Listen to the article
Since the outbreak of the war between Israel and Hamas on October 7, the possibility of conflict resolution in the near future remains remote. The proposition of a two-state solution, often presented as the ideal option in theory, encounters practical obstacles that make its attainment complex and uncertain.
This theory was raised by US President Joe Biden, who emphasized the need to initiate “the beginning of a two-state solution.” Simultaneously, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, affirmed that the prospect of a political solution is imperative to establish peace, stating that the “two-state solution” remains unavoidable. The same sentiment was echoed by British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. The recent statements of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however, add a layer of complexity to the debate. According to him, the Oslo Accords were a mistake that should not be repeated.
Faced with these diverging opinions and the practical challenges encountered on the ground, it is crucial to question whether the two-state solution, although ideal in theory, is currently applicable in the complex and unstable context of the region.
One of the primary major obstacles hindering the search for a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict lies in the political extremism characterizing the two parties involved. On one hand, Israeli society has gone through a significant political shift to the right since the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, particularly accentuated in the early years of the new millennium. This shift has been fueled by various factors, including a series of conflicts with the region’s neighbors and the significance attached to security within the Israeli population. The current Israeli government is regarded as the most extremist in Israel’s history.
On the other hand, on the Palestinian side, the decrease in the influence of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in recent years, notably during Mahmoud Abbas’s presidency, has created a sense of political void. Due to the convergence of interests between Hamas and right-wing Israeli governments, the popularity of the PA has significantly declined. The uncertainty surrounding Abbas’s succession, exacerbated by concerns about his ability to remain in office, has paved the way for the growing influence of Hamas. This fundamentalist movement, considered a terrorist organization in the West, claims the entirety of historic Palestine, ranging “from the river to the sea” (from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean). The rise of Hamas adds an additional dimension of intransigence and complexity to the quest for a peaceful solution in the region and puts the PA, which emerged following the Oslo Accords under the leadership of Yasser Arafat, in jeopardy.
Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires a strategic and thoughtful approach. On the Israeli side, it is crucial to find a resolution to this long-standing conflict that is seemingly stuck in a deadlock. Many observers call for early elections aimed at defeating, at the ballot box, the coalition of Likud and far-right parties. These analysts believe that a victory for a left-wing and center-left coalition could create an environment conducive to negotiation with the Palestinian side, thereby exploring the possibility of a two-state solution. However, the fundamental question lies in the emergence of a new leadership capable of orchestrating such a maneuver. Who will step forward to fulfill this task, similarly to the leadership represented by Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres?
On the Palestinian side, observers emphasize the need to rejuvenate the Palestinian Authority through new elections that would be triggered by the departure of Mahmoud Abbas in favor of a candidate capable of revitalizing the PA. Among the names mentioned, that of detainee Marwan Barghouti garners attention, although his acceptance of this colossal task and willingness to negotiate with the Israeli side remain uncertain. Especially since he is imprisoned for his support of Palestinian armed resistance. The question of who will be the new Palestinian leader with the stature of Yasser Arafat thus remains unanswered.
Within this hypothetical scenario, it would be necessary to consider ceasing hostilities or finding a solution to the war, which is not guaranteed in the near future. Not to mention that it is imperative to take into account the complex issue of Iranian intervention, a crucial element in maintaining Hamas as a central actor in the project of unifying regional battlefields. The prospect of its withdrawal or weakening proves to be a delicate undertaking that the Iranian regime will not easily accept.
Another crucial element to consider is the significant presence of Israeli settlers in the West Bank, whose numbers have increased considerably since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, from 116,300 to 465,400 according to official figures for 2021 – although some independent estimates suggest figures ranging between 800,000 and 1,000,000. These residents, settled in the West Bank for many years, are deeply attached to their settlements, making any attempt to relocate them for resettlement an immensely challenging endeavor. This demographic reality raises complex questions regarding the feasibility and practical viability of the two-state solution to turn the page on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Therefore, while the theoretical ideal remains the search for a two-state solution, the practical reality seems more complex. Ideological, political and demographic obstacles hinder a lasting peace settlement. Challenges posed by political extremism, considerations regarding settlers in the West Bank and regional geopolitical tensions confirm the necessity for a nuanced and pragmatic approach to envision any perspective of a comprehensive peace.
Today, the priority remains to cease hostilities between Hamas and Israel that have lasted since October 7, at least for humanitarian reasons. This does not seem guaranteed: Israel speaks of a war that could last until the end of the year 2024 …
