Comparing Post-Oslo
Two-State Peace Plans

During my first semester of college, I took a class called The Arab-Israeli Conflict. For the first half of the semester, the class focused solely on the history of the conflict, starting in the late 1800s with the rise of Zionism. The second half of the semester was spent looking at different facets of the conflict, such as the relationship between Israel and the U.S., the Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and how NGOs foster relationships between Israelis and Palestinians. 

For our final paper, each student took a different topic to research extensively. Then at the end of the semester, we presented our research and had one last discussion so we would be able to bring in the research that everyone had done. My paper focused on the history of the two state solution and how by looking at past peace processes, there could still be a possible future for two states. (However, since writing that paper—and even beforehand—I am more in favor of a one state solution due to just how intertwined Israel proper and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are in their economics, culture, et cetera.)

My main focus was on the peace process post-Oslo Accords. I looked at the Taba Summit, the Road Map for Peace, and the Geneva Accord, and how they moved forward peace negotiations concerning the four key issues of territory, Jerusalem, security, and Palestinian refugees with the end goals of establishing a democratic Palestinian state alongside Israel and creating lasting peace between the two countries.

To read my full analysis paper on different two-state solution plans, click here to download “The Road to Peace is Paved with Well-Intended Plans and a Vision of Two States.”

To view my presentation on this topic, click here to download “Post-Oslo Two-State Solution Plans.”