Skip links Skip to Content
As Gaza is decimated and millions of Palestinians there desperately try to hold on to life without shelter, food, water or adequate medical care, the Israeli cabinet continues to “legalise” settlement outposts in the West Bank – deepening challenges for a viable two-state solution. In blatant defiance of international law, Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich framed the most recent settlement expansion decision on June 27 as retaliation against the recent recognition of a Palestinian state by several European countries, promising, “For every country that unilaterally recognises a Palestinian state, we will establish a settlement.”
While this promise is the natural next step of Israel’s long-term strategy of annexing the Palestinian territory under its occupation, the blackmailing inference suggests an awareness of illegal settlements as the linchpin of Israeli efforts to block continued peace efforts. It also reveals how and why this conflict cannot be solved by the Israelis and Palestinians alone. Although before October 7 Palestine was recognised as a sovereign state by 143 of the 193 United Nations members, it is the recognition by European states that most threatens Israel’s colonial settlement project and its far right’s determination to make it impossible for the Palestinians to pursue independence. In addition to the multifaceted economic, security and diplomatic relationships it has with Europe, the unique and complex history around the Holocaust that justified the establishment of a Jewish state is central to how Israel defines itself as a refuge for Jews worldwide today. Horrified by the humanitarian disaster unleashed on Gaza and reflecting a growing movement in global public opinion, Ireland and Norway, followed by Spain and Slovenia, recognised Palestinian statehood based on the 1967 borders. Soon after, Malta affirmed its readiness to do the same “when the time is right”. These bold moves, taken after the United States, on April 17, vetoed a widely backed UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution that would have paved the way for full UN membership for Palestine, pushed the number of European states recognising Palestine to 12, including Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Sweden, and the total number of UN member states to 147. The recognition alone is not the solution, but a step towards a sustainable solution. Recalling how his people once made a similar plea 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 wide international consensus, a two-state solution is premised on the right of self-determination and respect for the rights of both peoples on the one hand, and sheer pragmatism on the other. It offers a realistic compromise given the demographic reality of having two peoples on one land. Even Hamas, long opposed to Israel’s existence, has recently indicated a willingness to disarm if a Palestinian state were established. The roots of the two-state concept can be traced back to the 1947 UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181), which proposed dividing the British Mandate of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. The 1993 Oslo Accords marked a significant milestone, establishing mutual recognition between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and promised the materialisation of an independent Palestine by May 1999. This led to the founding of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and setting a framework for future negotiations on core issues. The accords failed to produce a two-state solution for several known reasons. These include ambiguity in the agreement (on borders, Jerusalem, refugees) that led to divergent interpretations and growing distrust, weak political will and leadership, the failure to address core divisive narratives and to stop extremist elements on both sides from serving as spoilers, especially after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, which significantly hardened the Israeli position towards a peace settlement. However, it is the continuation of state-sanctioned Israeli settlement expansion in occupied territory, which dramatically altered demographic realities on the ground, that serves as the primary obstacle to the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state and the realisation of a two-state solution. Despite these setbacks, the international community has consistently reaffirmed support for a two-state solution. It remains the only credible path to peace and the only basis for sustaining it. Reflecting the wide member-state consensus that exists on this path, the UN has passed some 800 resolutions dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian issue, with several pivotal ones explicitly supporting two states. UNSC Resolution 242 (1967), for example, called for Israeli withdrawal from occupied Palestinian territory and recognition of every state’s right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries. Critics argue that a two-state solution is no longer viable due to settlement expansion, security concerns, and historical and religious claims to the entirety of the land on both sides. However, these obstacles, while significant, are not insurmountable. Other seemingly intractable conflicts, such as those in Northern Ireland and South Africa, have found resolution through compromise and dialogue. Moreover, alternative proposals like a binational state or confederation model face even greater practical and political hurdles. A 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 for securing a two-state solution? First, the momentum to recognise Palestine as a state must be maintained, with those states that have recognised it recently actively advocating for the remaining few to do so, in particular the US and the United Kingdom. Despite the US’s “ironclad” support for Israel in Gaza, now is the time to put international pressure on Washington, as President Joe Biden does not necessarily oppose Palestinian statehood, but believes it will only come from direct negotiations between the parties. A second Trump administration, which the polls show could well be in power in a matter of months, will fare far worse for this path. Trump’s stated opposition to a two-state solution (based on Palestinian support for Hamas) is at odds with every American president who has engaged the issue. The conditions are equally ripe for applying pressure on London. The British Labour Party, which won a landslide 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 which results in a two-state solution”. Second, support for the two-state solution in Israel should be nurtured and built upon. Despite the Netanyahu-led Israeli government vehemently opposing a two-state solution, it is important to recognise that the two-state solution has centrally featured in Israeli politics since the 1990s, with the majority of prime ministers supporting the notion, albeit under certain conditions, such as demilitarisation of the Palestinian state. While Israeli society fluctuates on this topic – understandable in a protracted, violent conflict where media is constricted – the majority seems to accept the notion according to various polls. In the context of an Israeli leadership focused on peace, the support would likely be higher. The Israeli voices who seek peace, security and dignity for all should be amplified, especially in light of the far right’s increased efforts to demonise and sideline them since October 7. Third, although efforts to achieve reconciliation between Hamas and the PA have intensified since October 7, partly thanks to China’s facilitation, more needs to be done for the Palestinians to capture the current momentum of recognition. Hamas’s expressed willingness to join the PLO to form a unified government in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank must be built upon and the PA must come forward with a comprehensive and inclusive governance reform plan. But in order to achieve this, the international community must first ensure the safety of the Palestinian people by offering protection, at least for a transitional period. Fourth, Israeli settlements must be reversed. There is no question that, to achieve peace, illegal Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian territory need to be rolled back. Last week’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling on the issue – which determined that Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory is unlawful and should come to an end “as rapidly as possible” – should provide a roadmap. The surge in settler violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem since October 7 has reminded the world that continued colonisation is incompatible with the creation of a viable Palestinian state and thus sustainable peace. For the first time, France, the UK, the US and later Germany and Poland have applied sanctions against Israeli individuals responsible for such violence (albeit a small number). Finally, while many Palestinians and critical analysts understandably dismiss discussions of “the day after” as the killing continues in Gaza, to prevent another cycle of rebuilding and decimation, steadfast attention must urgently be paid to core issues underpinning sustainability. First and foremost, as countless peace processes have revealed in the past and peace theorists have long argued, for negotiations to succeed, parties need to be on relatively equal footing. International support for Palestine in the form of statehood recognition can help balance the scales. Addressing structural legacies of injustice and issues driving the conflict is essential for fostering trust and cooperation. To achieve sustainable peace and a viable two-state solution, and prevent another cycle of violence, a comprehensive plan must also be put in place to ensure security for both nations, and crucially related, Palestinian economic independence. Beyond the exorbitant costs of rebuilding Gaza (estimated by the UN at $40bn and taking some 16 years), Palestinians will need reliable and comprehensive financial support from the international community to lay the ground for a viable, self-sufficient state. Ultimately, action on a two state solution will require political will – notably by the international community – to move this process in the right direction of history, towards a viable and sustainable peace. This means moving beyond minimalist goals of a ceasefire, and towards embracing a more transformative process that engages the latest ICJ findings on Israel’s illegal occupation, to prepare the ground for a two-state solution. Biden’s role is vital in this regard – offering him a swan song as he departs the political stage. The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
