Abstract
In the peace talks on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the two-state solution has been assumed as a premise. However, the Oslo Accords have, de facto, failed, and the peace talks have not progressed since the 2000s. As such, some academics are now pointing out the impossibility of the two-state solution. Meanwhile, the one-state solution has attracted attention, mainly from intellectuals in Europe and the United States. Nonetheless, there is no growing support for the one-state solution in the occupied Palestinian territories, Jordan, Lebanon, or Israel. Even now, the two-state solution remains the main premise of the discussion. Many previous studies on these suggested solutions (especially the two-state and one-state solutions) are based on a political perspective. These mainly focus on the issue’s theoretical aspect and have not dealt with the social aspect: how Palestinian society reacts to the propositions. This research therefore mainly adopts a sociological approach. This paper pays particular attention to the awareness of Palestinians about these solutions. For this, qualitative interviews with several Palestinian intellectuals in Jordan were conducted. As a consequence, this paper reveals why the two-state solution continues to be a premise in peace talks and describes the defects of each solution. In addition, this study suggests the necessity of rebuilding an idea of governance in the future by reconsidering premised values like “sovereign states” and “national self-determination.”
Author Information
Hani Abdelhadi, Keio University, Japan
Paper Information
Conference: ACSS2018
Stream: Politics, Public Policy, Law & Criminology
This paper is part of the ACSS2018 Conference Proceedings (View)
Full Paper
View / Download the full paper in a new tab/window
Comments
Powered by WP LinkPress