Abstract

Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is still unlikely, but it is also essential to the stability of the area. There is some optimism despite past tensions thanks to diplomatic attempts. Resuming conversations that promote mutual understanding and trust is one possible path. International players, such as the UN, might be crucial in promoting talks and guaranteeing a just and long-lasting settlement. Cooperation in the economy, which benefits Israelis and Palestinians equally, may be a driving force toward peace. Furthermore, any workable peace plan must consider the rights of all sides and acknowledge previous grievances. The chances for a long-lasting peace depend on a multidimensional strategy that includes diplomacy, economic growth, and a commitment to justice for all parties involved, as the international community acknowledges the importance of ending this war.

Key Words

Two-states, Palestinians, International Players, Long-lasting

Introduction

The Israeli-Palestinian strife could be a multifaceted, long-standing geopolitical issue with significant roots. The two-state arrangement, which calls for the creation of unmistakable, free governments for Israelis and Palestinians, is one recommended cure for this continuous struggle. In arrange to resolve verifiable grievances, energize self-determination, and open the entryway for long-lasting peace within the zone, this approach has pulled in a incredible bargain of consideration and back from over the world (Hammami, 2000).

The concept of a two-state arrangement can be followed back to the British Command period and has truly been seen as the foremost doable and commonsense pathway to peace. In guideline, a two-state arrangement envisions the tranquil coexistence of two isolated states, each working out administrative specialist inside its possess characterized geological boundaries. Various significant activities and proposition have contributed to forming the modern two-state arrangement, counting the Oslo Agrees, the Joined together Countries Security Chamber Resolutions 248 to 338, the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference, and, outstandingly, the Saudi Middle eastern Peace Activity. Benny Morris, for occurrence, portrays a three-stage prepare for the usage of a two-state arrangement. The introductory organize requires Palestinians unequivocally grasping a ceasefire and collaborating with Israel to organized security measures advantageous to the long-term interests of both countries. Besides, Palestinians would ought to experience critical political change in planning for statehood, counting the drafting of a majestic structure and the assistance of open, free, and evenhanded races. In return, Israel would be required to stop all settlement development and instantly pull back from Palestinian-occupied domains, in this manner contributing to the normalization of Palestinian life (John, 2001).

In this way, negotiators would endeavor to set up an independent Palestinian state based on the commonly agreed-upon structure, a vital point of reference on the way to securing changeless status for the Palestinian individuals. At last, both parties ought to take unequivocal measures to guarantee the proceeded security and tranquility of their communities. Morris emphasizes that propagating a stance of "rejectionism" as it were serves to draw out pressures and deter the prospects for peace within the locale. Instep, he advocates for more coordinate, unbiased, and valuable exchanges between Israelis and Palestinians as a implies to cultivate persevering peace (Jong, 2018).




Historical Context and the Appeal of Two State Country 

The Israeli-Palestinian struggle has its authentic roots within the worldwide patriot developments that developed within the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The creation of a Jewish state was the objective of the Zionist development, which gained strength in portion due to the increment in anti-Semitism all through Europe. Pressures over regional claims come about from this development colliding with the national desire of the Middle easterner individuals within the region (Kovel, 2007) .

Another element to the battle was presented by the 1917 Balfour Announcement, in which the British government expressed bolster for the creation of a "national domestic for the Jewish individuals" in Palestine. After World War I, the Association of Countries gave Britain the specialist to run the show Palestine, which made things more complicated since distinctive vows were given to the Middle easterner and Jewish communities. The topographical issues that would eventually characterize the Israeli-Palestinian struggle were to begin with set up amid this time (Lewin, 2016).




A noteworthy turning point was the foundation of the State of Israel in 1948, which came approximately as a result of the UN segment arrange. As Israelis celebrated over the accomplishment of their deep rooted dreams, Palestinians confronted evacuating and seizure, driving to a considerable number of displaced people. Taking after the clashes, pressures between the two nations got to be more grounded as their respective national narratives—both emphasizing chronicled treachery and the journey for self-determination—became more dug in (Kovel, 2007).

