[Opinion] Challenges to the Israel-Palestinian Conflict: Is there a possible bargain?
Political scientists have long been interested in why parties are unable to identify or implement a bargain before resorting to or terminating a war. But our bargaining models generally assume there are bargaining points agreeable to both parties. A key issue for the Israeli-Palestine conflict and a future Palestinian state is the possible lack of a bargain.
Before considering any bargain, there is an obstacle – Hamas. I do not foresee any serious steps toward a bargain and Palestinian statehood if Hamas continues governing in Gaza with a coherent military structure. If Israel destroys Hamas as a military structure (its five remaining battalions), and then some security force, consisting of Arab states, the United Nations, or Israel, can monopolize security in the Gaza Strip, it might allow for a non-Hamas governing body (like the Palestinian Authority) to begin governing, and we can begin to consider a bargain.
I do not expect this to happen. Israel will probably invade Rafah and destroy Hamas’ remaining battalions. But there will be an ensuing urban insurgency by Hamas and others that will require significant security forces, potentially resulting in civilian deaths, to provide an opportunity to any governing body. I do not foresee Arab states or the UN willing to provide this type of security.
But let’s say I’m wrong. If Israel destroys Hamas as a coherent military structure, and the Palestinian Authority, with outside security assistance, begins governing, is there a possible bargain?
The Clinton Parameters are a likely guide for a possible bargain and address four key issues: territory, Jerusalem, security, and the Right of Return. They stipulate a Palestinian state with more than 90 percent of the West Bank and the entire Gaza Strip with territorial compensation from Israel. Sacred sites and ethnic neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would be distributed to the two sides in a sharing arrangement. The Israeli military would mostly withdraw from Palestinian territories within a set time period and be replaced with an international security force. And the Palestinian claim of a Right of Return (to Israel) would be disclaimed. The last two issues stand out as particular obstacles for a possible bargain.
The current Israeli governing coalition refuses to adopt any steps leading to Palestinian statehood. However, if Israel’s Labor Party can develop a coalition, there is a history in Israel of leaders, Barak and Olmert, expressing willingness to adopt a Clinton Parameters-like bargain.
However, after 7 October, I expect a more hawkish sentiment will be adopted even among Israeli parties and voters more amenable to a Palestinian state. This would likely manifest in more demands related to security oversights. Because Palestinian leaders would likely demand sovereign security institutions, this would narrow the bargaining range, that is, reduce the possibility of a bargain.
Also not clear is if a Clinton Parameters-based bargain would be accepted by Palestinian leaders and if it could be implemented. The Palestinian Authority lacks political and economic institutions necessary for statehood, does not have a sufficient monopoly on violence and may lack the capacity to prevent disgruntled Palestinians actors from using violence. Even if Palestinian leaders are willing to accept a Clinton Parameter-based bargain, its successful implementation is unclear given the likelihood of violent internal opposition.
Some observers suggest specific challenges related to the Right of Return, partly because it relates to the idea of Israel itself. Some Palestinian leaders, along with international institutions and a number of Arab countries, have materially and ideologically kept the refugee issue alive, and it continues to play a salient role in Palestinian politics. I expect that it would be challenging for future Palestinian leaders to give up this claim – because of leaders’ own ideological connection to the issue, its domestic salience, and giving up this claim may generate violence from other Palestinian actors. There would likely be significant domestic costs. However, the Right of Return remains a non-negotiable stance for Israel. The Palestinians refugee problem was created in 1948 and 1967, and any significant incorporation of Palestinians into Israel proper would dramatically change Israel’s demographics and society.
So, is there a possible bargain? Even if Hamas can be replaced with another governing body it is not obvious there exists an implementable bargain. My guess is that Israelis will adopt a hawkish demand for a demilitarized Palestinian state. Giving up the Right of Return will be a challenge for Palestinian leaders – and the lack of political and economic institutions presents further challenges. I am not confident that a bargain exists, even without Hamas governing Gaza.
But the world is hard to predict. Perhaps the web of issues related to Iran and Hezbollah, external pressures and support, settlements, demographics and economic conditions, technology, religion, domestic competition, and general passing of time can interact in unforeseen ways to produce an implementable bargain.
The author is an Associate Professor at Seoul National University's Department of International Relations. --Ed.
[Opinion] The prospects for reducing poverty and inequality in Asia and the Pacific
Mid-February 2024 the UN Economic Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UN-ESCAP) released a report on the progress of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) in this part of the world. While significant progress has been made on several fronts, much has to be done to increase living standards, provide jobs, rehabilitate the natural environment and reduce socio-economic inequalities. The Covid-19 pandemic led to an increase in poverty. “At its current pace, the report further highlights that the region will not achieve all 17 SDGs before 2062 – marking a significant 32-year delay.” This is a sobering conclusion, particularly for those who believed that the 21st century would undoubtedly become Asia’s century.
Without change and increased efforts to address poverty, inequality, and climate change, it is far from certain whether Asia can indeed turn itself into a prosperous, inclusive and sustainable continent. As the report demonstrates, the indicators economic loss from disasters (indicator 1.5.2), moderate or severe food insecurity in the population (2.1.2), unemployment rate (8.5.2), sustainable fisheries (14.7.1), proportion of land that is degraded (15.3.1), internally displaced persons (16b P1), and several other indicators regressed instead of progressed.
Even for relatively successful countries like China and Malaysia, it remains to be seen if they can achieve high-income status in the coming two decades. Perhaps the most worrying indicator is youth unemployment which is currently approximately 20 percent in China and 10 percent in Malaysia. The lack of sufficient job opportunities in manufacturing and services sectors in urban areas implies that the processes of structural economic transformation and absorption of rural migrants are not silver bullets anymore to increase living standards. This will have profound implications for the current and future youth in Asia and the Pacific. In addition, US efforts to de-risk its economy (reduce supply chain dependence on China) and automation and robotization could further change labour markets in the Global South in significant ways. The advantage of low wages is becoming less relevant when multinational companies require fewer people to produce things.
