The Gaza war has once again highlighted the two-state solution as a possible resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Many countries continue to view this solution as the way to achieve peace, despite the fact that the negotiation process has been stagnant for over a decade.
More than ten months after the Gaza war, numerous countries, including the United States, believe that establishing a Palestinian state is the only viable solution to the conflict. However, this war has resulted in “the biggest setback in decades to the chances of peace,” as reported by the Wall Street Journal, which analyzed perspectives from both sides regarding the two-state solution.
The two-state solution was the foundation of the US-supported peace process that began with the 1993 Oslo Accords, signed by Yasser Arafat, chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, according to Reuters.
The agreements affirmed the Palestine Liberation Organization’s recognition of Israel’s right to exist, the renunciation of violence, and the establishment of the Palestinian Authority.
The Palestinians anticipated this would pave the way toward an independent state, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
However, the peace process has encountered challenges from both sides.
On its part, Hamas has conducted suicide attacks resulting in the deaths of numerous Israelis. This group, classified as a terrorist organization, has been committed to Israel’s destruction since 1988, although it has recently stated that it would accept a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders.
In 2000, former US President Bill Clinton facilitated a meeting between Arafat and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak at Camp David in hopes of reaching an agreement, but these efforts ultimately failed.
The conflict intensified with the onset of the Second Palestinian Intifada, which lasted from 2000 to 2005. US administrations attempted to revive the peace process without success, and the last major effort collapsed in 2014.
The Wall Street Journal observes, “The path to resolving the Middle East conflict is clear to everyone except the Israelis and Palestinians. Violence and settlements have eroded broad support for a two-state solution.”
Despite global consensus that the two-state solution is the most effective way to resolve the conflict, the situation has changed: “the problem is that the Israelis and the Palestinians no longer believe in this solution.” The brutal Hamas attack on October 7, which resulted in approximately 1,200 deaths, and the subsequent devastating Israeli response, claiming over 40,000 lives, reaffirmed that “neither side cares about the lives of the other.”
“At this moment, Israelis and Palestinians don’t view the other side as human,” says Khalil Shikaki, director of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research. “This isn’t a permanent characteristic of Israeli-Palestinian relations, but it describes our current reality.”
Surveys indicate that support for the two-state solution has been declining for more than a decade.
While opinion polls from the late 1990s to 2010 revealed that a significant majority of both Israelis and Palestinians favored a two-state solution, that support has since diminished.
Currently, only 32 percent of Palestinians believe in this solution, according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted in June. Among Israelis, just 19 percent support it, according to a poll by the same center in May, a decrease from 32 percent shortly before October 7.
For many Israelis, the Hamas attack has amplified fears that a Palestinian state could fall under militant rule and serve as a base for terrorism.
“This generation of Palestinians has shown its true colors,” stated Gadi Taub, a historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and political commentator. “We understand their intentions, especially since they celebrated the events of October 7.”
Having grown up in a family of peace activists, Taub was a strong proponent of the Oslo Accords in the 1990s but became disillusioned with the prospects for peace after the accords failed and violence erupted.
Taub contended that Israel currently has only one option: “occupation.”
The polls from the Palestinian Center reveal that Palestinian support for the two-state solution has decreased since 2010, reflecting a growing belief that it is no longer a feasible option.
Shikaki noted that the expansion of Israeli settlements and the increasing influence of settlers in Israeli politics have made it challenging for Palestinians to perceive any possibility for compromise, leading to a rise in support for armed resistance against Israel.
“It’s the only refugee camp where people can see their land,” commented Farid Bawakneh, a soft-spoken electrician residing in the Jenin camp, where his father was killed by an Israeli soldier as he attempted to assist a wounded man in the street. “Perhaps our great-grandchildren will reclaim it.”
Bawakneh believes there are only two outcomes to the conflict: “Either we die while they live, or we live while they die.”
Murals in the camp depict children holding a large key, symbolizing the dream of return. Teenagers can be seen playing with toy guns in narrow streets marked with real bullet holes from exchanges of fire between Israeli forces and militants. Posters honor recent victims, including young boys carrying automatic rifles.
Regarding the young man, Mohammed Amer stated that if Israel were to agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, he would wholeheartedly support peace. He said, “The problem isn’t what I desire; it’s what Israel is willing to offer. They won’t provide us the 1967 borders. They won’t even concede the borders of Jenin.”