Peace initiatives in the taking after decades, such the Oslo Agrees of the 1990s, sought to resolve these ancient concerns. The Oslo prepare recognized that a arranged settlement that took under consideration the objectives and rights of both Israelis and Palestinians was fundamental. Amid these discourses, the concept of a two-state arrangement picked up steam as a way to adjust the chronicled rights and national desire of both sides (Lewin, 2016).

The relevance of the two-state arrangement is highlighted by the chronicled foundation of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, which is characterized by a complicated web of chronicled grievances, conflicting guarantees, and waves of bloodshed. This worldview may be a response to decades of verifiable treacheries and complexity, not fair a advanced political recommendation. The premise of the two-state arrangement is the acknowledgment of the substantial authentic accounts and claims of both Israelis and Palestinians. This gives a way forward for shared acknowledgment of each other's rights and recuperating in a territory seriously harmed by past strife (Mitchell, 2017).




Self Assurance

Within the setting of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the engaging quality of the two-state arrangement is based on the basic concept of self-determination. On a very basic level, the right of a individuals to openly select their political status, pursue their claim financial, social, and social improvement, and select their own course in life without obstructions from exterior strengths is what is implied by self-determination. This idea is basic to settling the diverse national aspirations and chronicled stories of Israelis and Palestinians. The self-determination concept is put into practice with the creation of two unmistakable states: One for Israelis and one for Palestinians. Each gather would have the flexibility to run its own affairs agreeing to its claim political, social, and social slants (Mason, 2019).

This independence allows each community to specific and keep up its own character, going past basic government frameworks and into the regular texture of presence. Israelis would be able to create their national personality inside the parameters of a two-state arrangement by utilizing their wealthy history, customs, and values. In a same vein, Palestinians would have the flexibility to set up their claim political organizations, instructive programs, and social guidelines that are consistent with their unique chronicled and social foundation. This procedure points to set up a situation in which both communities may thrive on their possess, empowering a sense of strengthening and control over their possess prospects (Mitchell, 2017).

Within the setting of the two-state solution, the idea of self-determination is additionally essential for diminishing chronicled grievances and advancing more serene cohabitation. The arrangement looks for to accommodate the accounts of Israelis and Palestinians, recognizing the authentic and social joins that tie them to the arrive, whereas moreover regarding the authenticity of each party's objectives. By doing this, the two-state worldview trusts to rise above the thought of a zero-sum diversion and empower both communities to thrive alongside one another. In addition, in the system of the two-state arrangement, self-determination isn't as it were a theoretical thought but too a workable struggle determination procedure. Giving Israelis and Palestinians the capacity to run the show themselves offers a concrete implies of settling debate and laying the basis for regard for one another (Mason, 2019).

This empowerment can act as a spark for collaboration and stability, creating a climate in which both governments are able to conduct diplomatic relations on an equal basis.The two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue is appealing primarily because it upholds the ideal of self-determination. This strategy aims to empower Israelis and Palestinians by allowing each community to govern itself in accordance with its own cultural, political, and economic choices. This promotes autonomy and strengthens a feeling of national identity. In addition to resolving past grievances, the two-state framework's acknowledgment of self-determination offers a workable route for long-term peace in the area (Maull, 2003)

Security Consideration

The two-state solution's proponents stress how crucial it may be in resolving serious security issues that have long troubled both Israelis and Palestinians. One of the first steps toward improving regional stability is the drawing of boundaries between Israel and any future Palestinian state that is distinct and accepted by everybody. Historically, tensions have been raised by the lack of clearly defined borders, which has resulted in territorial disputes and conflicts. The two-state solution seeks to reduce the likelihood of territorial disputes, which frequently act as triggers for violence, by clearly defining the boundaries of each state (Mason, 2019).

Another benefit of splitting into two sovereign governments is that each will be able to run its security system on its own. This independence is thought to be essential for customizing security plans and tactics to each state's unique requirements and objectives. The capacity to devise and execute security protocols autonomously allows Israel and Palestine to tackle their distinct security predicaments while maintaining mutual sovereignty. By enabling each state to assume accountability for its own security and the protection of its population, this strategy aims to promote a feeling of self-reliance (Maull, 2003). Furthermore, a more stable and predictable security environment is facilitated by the development of recognized boundaries and autonomous security administration. The possibility of unintentional disputes resulting from misinterpretations or conflicting territorial claims is decreased when territorial borders are clearly defined. Additionally, it serves as a foundation for cooperative security agreements between the two governments, encouraging dialogue and cooperation on common security issues including border control, counterterrorism, and preventing cross-border assaults (Mason, 2019).

