This past week witnessed an unprecedented escalation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Three Palestinian suicide bombers killed 39 Israelis in the course of four days. In response, the Israeli military entered the West Bank city of Ramallah, which according to the Oslo Agreement is under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, and laid siege to PA Chairman Yasser Arafat's compound.
At the heart of the conflict is a nationalist struggle between two religious groups vying for the same land. Both have legitimate claims and, as expressed in the Oslo Accords, both officially recognize and appreciate those of the other. Accordingly, it would be ineffective to try to reach a solution looking backwards to ancient rights or historic wrongs.
Furthermore, the events of the past year and a half are evidence of the futility of a militaristic solution to the conflict. Under the presumption that both parties seek peace, the only way to reach an acceptable compromise is to acknowledge the current situation as a given and look ahead.
Having followed the breakdown of peace and the intensification of violence in the region, I am convinced that the only solution will be one that strives to attain a just agreement for all parties irrespective of past treatment or present attacks.
In "A Theory of Justice," philosopher John Rawls builds upon the tradition of the social contract and puts forth a concept of justice as fairness. Rawls describes justice as "the basic structure of society, or more exactly, the way in which the major social institutions distribute fundamental rights and duties."
According to Rawls, the principles of justice can only be reached in what he terms the Original Position, which is comparable to the state of nature. Individuals in this hypothetical state exist behind a Veil of Ignorance. While they all are equal, rational, mutually disinterested and possess a sense of justice, no one is aware of his or her actual station in life. Behind the Veil of Ignorance, one does not know whether he will prosper or suffer from a decision. As a result, an individual will be motivated to make a decision in such a way that he will be content with the outcome regardless of the party in which he finds himself thereafter.
Because the Original Position is a state of fairness, all decisions agreed to in this situation are necessarily fair. Thus, according to this logic, one will always vie to reach a perfectly just decision. "Since all are similarly situated and no one is able to design principles to favor his particular condition," explains Rawls, "the principles of justice are the result of a fair agreement."
The only just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be attained with such reasoning. Theoretical Rawlsian logic applied to this situation would imply that, in negotiating, delegates would not know whether they represented Israelis or Palestinians. Without predilections or biases towards one people, they could then negotiate in earnest for a just agreement.
To anyone behind the Veil of Ignorance, there is no valid reason for denying Palestinian self-determination. Accordingly, any resolution must be based on a two-state solution. This mandates complete Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and the establishment of a sovereign Palestine.
It would be illogical for anyone behind the Veil of Ignorance to support the maintenance of Israeli settlements in a to-be-created Palestinian state. From the Israeli standpoint they are a tremendous security risk. From the Palestinian position, it would be preposterous to have pockets of foreign autonomy within an independent state. Thus, Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories must be dismantled.
No one would choose to live in a state riddled with terror. For this reason, the Palestinian leadership must rein in individuals responsible for acts of terror and disarm fundamentalist groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and PFLP. Furthermore, the Palestinian leadership must accept full responsibility for faction groups determined to undermine the peace process. This would preclude the need for Israel to resort to targeted assassinations of known terrorists.
Not knowing whether one was Israeli or Palestinian, an individual behind the Veil of Ignorance will conclude that Palestinians must surrender the right of return because the influx of 3.5 million Palestinians would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state. A just solution to the refugee problem would be for the future Palestinian state to absorb all refugees who desire to settle therein.
Jerusalem is recognized as a holy city by both Jews and Muslims and neither group should have to relinquish their ties to it. A just solution to the contention over Jerusalem must provide for split sovereignty over the city, with each country gaining jurisdiction over its respective holy sites.
I am confident that the agreement detailed above would provide the most just solution for all. Israelis would attain the security they desire and Palestinians would achieve the independence they seek. As idealistic as this theory may be, it would put an end to months of needless violence and provide a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement to the longest continuous struggle in recent history.
It is easy for me to sit here in New Hampshire and spell out my version of an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord. I do not live in Israel, and I do not have to face the daily fears of attack or retaliation. Nor do I have family or friends who have been injured or killed on either side. But I think that such removal from the emotional strain of the conflict might be necessary in order to broach the seemingly irreconcilable discord. I make the above proposal because I believe the time has come for both sides to lay down their arms and return to the negotiating table in earnest. And also because I feel that voicing my thoughts may, at present, be all the contribution that I can make towards promoting peace.
