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.

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

Carolyn Lukensmeyer Turns 80: A Life of Commitment to “Of, By, and for the People”

Carolyn Lukensmeyer.

The National Institute for Civil Discourse and New Voice Strategies

Carolyn Lukensmeyer Turns 80: A Life of Commitment to “Of, By, and for the People”

I’ve known Dr. Carolyn Lukensmeyer for over a decade, first meeting her about a decade ago. Dr. Lukensmeyer is a nationally renowned expert in deliberative democracy, a former executive director emerita of the National Institute for Civil Discourse, and a member of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences’ Commission on the Practice of Democratic Citizenship.

On the weekend of her 80th birthday, former colleagues, clients, and friends offered a look at Dr. Lukensmeyer’s extraordinary commitment to “of, by, and for the peoples,” from her earlier days in Iowa and Ohio to the present day.

Keep ReadingShow less
Bridgebuilding Effectiveness

Hands together in unison.

Getty Images, VioletaStoimenova

Bridgebuilding Effectiveness

In a time of deep polarization and democratic fragility, bridgebuilding has become a go-to approach for fostering civic cohesion in the U.S. Yet questions persist: Does it work? And how do we know?

With declining trust, rising partisanship, and even political violence, many are asking what the role of dialogue might be in meeting democracy’s demands. The urgency is real—and so is the need for more strategic, evidence-based approaches.

Keep ReadingShow less
The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same
a red hat that reads make america great again

The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same

Recently, while listening to a podcast, I came across the term “reprise” in the context of music and theater. A reprise is a repeated element in a performance—a song or scene returning to reinforce themes or emotions introduced earlier. In a play or film, a familiar melody might reappear, reminding the audience of a previous moment and deepening its significance.

That idea got me thinking about how reprise might apply to the events shaping our lives today. It’s easy to believe that the times we are living through are entirely unprecedented—that the chaos and uncertainty we experience are unlike anything before. Yet, reflecting on the nature of a reprise, I began to reconsider. Perhaps history does not simply move forward in a straight line; rather, it cycles back, echoing familiar themes in new forms.

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Intergenerational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

An illustration depicting the U.S. Constitution and Government.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

Following Jefferson: Promoting Intergenerational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

Towards the end of his life, Thomas Jefferson became fatalistic. The prince and poet of the American Revolution brooded—about the future of the country he birthed, to be sure; but also about his health, his finances, his farm, his family, and, perhaps most poignantly, his legacy. “[W]hen all our faculties have left…” he wrote to John Adams in 1822, “[when] every avenue of pleasing sensation is closed, and athumy, debility, and malaise [is] left in their places, when the friends of our youth are all gone, and a generation is risen around us whom we know not, is death an evil?”

The question was rhetorical, of course. But it revealed something about his character. Jefferson was aware that Adams and he—the “North and South poles of the Revolution”—were practically the only survivors of the Revolutionary era, and that a new generation was now in charge of America’s destiny.

Keep ReadingShow less