A key goal of the two-state approach is guaranteeing citizen safety. The goal of the solution is to foster the growth of stable societies by granting each state the authority to manage its own area and safeguard its citizens. Improved security measures, such as efficient border management and law enforcement, help to boost public confidence and create an atmosphere where people can go about their everyday lives without always fearing violence or conflict. There are several different security factors to take into account while using the two-state method. They cover the establishment of distinct boundaries, autonomous command of security forces, and the primary objective of guaranteeing public safety in both Israel and the future state of Palestine. These actions provide the foundation for a more stable and peaceful relationship between the two entities in addition to being crucial for resolving previous security issues (Maull, 2003)




The disappointment of the two-state arrangement

Within the viewpoint of Middle easterners, the Israeli-Jewish tip top is seen as the essential hindrance to the realization of the two-state arrangement. Whereas the potential consequences of a two-state arrangement for Israelis are not debated, all Israeli political groups are in agreement that it could be a ideal alternative compared to more ordinary options just like the one-state arrangement. Concerns envelop issues such as the return of Palestinian displaced people, questions with respect to Palestinian sway, regional astuteness, and legal specialist. Over the course of the final two organizations, it shows up that Israel's official approach has moved toward strife administration instead of effectively seeking after a arrangement (Ngaire, 1996).

The post-Oslo approach of the Israeli government shows up to rotate around three primary goals. Firstly, Israel aims to characterize its changeless borders unilaterally, bypassing respective arrangements with the Palestinians. Besides, inside these indicated boundaries, Israel looks for to preserve a Jewish lion's share. Thirdly, there's an purposeful to set up a encouraging body mindful for giving Palestinians with get to to basic administrations on the Palestinian side of the border. This methodology might empower Israel to effectively add a significant parcel of the Jordan Valley and the Green Line, whereas still holding get to to the Dead Ocean. Pulling in Jewish settlers to these regions and building up Palestinian enclaves inside existing settlements are portion of this arrange. Interests, indeed in spite of the fact that this proposed substance would be encompassed by Israeli military bases and settlements, it would bear the title "Palestine" (Owais, 2021).

Leila Fasrsakh fights that Israeli strategies have altogether diminished the possibility of the two-state solution ever materializing within the future, as these strategies adjust with their extreme objectives. Israel's activities in stifling Palestinians in Gaza have reinforced the contention in favor of the two-state arrangement. When Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007, Israeli specialists forced serious confinements on the stream of merchandise and administrations into the locale. This brought about in a mass mass migration of Palestinians from Gaza in 2000 due to the need of fundamental supplies and administrations. The disappointment of the universal community to uphold the 2003 Street Map to peace advance escalated doubts about the practicality of the two-state alternative. President Obama, in spite of the need of substantial advance on the two-state arrangement, examined its importance as the as it were reasonable elective with Jewish pioneers, Palestinians, and Iranians, emphasizing its complexities and challenges (Ngaire, 1996).

Elective Arrangements to the Two-State Arrangement

The 2+1 arrangement

A proposed solution regularly alluded to as the "2+1 arrangement," which has been conspicuously supported by researchers like Christopher Ferrero, offers an elective viewpoint to the conventional two-state arrangement. Instead of displaying a total arrangement in and of itself, this proposal serves as a transitional step toward accomplishing a comprehensive two-state solution. According to this concept, the West Bank would ended up an independent Palestinian state with full self-governance. Imperatively, it must be underscored that none of the potential pioneers or agents of this recently independent state would be allowed to challenge or weaken Israel's legitimate presence. This condition is planning to avoid radical bunches like Hamas from using political impact. The technique behind this approach includes utilizing discretion nearby military measures to check the impact of Hamas. Subsequently, in the event that Hamas is crushed or experiences a transformative shift, Gaza may in the long run connect the State of Palestine (Owais, 2021).

