Palestine and Israel have engaged in a territorial tug-of-war for over seven decades with no end. Once
again, the issue has gained traction as Hamas, a Palestinian freedom fighter group, led a surprise attack
against Israel, leaving several dead behind; the counterattack by Israel was far greater in magnitude and
inflicted disproportionate harm. The unfolding situation in the Middle East has ushered into an episode
of misery and horror, as many have been killed while many others are trapped in besieged Gaza territory
with no access to basic amenities. While the attack by Hamas may have caught some off guard,
unaddressed grievances, pent-up anger, and feelings of alienation can easily escalate into aggression.
Therefore, it is pertinent to address the root causes of conflict and work towards lasting solutions that
effectively cater to all parties' concerns. The current situation warrants an unbiased genesis of this
protracted problem and a critical appraisal of the peace-making efforts as to why peace remains elusive
in the region.

Genesis of the problem:
The conflict has its roots in the 90s, the colonial era when the Palestinian territory was under the place
Palestine under administration of Great Britain as the Mandatory Power under the Mandates System
adopted by the League. Under British rule, the event that demanded ample attention was the signing of
the Balfour Declaration, a document stealthily signed between then Britain's foreign secretary Arthur
James Balfour and the British zionist movement head known as Baron Rothschild to allow infiltration of
the Jews in a bid to create their separate homeland on the Palestinian Territory to escape persecution.
The notorious document initially paved the way for the Israeli settlers as immigrants but gradually led to
the mushrooming of Jewish settlements to the extent that it invited confrontation from the indigenous
people. In 1948, the state of Israel appeared on the map of the world and, in its nascent stage, engaged
in the first arab Israeli war, resulting in the displacement of 750,000 Palestinians. This massive Jewish
onslaught against Palestinians, also known as Nakba, was the first clash between both factions, dividing
the territory into three zones: the state of Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. This first war and its
congruent territorial changes set the stage for future escalations, and the 1956 Suez Canal crisis was one
of its manifestations. Later, in 1967, Israel was once again at loggerheads with its arab counterparts,
starting the six days war; in its aftermath, Israel gained control over large swathes of territory over the
Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan; and the
Golan Heights from Syria. In 1973, two arab countries, Egypt and Syria, formed a united front against
Israel to recede the lost territory, initiating the Youm Kippur War. Likewise, the Palestinian struggle and
their longing for self-government is marked by two other important events known as intifadas: the first
intifada from 1987-1993 and the second intifada from 2000-2005, uprisings that were monumental in
recording Palestinian protests against Jewish atrocities. While there were no major wars after 2000,
frequent violent outbursts were common in Gaza.

The failed attempts at creating peace:
The cycle of peace negotiations between Palestine and Israel has been plagued with inefficiencies,
incomplete arbitrations, mistrust, and unfair peace agreements. Although there was no shortage of
peace-creating efforts, a plausible solution is yet to be agreed upon, as both sides have distinctive views
on what peace entailed for them. It won't be faulty to say that both parties shared one commonality,
which was to chalk out a viable path to peace, and the very first effort exerted to achieve this
culminated in the form of the Oslo Accords, signed between the Palestine Liberation Army leader Yasser
Arafat and the Israel prime minister Yitzhak Rabin under auspices of American President Bill Clinton on
1998. The Oslo Accords marked the birth of the Palestinian Authority, whose mandate was to overlook
administrative issues of Gaza and the West Bank under its purview. Initially, the negotiations were
touted as a diplomatic breakthrough, rightly so, as it ended a political and diplomatic impasse between
both warring factions caused by the first intifada, but a critical analysis reveals disturbing details. The
Oslo Accords miserably failed to address core issues: illegal Jewish settlements, the status of Jerusalem,
the return of Palestinian 1948 refugees, and the issue of the disputed territory. To add insult to injury,
the Oslo Accords skillfully dodged the question of independent Palestine in theory and practice. Many
Palestinians believe that Israel has used the Oslo Accords to justify its expansion of illegal settlements in
the West Bank. As the Oslo Accords slowly broke down, Israel tripled its settlement building. Between
1993 and 2000, the Israeli population in the West Bank reached its fastest pace of growth ever,
according to Dror Etkes, an Israeli peace campaigner. After the Oslo Accords, other peace-making efforts
started, and the Camp David summit is one of those. President Bill Clinton convened the summit to
provide a platform that would serve as a tower for both countries on which they could build peaceful
communities. Ehud Barak represented Israel as president and Yasser Arafat as PLO chairman; the talks
failed due to several reasons: the mistrust and ambivalence of Palestinian leadership towards Israel,
coupled with Ehud's dictatorial posture, the negotiations were vague, and lack of details hinted at a lack
of preparations by American as well malice of Israeli leadership and lack of consensus on the status of
Jerusalem and refugees. The failure of the summit and escalating conflicts, the second intifada erupted
after the summit due to a provocative visit of the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to al Aqsa mosque,
did not hinder both parties from searching for peace, and the 2002 arab peace initiative was launched. It
was endorsed by the arab countries at the arab summit held in Beirut; the agenda discussed the
complete withdrawal of Israel from territories occupied since 1967, the acceptance of an independent
Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and the agreement to a fair solution to the refugee
problem that resonated with the Un resolution 194 and also international law principles. The arab peace
initiative garnered support from Palestinians as it was on lines similar to two-state solutions, but like
other fair and square deals, this arrangement fell victim to Israel's bad faith and malicious intent and is
yet to be implemented. In the same vein, the four parties devised another peace-making formula: the
USA, the EU, the UN, and Russia. The agreement resembled the Oslo Accords, with two complementary
clauses. First, it was to be 'performance-based,' with Israelis and Palestinians simultaneously taking
specified steps to restore confidence. Second, it outlined the ultimate destination of a two-state
solution – although the Roadmap did not guarantee that that destination would be reached, nor did it
say who was responsible for ensuring the process's success.The peace deal was acceptable until the
Israeli prime minister stripped it of the key points crucial for creating and sustaining peace; the
architects of this deal never questioned this daring act. Subsequently, the deal's future was
apprehensible and never concluded for good. Similarly, two other models of third-party negotiations
that are worth mentioning are the Geneva Accord and the Annapolis Convention; both were initiated
under the tutelage of the United States serving premiers, but all in vain as both were materialized due to
differences on sides and steadfast support of the united states towards Israel at the expense fairness
and justice. The preponderance of the third-party negotiations suggests one thing loud and clear: the
USA never provided a level playing field in exchanging views and options to both parties in conflict.
Rather, it sidelined Israel to make Palestinian representatives amenable to their demands.Israel's flawed
approach to peace also trumped the Kerry negotiations as the peace talk centered on confidencebuilding measures leading to the release of Palestinian prisoners in four tranches; however, Israel did
not fulfill its commitment, fueling Palestinian claims of Jewish apartheid. Lastly, Palestinians rejected the
notorious deal of the century, the brainchild of former US President Donald Trump. This deal was faced
with resolute opposition for all the right reasons, as it nullified the two-state solution, the elixir that
could heal the bleeding Palestine. Upon close and impartial analysis, it becomes evident that Israel is
reluctant to treat Palestinians as equal partners in peace. Furthermore, the unwavering support of the
United States for Israel has tilted the balance and hindered the creation of a just peace.

