As Gaza is decimated and millions of Palestinians desperately struggle to survive without shelter, food, water or adequate medical care, the Israeli cabinet continues to “legalize” settlement outposts in the West Bank, compounding the challenges to a viable two-state solution.
In blatant disregard of international law, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich presented the June 27 settlement expansion decision as retaliation for the recent recognition of a Palestinian state by several European countries, promising: “For every country that unilaterally recognizes a Palestinian state, we will establish a settlement.”
If this promise is the natural next step in Israel’s long-term strategy to annex occupied Palestinian territory, the idea of blackmail suggests that illegal settlements are the linchpin of Israel’s efforts to block further peace efforts. It also reveals how and why this conflict cannot be resolved by Israelis and Palestinians alone.
Although before October 7, Palestine was recognized as a sovereign state by 143 of the 193 members of the United Nations, it is recognition by European states that most threatens Israel’s colonization project and its far-right’s determination to make any Palestinian quest for independence impossible. In addition to its multifaceted economic, security, and diplomatic relationships with Europe, the unique and complex history surrounding the Holocaust that justified the creation of a Jewish state is at the heart of how Israel defines itself today as a haven for Jews around the world.
Horrified by the humanitarian disaster in Gaza and reflecting a growing movement in world public opinion, Ireland and Norway, followed by Spain and Slovenia, recognized the Palestinian state on the basis of the 1967 borders. Shortly thereafter, Malta affirmed its readiness to do the same “when the time is right.” These bold steps, taken after the United States vetoed a widely supported UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution on April 17 that would have paved the way for full Palestinian membership in the UN, brought the number of European states recognizing Palestine to 12, including Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Sweden, and the total number of UN member states to 147.
Recognition alone is not the solution, but it is a step towards a lasting solution. Recalling that his people had once made a similar call for international recognition of their independence, Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar described the two-state solution as “the only credible path for Israel, Palestine and their peoples.” In addition to broad international consensus, the two-state solution is based on the right to self-determination and respect for the rights of both peoples, and on sheer pragmatism. It offers a realistic compromise given the demographic reality of having two peoples on one land. Even Hamas, long opposed to the existence of Israel, has recently indicated that it is prepared to disarm if a Palestinian state is created.
The roots of the two-state concept can be traced back to the 1947 UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181), which proposed dividing British Mandate Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. The 1993 Oslo Accords marked a milestone, establishing mutual recognition between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and promising the realization of an independent Palestine by May 1999. These agreements led to the creation of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the establishment of a framework for future negotiations on key issues.
The agreements failed to achieve a two-state solution for several well-known reasons. These include the ambiguity of the agreement (on borders, Jerusalem, refugees), which led to divergent interpretations and growing distrust, weak political will and leadership, the inability to address key divisive narratives and prevent extremist elements on both sides from serving as spoilers, especially after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, which significantly hardened the Israeli position in favor of a peace agreement. However, it is the continued expansion of state-sanctioned Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, which has significantly changed the demographic realities on the ground, that constitutes the main obstacle to the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state and the achievement of a two-state solution.
Despite these setbacks, the international community has consistently reaffirmed its support for the two-State solution. It remains the only credible path to peace and the only basis for its sustainability. Reflecting the broad consensus of Member States on this path, the United Nations has adopted some 800 resolutions addressing the Israeli-Palestinian question, several key ones explicitly supporting the two-State solution. UN Security Council resolution 242 (1967), for example, called for Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Palestinian Territory and recognition of the right of every State to live in peace within secure and recognized borders.
Critics argue that the two-state solution is no longer viable because of settlement expansion, security concerns, and historical and religious claims to the entire territory on both sides. However, these obstacles, while considerable, are not insurmountable. Other seemingly intractable conflicts, such as those in Northern Ireland and South Africa, have been resolved through compromise and dialogue. Moreover, alternative proposals such as a binational state or a confederation model face even greater practical and political obstacles. The two-state solution remains the only approach with broad international support and a track record of progress, however limited.