However, implementing this hypothesis requires a principal move in Palestinian character. Yasser Arafat, the previous pioneer of the Palestinian Freedom Organization, supported for the uniqueness of Palestinians and other Middle easterners, in differentiate to Hamas, which communicates concerns approximately the amalgamation of devout and national personalities. Thus, they donate more weight to the notion that Israel possesses "Muslim" region instead of "Palestinian" region. There are significant abberations in how individuals see the sources of authenticity for a Palestinian state, with the Arab-Muslim arrive issue and the patriot (Palestinian) personality challenges speaking to two particular features. A two-state arrangement is set as the implies to reconcile both the issues of national character and regional claims. National personality points to bind together people who share common values and traits, however within the case of Israel and Palestine, this objective demonstrates challenging without tending to the interwoven issues of arrive and character. The challenge lies in settling this "chicken and egg" predicament. Arrive and personality are inseparably connected, as national personality cultivates cohesion and a sense of devotion to a country and its assets (Pappe, 2008).

One State Arrangement

One-state solutions (OS) or the concept of intermittent bi-national states (BNS) have frequently emerged as elective recommendations for tending to the Israeli-Palestinian strife. Drawing parallels with countries like Switzerland and Belgium, which suit numerous sociolinguistic ethnic bunches, advocates of the one-state arrangement contend for its possibility. A noticeable defender of this point of view, Karmi, fights that the two-state arrangements drop brief of fulfilling indeed the foremost crucial Palestinian requests. He asserts that as it were a one-state arrangement has the potential to comprehensively and evenhandedly address the center issues, enveloping things related to arrive, assets, settlements, Jerusalem, and displaced people. This perspective has earned bolster from different examiners and authorities, with Wender highlighting the method of reasoning behind it—the shared Abrahamic parentage of both religions (Owais, 2021).

However, since 1948, not one or the other Israel nor Palestine has respected the one-state arrangement as a practical alternative. The one-state solution, initially proposed amid the British Command period, was essentially surrendered after Israel's foundation in 1948. It reemerged as a potential alternative taking after the Oslo Concurs in 1993 and has since found bolster among certain portions of Israeli and Palestinian populaces. Amid his residency as the Palestinian prime serve, Ahmed Quaria straightforwardly pushed for a binational state with break even with representation for Middle easterners and Jews. Earlier, communist Zionist developments like Brat Shalom, Kedma Mizraha, and Ichud had called for binational balance between Israelis and Palestinians (Pope, 2017).

In any case, there are various depreciators of this elective arrangement, enveloping people from both Palestinian and Israeli political spectrums. A few Muslim activists, for occurrence, see Jews more as a devout order instead of a unmistakable country, challenging their privilege to assert their unique identity. Censuring the one-state arrangement stems from concerns over recognizing the Palestinian occupation of Palestinian region and approving Zionism, rendering this choice to a great extent disregarded. On the Israeli side, a majority of Jewish citizens see the binational arrangement as jeopardizing the proceeded presence of the Jewish State. Israel's security is inherently connected to its near association with Judaism. As previously famous, the Arrive of Israel is significant to Jewish national character, and sharing assets and territory with another ethnicity and religion would be considered unfeasible for supporting the Jewish character of the state (Schulze, 1999).

Farsakh distinguishes three critical drawbacks to the one-state arrangement. Firstly, the Palestinian battle has to be reframed as a journey for political rights, not exclusively for arrive. This requires a exhaustive reevaluation of the authentic utilization and concept of the term "state" itself. Advocates of the one-state arrangement must articulate their strategy in a pragmatic instead of hopeful way to overcome this challenge. Accomplishing this involves finding resolutions to the existing political and lawful control structures that favor a two-state arrangement over a one-state arrangement. The ultimate step includes Palestinians propelling a grassroots development competent of gathering bolster for this thought. Be that as it may, this last phase has proven to be challenging, with constrained success in finding the vital backing in this way distant (Ukashi, 2018).

As shown in "The Ultimate Deal,"

The "ultimate deal for Palestine and Israel," as characterized by President Trump and his special counsel, Jared Kushner, was on the verge of being unveiled in June 2018, as indicated in an official statement. Interestingly, some aspects of this proposed deal bear a striking resemblance to the Oslo Agreement, even though the precise terms of the agreement were yet to be finalized. However, the reception of this proposal has been far from favorable within both the media and political spheres (Pope, 2017).