Striding towards peace; assessing the viability of the two-state solution:
In the past, both countries' experiment with creating peace failed miserably. That created space
and viability for implementing the most agreed-upon formula- the two-state solution. It aims to allocate
the right of self-determination to the Palestinians and enjoy its associated benefits, including political
independence, economic prosperity, national security, and freedom of movement. A two-state solution
envisions a peaceful coexistence of Israel and Palestine, with both nations agreeing to negotiate and
resolve fundamental issues. The security of both states is equally important, and their people would live
in freedom and dignity with better prospects for future generations. Regional and international support
is crucial for the successful implementation of this solution. A well-defined border separating the two
states from each other and neighboring countries is essential for the sovereignty of each state over its
territory and resources. Negotiations will determine Jerusalem as the capital of both nations. The right
of return for Palestinian refugees should be respected and protected, and the means and practical
application of this right should be negotiated. A two-state solution will allow Palestine and Israel to
negotiate on equal terms, with support from the international community. Reviving negotiations within
a two-state solution framework will incentivize both nations to achieve peace and security. The twostate solution proposes that Israel and Palestine should coexist peacefully and securely, with both
nations agreeing to negotiate and agree on fundamental issues. Once resolved, the two states can
become two neighboring nations in the Middle East. Both states' security is equally important, and
people in each state should live with freedom and dignity, with better prospects for future generations.
A two-state solution has a better chance of fulfilling the aspirations of both peoples and is more likely to
be implemented with regional and international support. Ideally, a two-state solution should include an
agreement on a border that separates the two states from each other and their neighboring countries,
such as Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon. The border should define the territory of each state and
enable their sovereignty over their resources while respecting their neighbors' sovereignty and
resources. Also, there should be an agreement on Jerusalem being the capital of Palestine and Israel,
and negotiations will determine its governance. Finally, there should be an agreement to respect
Palestinian refugees' right to return. The right is undeniable, and it should be protected and
respected.The means and practical application of this right will be negotiated. A two-state solution will
enable Palestine and Israel to negotiate on equal terms with the support of the region and the
international community, leading to peace and security for both nations. Therefore, both sides should
strive to revive negotiations within a two-state solution framework. Due to its efficacy in solving the
longstanding core issues, it has the international community's backing. Additionally, it is in tandem with
the arab peace initiative and harmonious with the 181 UN partition resolution. According to diplomatic
wisdom, the two-state solution is the most feasible solution to achieve lasting peace, stability, and equal
rights for the people of Israel and Palestine. Its success largely depends on its prompt implementation.

Conclusion:
The ongoing devastation in the region is a clarion call for peace implementation, as no piece of land
holds more value and worth than human lives. The Israel -Palestine issue not only disrupts the regional
security calculus, but its reverberations can be felt across the globe. The onus lies on the international
community; primarily, the United Nations should assist in implementing peace creation as it embodies
international legitimacy and order. Both countries should reach a concession on peace to create a
workable and pragmatic framework to ensure development sustainability and prosperity. The IsraelPalestine conflict has already claimed the lives of so many innocent people and killed the dreams of
youth. Hopelessness is rampant in the region, and apportioning blame won't do any good. It's time to
prioritize genuine dialogue, mutual respect, and equitable solutions for both sides. Only by working
together can lasting and sustainable peace be achieved between these two nations. Ultimately, leaders
on both sides must exercise prudence, recognizing that violence only begets more violence and that a
peaceful resolution is the only path to sustainable peace.