By Naveed Ul Hasan
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one of the longest-standing and most complex conflicts in modern history, has long been characterized by deep seated animosity, territorial disputes, and a seemingly intractable stalemate.
For decades, the international community has viewed the two-state solution as the most viable path to peace, envisioning the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. However, as the years have passed, the prospects for achieving this solution have dimmed, raising questions about its continued viability. This article explores the current state of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the challenges facing the two-state solution, and the potential alternatives that could shape the future of the region.
The concept of a two-state solution traces its origins to the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947, which proposed the creation of separate Jewish and Arab states in the territory of Mandatory Palestine. The plan was accepted by the Jewish leadership but rejected by the Arab states, leading to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the subsequent establishment of the State of Israel. Since then, the idea of two states living side by side has been at the core of numerous peace initiatives, including the Oslo Accords of the 1990s and the Camp David Summit in 2000.
The two-state solution envisions the creation of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital, alongside the State of Israel. This solution is premised on the belief that it would allow both peoples to exercise their right to self-determination, resolve the core issues of the conflict, and achieve lasting peace. Over the years, this vision has garnered broad international support, including from the United States, the European Union, and the Arab League.
Despite the widespread endorsement of the two-state solution, the reality on the ground has made its realization increasingly difficult. A number of factors have contributed to the erosion of this vision, leading many to question whether it remains a viable path to peace.
One of the most significant obstacles to the two-state solution is the continued expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has established a network of settlements in the West Bank, home to hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens. These settlements are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this characterization. The expansion of settlements has not only altered the demographic and geographic landscape of the West Bank but has also made the prospect of a contiguous and viable Palestinian state increasingly difficult.
The settlement issue is particularly contentious because it undermines the territorial basis for the two-state solution. The construction of settlements, along with the infrastructure that supports them, has led to the fragmentation of Palestinian territory, complicating efforts to establish a viable and sovereign Palestinian state. Moreover, the presence of settlements has fueled tensions between Israelis and Palestinians, leading to frequent clashes and contributing to the cycle of violence.
Jerusalem, a city of immense religious and historical significance, lies at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both Israelis and Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital, making it one of the most sensitive and intractable issues in the conflict. The two-state solution envisions East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state, while West Jerusalem would remain the capital of Israel.
However, the status of Jerusalem has become increasingly complicated over the years. In 1980, Israel declared Jerusalem its “undivided” capital, a move that has been rejected by the international community. The United States’ decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in 2017, and move its embassy there, further exacerbated tensions and undermined the prospects for a two-state solution.
The reality on the ground in Jerusalem reflects a deeply divided city, with Israeli and Palestinian neighborhoods often separated by barriers and checkpoints. The Israeli government’s policies in East Jerusalem, including home demolitions and the expansion of Jewish neighborhoods, have further fueled Palestinian grievances and diminished the prospects for a negotiated settlement.
The political landscape on both sides of the conflict has also posted significant challenges to the two-state solution. On the Palestinian side, the division between the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza has weakened the Palestinian national movement and complicated efforts to achieve a unified negotiating position. The split between Fatah, which dominates the PA, and Hamas, which controls Gaza, has led to a situation where two separate Palestinian entities exist, each with its own leadership, policies, and priorities.
This political fragmentation has undermined the credibility of the Palestinian leadership and made it difficult to present a unified front in negotiations with Israel. Moreover, the international community’s refusal to engage with Hamas, which is designated as a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, and the European Union, has further complicated efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace agreement.
On the Israeli side, the political landscape has also shifted in ways that have made the two-state solution more elusive. The rise of right-wing and nationalist parties in Israel, coupled with the growing influence of religious and settler movements, has led to a hardening of positions on issues such as settlements and the status of Jerusalem. Successive Israeli governments have increasingly prioritized security and territorial concerns over negotiations for a two-state solution, leading to a stalemate in the peace process.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been marked by cycles of violence, mistrust, and failed peace efforts. Decades of conflict have left deep scars on both sides, with many Israelis and Palestinians skeptical of the prospects for peace and deeply distrustful of each other. This lack of trust has been a major impediment to negotiations, with each side questioning the other’s commitment to a genuine peace process.
Violence has also played a significant role in undermining the two-state solution. Periodic outbreaks of violence, such as the Intifadas, wars in Gaza, and ongoing clashes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, have reinforced the perception that the conflict is intractable. The continued violence has fueled radicalization on both sides, with hardliners gaining strength at the expense of those who advocate for a negotiated settlement.
As the prospects for a two-state solution have diminished, alternative visions for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have gained traction. These alternatives range from a one-state solution to various forms of confederation or shared sovereignty. Each of these alternatives presents its own set of challenges and opportunities.
The one-state solution envisions a single, binational state in which Israelis and Palestinians live as equal citizens. Proponents of this solution argue that it would eliminate the territorial disputes and provide equal rights to all inhabitants of the land. However, the one-state solution is fraught with challenges, particularly regarding the balance of power between Jews and Arabs within the new state. Many Israelis fear that a one-state solution would threaten the Jewish character of the state, while Palestinians may be concerned about the potential for continued inequality and discrimination.
Another alternative is a confederation, in which Israel and Palestine would remain separate states but share certain elements of governance, such as security, infrastructure, and economic policy. A confederation could allow for greater cooperation between the two states while preserving their separate national identities. However, achieving a confederation would require significant political will and trust, which are currently in short supply.
Given the centrality of Jerusalem to both Israelis and Palestinians, some have proposed shared sovereignty over the city as a way to resolve one of the most contentious issues in the conflict. This could involve dividing the city into different zones of control or creating an international regime to oversee key religious sites. While shared sovereignty in Jerusalem could address some of the core issues, it would require a high degree of cooperation and mutual respect, which has been elusive in the past.
The international community has long played a key role in efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, from facilitating peace talks to providing humanitarian assistance. However, the international community’s influence has waned in recent years, as the peace process has stalled and other global crises have taken precedence.
To reinvigorate the peace process, the international community must adopt a more proactive and balanced approach. This could involve renewed efforts to pressure both sides to return to negotiations, as well as greater support for grassroots initiatives that promote dialogue and reconciliation. The international community must also be willing to hold both Israelis and Palestinians accountable for actions that undermine the prospects for peace, such as settlement.
The future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains uncertain, and the viability of the two-state solution is increasingly in doubt. While the two-state solution has long been the preferred framework for resolving the conflict, the realities on the ground have made its implementation increasingly difficult. Settlement expansion, political fragmentation, lack of trust, and cycles of violence have all contributed to the erosion of the two-state vision.
Despite these challenges, the two-state solution remains the only framework that has garnered broad international support and offers the potential for both Israelis and Palestinians to achieve their aspirations for self-determination. However, for the two-state solution to remain viable, significant changes are needed. This includes a halt to settlement expansion, renewed efforts to address the core issues of the conflict, and a commitment from both sides to engage in genuine negotiations.
If the two-state solution is to be preserved, the international community must also play a more active role in facilitating the peace process and holding both sides accountable. Ultimately, the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will depend on the willingness of both Israelis and Palestinians to compromise, make difficult choices.
Author: Naveed-Ul-Hasan – PhD Scholar (International Relations). He is a Visiting lecturer at Karakoram International University. His research primarily investigates the strategic relations between Pakistan, China, India, and the USA. Additionally, his scholarly interests encompass a wide range of topics within South Asian studies, including extremism, radicalization, terrorism, the foreign policies of major global powers, and regional issues.
(The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of World Geostrategic Insights).
Image Source: AP