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

silhouettes of people arguing in front of an America flag
Pict Rider/Getty Images

'One side will win': The danger of zero-sum framings

Elwood is the author of “Defusing American Anger” and hosts thepodcast “People Who Read People.”

Recently, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was surreptitiously recorded at a private event saying, about our political divides, that “one side or the other is going to win.” Many people saw this as evidence of his political bias. In The Washington Post, Perry Bacon Jr. wrote that he disagreed with Alito’s politics but that the justice was “right about the divisions in our nation today.” The subtitle of Bacon’s piece was: “America is in the middle of a nonmilitary civil war, and one side will win.”

It’s natural for people in conflict to see it in “us versus them” terms — as two opposing armies facing off against each other on the battlefield. That’s what conflict does to us: It makes us see things through war-colored glasses.

Keep ReadingShow less
David French

New York Times columnist David French was removed from the agenda of a faith-basd gathering because we was too "divisive."

Macmillan Publishers

Is canceling David French good for civic life?

Harwood is president and founder of The Harwood Institute. This is the latest entry in his series based on the "Enough. Time to Build.” campaign, which calls on community leaders and active citizens to step forward and build together.

On June 10-14, the Presbyterian Church in America held its annual denominational assembly in Richmond, Va. The PCA created considerable national buzz in the lead-up when it abruptly canceled a panel discussion featuring David French, the highly regarded author and New York Times columnist.

The panel carried the innocuous-sounding title, “How to Be Supportive of Your Pastor and Church Leaders in a Polarized Political Year.” The reason for canceling it? French, himself a long-time PCA member, was deemed too “divisive.” This despite being a well-known, self-identified “conservative” and PCA adherent. Ironically, the loudest and most divisive voices won the day.

Keep ReadingShow less
Young girl holding a sparkler and wearing an American flag shirt
Rebecca Nelson/Getty Images

Three approaches to Independence Day

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

July Fourth is not like Christmas or Rosh Hashanah, holidays that create a unified sense of celebration among celebrants. On Christmas, Christians throughout the world celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. On Rosh Hashanah, Jews throughout the world celebrate the Jewish New Year.

Yet on the Fourth of July, apart from the family gatherings, barbecues and drinking, we take different approaches. Some Americans celebrate the declaration of America's independence from Great Britain and especially the value of freedom. And some Americans reject the holiday, because they believe it highlights the self-contradiction of the United States, which created a nation in which some would be free and some would be enslaved. And other Americans are conflicted between these two points of view.

Keep ReadingShow less
Fireworks on July 4
Roy Rochlin/Getty Images

One country, one constitution, one destiny

Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."

“One country, one constitution, one destiny,” Daniel Webster said in a historic 1837 speech defending the American Union.

This of Fourth of July, 187 years after Webster’s speech and the 248th anniversary of the signing of our Declaration of Independence, Webster would no doubt be dismayed to find his quote reconstrued by popular opinion to read something like this:

“Divided country, debated constitution, and as for destiny, we’re going to hell in a hand-basket.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Rich Harwood
Harwood Institute

Meet the change leaders: Rich Harwood

Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

After working on more than 20 political campaigns and two highly respected nonprofits, Rich Harwood set out to create something entirely different. He founded what is now known as The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation in 1988, when he was just 27 years old (and is now its president). Soon after, he wrote the ground-breaking report “Citizen and Politics: A View from Main Street,” the first national study to uncover that Americans did not feel apathetic about politics, but instead held a deep sense of anger and disconnection.

Over the past 30 years, Rich has innovated and developed a new philosophy and practice for how communities can solve shared problems, create a culture of shared responsibility and deepen people’s civic faith. The Harwood practice of Turning Outward has spread to all 50 states and is being used in 40 countries.

Keep ReadingShow less