In Jenin, the epicenter of previous uprisings, Hawil reminisces about young men placing olive branches on Israeli army vehicles as the earlier peace process began. “We were longing for peace,” he recalls. “We desired a normal life like everyone else.”
Taub reflects on the suicide bombings by Hamas militants and other anti-Oslo figures that resulted in the deaths of numerous Israeli civilians.
Conversely, Jewish extremists have also targeted peace advocates: a far-right settler fatally shot 29 Palestinians in a mosque in Hebron, while a nationalist assassinated Rabin at a peace rally in Tel Aviv.
“We had a clear narrative for this,” Taub states. “We claimed that the enemies of peace were the hardliners on both sides, and we needed to be courageous and navigate this difficult terrain.”
However, Taub struggles to identify a Palestinian partner who exhibits non-violent intentions. “I gradually came to understand that I was making assertions that were no longer true,” he admits.
“Arafat perceived this process as a political opportunity, a path towards statehood,” Hawil explains. “But Israel viewed it primarily as a security arrangement.”
To some, the Palestinian Authority began to resemble Israel’s junior partner in managing the occupation. Many Palestinians viewed the new officials as more concerned with their personal status, budgets, and luxury vehicles than with national liberation.
Simultaneously, the number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank doubled during the Oslo years.
“The expansion of settlements brought about more soldiers, more checkpoints, and increased daily humiliation for the Palestinians,” remarked Ami Ayalon, former head of the Shin Bet security service. “What they truly desired was an end to the occupation. Consequently, the Palestinians felt betrayed.”
“You engage in peace negotiations with me while simultaneously expanding settlements. Does this reflect good intentions?” questioned Palestinian activist Issa Amro.
“The Oslo process was deceptive from the outset. It was about control, not peace,” he asserted.
“Israelis only remember Palestinian disappointment and terror,” noted Dahlia Scheindlin, an Israeli political analyst and pollster. “Right-wing coalitions led by (Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu have depicted Palestinians as intensely hostile and Israeli advocates of peace as leftist enemies of the state.”
On the Palestinian side, settlement expansion under Netanyahu has led many to believe that Israel is not genuinely interested in “ending the occupation.” The status of the Palestinian Authority’s president, Mahmoud Abbas, has declined as Israel has disregarded him, and the Palestinian Authority has become synonymous with repression and corruption.
“There is essentially no genuine peace process to speak of,” Sheindlin stated. “Peace remains very distant.”
By 2023, Israeli security officials cautioned Netanyahu about the potential for a conflict explosion, possibly involving Hamas, Hezbollah, and militants from the West Bank, “and Israeli intelligence agencies failed to identify signs of impending violence prior to the October 7 attack.”
Reuters reports that Israel dismissed attempts to establish a Palestinian state following the October 7 attack, reacting with anger to the decision by Spain, Ireland, and Norway to officially recognize a Palestinian state.
Madrid, Dublin, and Oslo interpreted their actions as a way to expedite efforts to achieve a ceasefire in the Gaza war.
The Palestinian Authority welcomed this move, while Israel recalled its ambassadors in protest, asserting that such actions could threaten its sovereignty and security.
The Gaza War and the Two-State Solution: A Complex Path to Peace
Renewed Focus on the Two-State Solution
The recent Gaza war has rekindled international discussion about the two-state solution as a viable path to peace in the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Despite stalling negotiation processes for over a decade, numerous countries, including the United States, continue to endorse the establishment of a Palestinian state as the exclusive means to resolve the conflict. However, many experts believe this war has resulted in the most significant setback in decades concerning the prospects for lasting peace, as reported by the Wall Street Journal.
Historical Context: Oslo Accords
The two-state solution traces its origins back to the Oslo Accords of 1993, which were pivotal in the U.S.-backed peace process. The agreements were signed by Yasser Arafat, the chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. These accords marked a critical step toward peace by confirming the PLO’s recognition of Israel’s legitimacy and renouncing violence, establishing the Palestinian Authority in the process. The ultimate Palestinian aim was to establish an independent state, with East Jerusalem as its intended capital.
Obstacles to Peace
Despite the initial optimism surrounding the accords, the peace process has been mired in obstacles from both sides. Key challenges include:
- Violent actions by Hamas, including suicide attacks that have resulted in significant Israeli casualties.