One significant issue arises from the semantics employed to describe the approach. In Peter Fisk's perspective, the term "ultimate deal" implies something less than ideal for both parties; instead, he interprets it as an endgame, an all-or-nothing, no-holds-barred, definitive "deal." Questions have also been raised regarding the perceived value of this transaction (Schulze, 1999).

According to the alleged agreement, certain contentious issues persist. Colonialism would continue to exist, Palestinians would forfeit their independent borders and security, and the prospect of a Palestinian State would remain elusive. In exchange, financial aid aimed at bolstering the economic well-being of their residents (not citizens) would be provided, and a free trade zone in Sinai would be established. A pivotal moment in the agreement's development was President Donald Trump's announcement on December 6, 2017, regarding the relocation of the American embassy to Jerusalem. Consequently, Palestine would be required to abandon its aspiration to designate the eastern part of Jerusalem as its capital (Zunes, 2002).

In response to these developments, President Mahmoud Abbas severed all diplomatic ties with the White House, and the PLO ambassador to Washington resigned. The absence of strong leadership on both sides hinders the potential for reaching agreements. This issue goes beyond the U.S. and Israel's diplomatic disconnection from Palestine; it also stems from the Palestinian authorities' eroding trust in the United States as a reliable mediator for peace, further contributing to regional instability (Ukashi, 2018).

Despite these developments, the United States does not appear to be wholeheartedly endorsing the final accord. President Trump publicly expressed support for the two-state solution three months after reports of the "ultimate deal" being in the works, thus generating another layer of uncertainty (nbcnews.com). Without access to the full details of the Kushner plan, comprehensively evaluating the "Ultimate Deal Solution" remains a formidable challenge (Zunes, 2002).




Prospective of Peace

A vital path for diplomatic interaction is provided by the two-state solution, which offers a disciplined framework that directs talks and promotes compromise. The establishment of distinct boundaries, a crucial component that resolves territorial disputes, lies at the center of this framework. One of the main points of disagreement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be resolved through the two-state solution, which outlines acknowledged and agreed-upon borders between Israel and a future Palestinian state. Both sides are able to define their sovereign areas thanks to this distinct delineation, which opens the door to a geopolitical environment that is more stable and predictable (Ukashi, 2018).

Furthermore, the two-state solution offers a diplomatic route to resolve Jerusalem's status, a city that holds great religious and cultural importance for both Israelis and Palestinians. Within this context, negotiations can look into creative ways to meet the many historical and religious claims to the city, such shared sovereignty or unique international agreements. Establishing mutual confidence and a feeling of shared responsibility for this crucial part of the conflict depend on finding a solution to the Jerusalem issue that works for both parties. The diplomatic prospects provided by the two-state solution are inextricably linked to the difficult issue of refugees. The predicament of Palestinian refugees may be addressed via negotiations, guaranteeing that their rights are upheld and that their complaints are taken seriously. This might entail making amends for past wrongs, resettling people, or offering compensation. The goal is to create a diplomatic atmosphere that acknowledges the human aspect of the issue and works for fair and reasonable resolutions (Zunes, 2002).

 One of the main components of the diplomatic potential in the two-state solution is security arrangements. Long-standing worries about national security on both sides may be resolved with clearly defined boundaries, which allow each state to autonomously administer its security system. The efficiency of security agreements can be enhanced by international assistance and engagement in their drafting, since these initiatives can offer assurances and guarantees that contribute to the stability required for long-term peace. Importantly, the international community facilitates these diplomatic possibilities rather than being unilateral. International players, such as global institutions and regional forces, are essential in mediating agreements, guaranteeing justice, and creating a conversation-friendly atmosphere. Their participation fosters a feeling of objectivity and builds confidence and trust between the parties. This international facilitation helps to develop a comprehensive and long-lasting peace deal as discussions move forward, establishing the foundation for a more peaceful and secure future for the area (Ngaire, 1996).