What then should be the next steps to achieve a two-state solution?
First, the momentum for recognizing Palestine as a state must be maintained. The states that have recently recognized it are actively advocating for the few remaining states to do so, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom. Despite the United States’ “unwavering” support for Israel in Gaza, it is time to put pressure on Washington, because President Joe Biden does not necessarily oppose the creation of a Palestinian state, but believes that it can only come about through direct negotiations between the parties. A second Trump administration, which polls suggest could well be in power within months, would fare much worse. Trump’s stated opposition to a two-state solution (based on Palestinian support for Hamas) is at odds with every US president who has addressed the issue. The conditions are also ripe for putting pressure on London. Britain’s Labour Party, which won a landslide victory in a hard-fought election and formed a new government earlier this month, has pledged to recognise a Palestinian state “as a contribution to a renewed peace process that will lead to a two-state solution”.
Second, support for the two-state solution in Israel must be encouraged and strengthened. While the Israeli government led by Netanyahu vehemently opposes the two-state solution, it is important to recognize that the solution has been central to Israeli politics since the 1990s, with the majority of prime ministers supporting the idea, albeit with certain conditions, such as the demilitarization of the Palestinian state. While Israeli society is fluid on this issue—understandably so in a protracted and violent conflict with limited media—the majority appears to accept the idea according to various polls. In the context of a peace-oriented Israeli leadership, support would likely be higher. Israeli voices seeking peace, security, and dignity for all should be amplified, particularly in light of the increased efforts by the far right to demonize and marginalize them since October 7.
Third, while efforts to achieve reconciliation between Hamas and the PA have intensified since October 7, partly through China’s facilitation, much remains to be done for the Palestinians to benefit from the current momentum of recognition. Hamas’s expressed willingness to join the PLO in forming a unified government in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank must be strengthened, and the PA must propose a comprehensive and inclusive governance reform plan. But to achieve this, the international community must first ensure the security of the Palestinian people by offering them protection, at least for a transitional period.
Fourth, an end to Israeli colonization. There is no doubt that in order to achieve peace, an end must be put to illegal Israeli colonization in the occupied Palestinian territory.
Last week’s ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the issue – which determined that Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory is illegal and must end “as expeditiously as possible” – should provide a road map.
The upsurge in settler violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem since October 7 has reminded the world that continued settlement activity is incompatible with the creation of a viable Palestinian state and thus lasting peace. For the first time, France, the United Kingdom, the United States, and then Germany and Poland, have imposed sanctions against the Israeli individuals responsible for this violence (albeit in small numbers).
Finally, while many Palestinians and critical analysts rightly reject talk of a “day after” as the massacres continue in Gaza, to avoid another cycle of reconstruction and decimation, continued attention must urgently be paid to the fundamental questions that underpin sustainability.
First, as countless past peace processes have shown and as peace theorists have long argued, for negotiations to succeed, the parties must be on an equal footing. International support for Palestine in the form of statehood recognition can help balance the scales. Addressing the structural legacies of injustice and the problems that gave rise to the conflict is essential to fostering trust and cooperation.
Achieving lasting peace and a viable two-state solution, and avoiding a new cycle of violence, also requires a comprehensive plan to ensure the security of both nations and, crucially, Palestinian economic independence. Beyond the staggering costs of rebuilding Gaza (estimated by the UN at $40 billion over a 16-year period), the Palestinians will need reliable and comprehensive financial support from the international community to lay the foundations for a viable and self-sufficient state.
Ultimately, implementing a two-state solution will require political will – including from the international community – to move this process in the right direction of history, towards a viable and lasting peace. This means moving beyond the minimalist goals of a ceasefire and adopting a more transformative process that takes into account the ICJ’s latest findings on Israel’s illegal occupation, in order to prepare the ground for a two-state solution. Biden’s role is critical in this regard – he provides the swan song as he leaves the political stage.
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Tel Aviv Tribune.