- The persistent expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, leading to disillusionment among Palestinians.
- The Palestinian Authority’s perception by some as Israel’s subordinate partner, further complicating trust.
Failed Attempts at Resolution
Numerous efforts have been made to revive the peace process, including a high-profile meeting at Camp David in 2000 convened by former U.S. President Bill Clinton. Despite these attempts, subsequent escalations led to the Second Palestinian Intifada (2000-2005), with violence spiraling as U.S. administrations grappled with the complexities of the conflict. The last notable effort to broker peace collapsed in 2014, leaving the Israeli-Palestinian relations increasingly fractured.
Current Perspectives on the Two-State Solution
According to a Wall Street Journal analysis, while the international community views the two-state solution as a clear path forward, many Israelis and Palestinians increasingly doubt its viability. The brutal Hamas attack on October 7, which claimed about 1,200 lives, and the subsequent Israeli military response resulting in over 40,000 deaths, have deepened the animosity, reinforcing a perception that “each side does not care about the lives of the other.”
Public Opinion Trends
Polling data reveals a significant decline in support for the two-state solution over the past decade:
- Only 32% of Palestinians support the two-state solution, according to a recent Pew Research Center poll.
- Only 19% of Israelis back the solution, a drop from 32% just prior to the October attack.
Fear and Distrust
The recent escalation has further entrenched fears among Israelis that a future Palestinian state could fall into militant control, potentially serving as a launching ground for terrorism. Gadi Taub, a historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, articulated this sentiment, noting that the October 7 attacks have confirmed longstanding fears about Palestinian intentions. Many Israelis feel this escalation has cemented the idea that reaching a peaceful resolution may no longer be feasible.
The Views from Palestinian Territories
In Palestinian territories, a similar disillusionment is evident. Khalil Shikaki, director of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, noted that currently, “Israelis and Palestinians don’t think the other side is human,” underscoring a deepening divide that complicates any prospects for dialogue. Many Palestinians now view armed actions against Israel as justified, fueled by a perception of relentless occupation and settlement expansion.
Personal Accounts from the Ground
Personal narratives reflect the despair and frustration of daily life under occupation. Farid Bawakneh, an electrician from Jenin, articulated a bleak choice: “Either we die and they live, or we live and they die.” Such perspectives are not uncommon among young Palestinians who feel increasingly alienated from any peace process and are often engaged in resistance due to pervasive hopelessness.
Historical Context of Violence
The cycle of violence has roots in both historical grievances and recent provocations, creating a complex tapestry of animosity. Taub highlighted how violent acts, from suicide bombings by Hamas militants to far-right Israeli extremists attacking peace supporters, have returned both communities to a state of antagonism and distrust, making it difficult to reclaim any middle ground.
Palestinian Authority and International Standing
The Palestinian Authority, once a beacon of hope, is increasingly regarded as Israel’s junior partner in managing the occupation. Diminished credibility has plagued its leadership, particularly under Mahmoud Abbas, who faces accusations of corruption and repression among his constituents. This evolving dynamic has led many Palestinians to disassociate from their leadership and the international dialogue that was once seen as a pathway to liberation.
International Diplomacy and Regional Dynamics
Recent incidents show an international community still grappling with how best to engage with both sides. After the October 7 attacks, Israel expressed outrage at countries like Spain, Ireland, and Norway recognizing a Palestinian state, interpreting these actions as a threat to its sovereignty. These escalations have raised concerns that the pathway to peace is becoming increasingly obscured as regional and international actors become more polarized.
Illustrative Case Studies: Voices from the Conflict
| Individual | Perspective |
|---|---|
| Farid Bawakneh | Believes in a binary choice of survival, reflecting desperation in Palestinian communities. |
| Gadi Taub | Articulates deep disillusionment with peace prospects following recent attacks. |
| Khalil Shikaki | Notes a loss of humanity between Israelis and Palestinians, complicating dialogue efforts. |
Looking Ahead: What Lies Beyond?
As of 2023, tensions escalate in the region, with Israeli security officials warning of potential conflict involving various militant groups, including Hamas and residents of the West Bank. Amidst this turmoil, the question remains: how to navigate the increasingly complex landscape of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict toward a just and lasting resolution?