Conclusion

To conclude here is hope that a state solution will solve the urgent humanitarian issues that both Israelis and Palestinians must deal with. The chance to form organizations devoted to reducing the economic inequalities that have long fueled regional hostilities is presented by the creation of independent nations. Each state may enact laws that promote growth and prosperity by emphasizing economic development, which will ultimately raise the standard of living for the people living there. Additionally, the two-state arrangement makes it possible to provide citizens on both borders with targeted critical services. Every state has the ability to customize its social welfare programs to meet the unique requirements of its people, including everything from infrastructure development to healthcare and education. This focused strategy guarantees that resources are distributed effectively and efficiently while also improving the general well-being of the populace. In addition, one of the main humanitarian advantages of a two-state solution is the preservation of human rights. The creation of sovereign nations has provided a concrete foundation for the protection of personal freedoms. This entails addressing matters like the freedom of assembly, speech, and mobility in addition to making sure that the legal systems are just. Respect for human rights becomes essential to creating a society in which people may coexist with respect and dignity, which establishes the groundwork for long-lasting peace. All things considered, the humanitarian advantages of a two-state solution go beyond political concerns and include better living circumstances, more economic prospects, and the defense of both Israelis' and Palestinians' fundamental human rights. Consequently, this helps to establish a setting that is favorable for enduring peace.

Beyond the immediate lines of the conflict, a state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would have a substantial impact on regional stability. Tensions between Israelis and Palestinians as well as between other Middle Eastern nations may be reduced by a peaceful conclusion. Positive regional dynamics are facilitated by the creation of two independent nations. A cooperative environment between adjacent countries can be fostered by a reduction in tensions and conflict in the Israeli-Palestinian setting. As stable and secure governments are more inclined to participate in mutually beneficial trade and development projects, the possibility of economic cooperation increases. Additionally, state option can support the region's common security objectives. States that have acknowledged sovereignty and well-defined boundaries can cooperate to tackle shared security issues like terrorism and instability in the region. Joint military drills, intelligence-sharing, and diplomatic collaboration may all lead to collaborative efforts to build a network of stability that transcends national boundaries. In short, the Middle East's geopolitical environment might be positively reshaped if the Israeli-Palestinian issue is resolved through a two-state solution. It opens the door to a more stable and integrated area where countries can work together to handle problems and seize opportunities for the good of their people by promoting collaboration and common interests.

References

• Hammami, R. (2000). Palestinian NGOs since Oslo: From NGO politics to social movements? Middle East Report, 214, 16.
• John, G. S. (2001) Why Nations Go To War, Chippenham, Antony Rowe Ltd
• ong, A. D. (2018). Zionist hegemony, the settler colonial conquest of Palestine and the problem with conflict: a critical genealogy of the notion of binary conflict. Settler Colonial Studies, 8(3), 364-383.
• Kovel, J. (2007). Overcoming Zionism: Creating a single democratic state in Israel/Palestine.
• Lewin, E. (2016). The inevitable dead end of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Cogent Social Sciences, 2(1), 1227294.
• Mason, V. (2019). The liminality of Palestinian refugees: betwixt and between global politics and international law. Journal of Sociology, 56(1), 84-99.
• Mitchell, S. C. (2017). The Function of Religion in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Portland: Portland State University.
• Morris, B. (2009). One State, Two States: Resolving the Israel/Palestine Conflict. Yale University Press.
• Maull, H. W., & Okfen, N. (2003). Inter- regionalism in international relations: Comparing APEC and ASEM. Asia Europe Journal, 1, 237-249
• Ngaire, W. (1996) Explaining International Relations since 1945, Oxford University Press, London.
• Owais, M. (2021). Zionism and Identity Crisis: Ethnic Conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Global Political Review, VI(I), 154-164.
• Pappé, I. (2008). Zionism as Colonialism: A Comparative View of Diluted Colonialism in Asia and Africa. South Atlantic Quarterly, 107(4), 611–633.
• Pope, C. (2017). A Systemic Approach of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Bangkok: Rotary Peace Centre, Chulalongkorn.
• Trump explicitly backs independent Palestinian state for 1st time. (2018, September 26). NBC News.
• Schulze, K. E. (1999) the Arab- Israeli Conflict, Harlow Pearson Education Ltd.
• The definitive study is A. Shapiro (1992) Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881–1948, trans. W. Templar, New York
• Ukashi, R. (2018). Zionism, Imperialism, and Indigeneity in Israel/Palestine: A Critical Analysis. Peace and Conflict Studies, 1, 1- 28.
• Zunes, S. (2002). Why the US Supports Israel. Washington DC: Institute for Policy Studies.