that the fundamental problem in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that both sides must recognize each other's right to have a homeland. Israel has been more consistent over the years in doing just this, but the Netanyahu years have been subject to international criticism for promoting policies that do not promote conditions for Palestinians to have their own state, notably a massive build up of settlements in the West Bank.

Read More

Older woman speaking with another woman

Listen for values and emotions, not just points you can rebut with facts.

kupicoo/Getty Images

Vaccines and values: When you’re having a tough conversation about medicine, don’t just pile on evidence − listen to someone’s ‘moral foundations’

It’s that special time of year when family and friends come together to celebrate the holidays, share meals, spread cheer – and, too often, pass along their germs.

Because vaccines can save lives and prevent serious illness, health professionals have long recommended vaccinations for influenza, COVID-19 and respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV. Yet despite these apparent benefits, many people decline.

Keep ReadingShow less
civic education notebook

We need to increase emphasis on schools as a more effective location for teaching interpersonal civil discourse.

Zhanna Hapanovich/Getty Images

4 S’s showcase how dialogue fits and where other approaches work best

In my previous article, I explained the “4 R’s” that should cause people to reconsider the extremely strong emphasis on civil discourse in efforts to reduce political divides in the United States. I also promised suggestions for how to use dialogue most effectively, in specific circumstances, and when non-dialogue approaches may be best.

A brief overview of the 4 R’s to reconsider such a heavy focus on dialogue reminds us that it is difficult to get many people to attend events (recruitment), civil discourse is not inherently effective (reliability), even a successful 1:1 interaction may not generalize to the entire out-party (representativeness) and getting people to repeatedly use skills learned is challenging (repetition).

Keep ReadingShow less
Caucasian business people talking on bench outdoors

Civil discourse can be effective, but its effectiveness is limited.

Jetta Productions Inc./Getty Images

The 4 R’s reduce dialogue workshop effectiveness – but don’t despair

In some circles, reducing political divides and civil discourse are almost synonymous. I’ve had conversations where I mention that I work on reducing these divides, only to have the other person launch into some story or opinion about civil discourse.

By “civil discourse,” I mean an interpersonal focus on communication, which can include activities like dialogue or certain types of debates.

Keep ReadingShow less
city skyline

Reading, Pennsylvania, can be a model for a path forward.

arlutz73/Getty Images

The election couldn’t solve our crisis of belief. Here’s what can.

The stark divisions surrounding the recent presidential election are still with us, and will be for some time. The reason is clear: We have a crisis of belief in this country that goes much deeper than any single election.

So many people, especially young people, have lost faith in America. We have lost belief in our leaders, institutions and systems. Even in one another. Recent years have seen us roiled by debates over racial injustice, fatigued by wars, troubled by growing inequities and disparities, and worried about the very health of our democracy. We are awash in manufactured polarization, hatred and bigotry, mistrust, and a lack of hope.

Keep ReadingShow less