Contradicting Peace Proposals in the Palestine Conflict

Abstract

The article is an attempt to evaluate structurally different types of solution proposals to the Palestine conflict. These types are named 'Greater Israel', 'canton state', 'separate states' and 'Palestine'. The basic question concerns which of them is most likely to promote a durable settlement. Four hypotheses based on conflict research are applied as a gauge in the solution assessment. The hypotheses assume that a durable solution is more likely if (1) the parties' subjective conflict definitions are employed in a proposal, (2) if a proposal regulates basic and/or indivisible values, (3) if a proposal is realized at a low military level and (4) if a proposal promotes the realization of Human Rights. Of the solution proposals, the 'Separate states' proposal is most often in accordance with the assumptions of conditions for a durable settlement, and is thus the most promising proposal for a durable solution. 'Greater Israel', which is similar to the official Israeli interpretation of the Camp David Agreement, seems to have the lowest probability as a durable solution in comparison to the three others.