Shared Sovereignty as a Last Resort:National Conflicts and Differentiating Solutions
This article aims to contribute to the perennial discussion of how to formulate, whether in theory or practice, what would count as a "solution" of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It assumes that the continuation of the Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza, the continued expansion of Israeli settlement, and the failure of negotiations make questionable the applicability of a two-state solution. It appears also that these causes make manifest the failure of the principle of partition. The article raises doubts about the possibility of the indefinite continuation of present circumstances, built on Israeli sovereignty possessed of distinctively colonialist features, which is radically incompatible with Palestinians demands for sovereignty. These circumstances, which are reinforced by prolonged "temporary arrangements" together with expansion of the territory, contradict the principle of "two states," but also do not permit the development of alternative solutions.
The article contends that there is already one state for both peoples in the territory ruled by Israel, but this state is undemocratic and inegalitarian. It emphasizes that a "one-state solution" will not necessarily end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because the one state can be an apartheid state. In consequence, the article presents the idea of shared sovereignty, claiming that justifications for it have to be based on egalitarian and democratic principles. The idea of shared sovereignty could include differentiating arrangements of the space between the Jordan and the sea, so that it will be compatible with separate living space for the two peoples who live in this territory.
For the whole article in Hebrew version please click here