What will young women and men do without enough work? How can the young generation address social and environmental challenges when they increasingly find it hard to remain part or become part of the middle class? And, what are the prospects for countries that still have a longer way to go to eradicate poverty like Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, The Philippines, and Cambodia? Given increasing climate change impacts and regression on various environmental indicators, the UN-ESCAP argues that “integrating robust climate action measures into national policies, strategies and plans is of paramount importance….Simultaneously, urgent remedial actions are warranted to enhance access to decent work and support economic growth.” This is of course easier said than done. A possible avenue is to increase efforts in the spheres of green growth, renewable energy, and rewarding farmers and fishers for activities that rehabilitate the natural environment. One example is to think about strategies how to reduce the dependence on coal while also taking care of the tens of thousands of coal miners. Yet, in several countries coal production is set to rise rather than decline. Another example is to focus more on coastal communities. Many Asian countries have long coastal zones inhabiting millions of people and these areas are prone to flooding and are hit hardest by typhoons; see my blog on this topic.
Another avenue is to for us, here in the Republic of Korea, to think about our own actions and patterns of consumption. From where do we import our food and other products? Do we actually help farmers and fishers when we eat and drink or do we perpetuate existing patterns of inequality and environmental degradation? Who benefits the most when we order a cup of coffee at one of the many cafes on the Seoul National University campus? As the UN-ESCAP states: “Similarly, fostering responsible consumption and production (Goal 12), safeguarding life below water (Goal 14), and life on land (Goal 15) are pivotal for the Asia-Pacific region to accelerate its progress towards the 2030 Agenda.”
Without increasing initiatives at the individual, country, and international levels we need to wait until 2062 before all SDGs are met. Before that, the geography of economic inequalities as well as environmental inequalities could become so disturbing for the most marginalised people that the only way out is outmigration. This is a scenario that would destabilize the social fabric in many Asian and Pacific countries and could fuel anti-immigration sentiments in the richer countries. Let’s not wait until happens, but demand action from our leaders and think about what we as individuals could do.
The author is a professor at Seoul National University’s Department of Geography. –Ed.
[Opinion] Human rights in SNU: the matter of being here and now
Two years have passed since our campus became re-energized back to pre-COVID times. With the revitalization of the student community—leaving behind the atrophy of online semesters—the SNU Human Rights Student Council (SHRC) has also relaunched. While we still face many challenges, I believe it is formidable to have an official Student Council-affiliated organization to discuss and voice human rights issues.
Most of us are familiar with the term "human rights," but it is also feels quite distant. The notion itself is well known, but most of us are unable to resonate with it as something connected to ourselves. Perhaps, it is felt that it belongs more in books rather than in reality.
However distant it may feel, human rights are here and now: in concrete reality. A pair of automated doors with buttons placed where a wheelchair user cannot reach, the first question of a survey that can only be answered with the words "male" or "female," a vegan cafeteria on campus that has closed down, a worker’s rest area placed underground with terrible air quality and high humidity, the pressure to perform at a talent show during a freshmen mixer, a sexist joke… The list goes on. Even on campus and within the university community, we come face-to-face with problems related to the human rights agenda, especially those of minorities, like the instances stated above.
Many people may perceive the “rights of minorities” as something that only concerns an extremely small group of people who are distant from themselves. Those “minorities”, however, are here and now—just like the non-minorities. In fact, they may be right next to you. They, however, face challenges and problems due to social institutions and structures that stem from the so-called “normalcy.” On the other hand, this means that the challenges and problems they face can be eliminated—at least considerably—through changes in social institutions and structures.
The most obvious example of these challenges and problems is a non-barrier-free environment. “The term barrier-free” refers to removing barriers to social life for people with disabilities, the elderly, and other minorities. A shuttle bus that is inaccessible to wheelchairs, or a website that relies heavily on images to convey important information which prevents blind people from using a screen reader from decipher the content, are both examples of non-barrier-free environments. These environments are intended only for those who can use both legs to board buses easily and for those who can see visual images, respectively. "Normalcy" is layered onto our society in many ways, and those who do not fit the mold are often excluded from spaces, institutions, and opportunities.
Although society demands “normalcy” like mentioned above, only a few, or no one at all, fits this normalcy in every way. Hence, creating a community that is not solely for "normal humans" but for all of the diverse people that are here and now, is ultimately about creating a community for all of us. I believe this is one of the causes that SHRC exists for.
SHRC is responsible for finding solutions to prevent and alleviate discrimination and human rights violations, implementing projects to raise human rights awareness, and ensuring that the Rights and Diversity Agenda units on campus function properly. Currently, the Rights and Diversity Agenda units include agenda groups that advocate for LGBTQ+, disability, women/gender, labor, and vegan rights, but our agenda is not limited to the ones listed. Last year, we organized a "Rainbow March" to protest Seoul City’s decision to refuse the use Seoul Plaza to host the Seoul Queer Parade. We also established a regular council to improve human rights issues on campus. This year, we plan to participate in regular human rights meetings with the school administration, and work towards the enactment of the Seoul National University Human Rights Charter, among other things.
SHRC’s effort to create a community that guarantees everyone's rights continues. We would like to ask you, the members of SNU community, to keep alert of the current human rights issues within our campus. We also expect that the university administration will be more proactive in ensuring the human rights of members of this community. Please remember, human rights are not a distant issue; it is a matter for those of us who are here and now.
The author is the chairperson at Seoul National University’s student-led Human Rights Council. --Ed.
