The death toll in Gaza now exceeds 25,000, and there is still no end in sight to the fighting nor is there any clarity about Israel's strategic objectives. Debates are intensifying about what should happen after the war. The United States has come out increasingly strongly in favor of a two-state solution, which has been the position of the European Union and most of the international community for years. The Arab Peace Initiative also aims at the creation of two States for the two peoples who live between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.
However, Prime Minister Beniamin Netanyahu has once again made his rejection clear: "I am not going to give in regarding full Israeli security control over all the territory west of the Jordan; and that is contrary to a Palestinian state." The statement confirms what many have long suspected: for years, his policies have sought to block any movement toward a two-state solution, and have largely succeeded.
Unfortunately, supporters of such a solution do not occupy a dominant position in the current public discourse, neither in Israel nor in the Palestinian territories. With war raging, emotions run high, and extremists on both sides benefit politically. There is a deepening sense of mutual enmity and little attention is paid to the prospects for long-term peace. In any case, the situation will eventually change and allow for the potential emergence of more constructive forms of discourse.
There is no doubt that it will not be easy to move from the current war to a two-state future. Border issues must be resolved, as well as the status of Jerusalem (perhaps the most delicate aspect of the dispute for both sides). The extensive illegal Jewish settlements in occupied territory remain one of the biggest and most obvious obstacles to progress.
However, an eventual two-state solution is not as unimaginable or inconceivable as critics suggest. On the contrary, there are numerous drafts. A few years ago, the American think tank RAND published a visionary research review that envisioned "an arc" of Palestinian cities connected by a modern railway to Gaza in the south and the port of Haifa in the north.
The problem, of course, is that the two-state solution is not the only alternative. At the extremes of the Israeli and Palestinian political spectrum, the preferred option is to create a state “from the river to the sea.” Depending on which side prevails, this would be a Palestinian state that would replace (and therefore eradicate) the State of Israel or a Jewish State that would reject the very idea of a Palestinian State in the area.
Yes, in theory, it would also be possible to conceive of a single State with Jews and Palestinians living peacefully together under a democratic political system that guaranteed equal rights for all. However, in practice, it probably took centuries to achieve that result. And, since we don't have that much time, in reality such a possibility is not relevant.
Hamas' version of "from the river to the sea" is also unviable. Israel not only has the right to defend itself, but its existence has the firm support of the international community, as well as a large part of the Arab world. Although the military wing of Hamas continues to defend its fanciful option, the political leaders of that same organization have sometimes spoken of accepting a long-term ceasefire (hudna), which implies the de facto recognition of the "Zionist entity." ".
The extremist Israeli version of "from the river to the sea", unequivocally favored today by members of Netanyahu's government, calls for measures to "encourage" the departure of the more than five million Palestinians who live in Gaza and the West Bank. With the few inhabitants left, deprived of political rights, the result would be a state built on a combination of ethnic cleansing and explicit apartheid. However, this path would most likely lead to renewed outbreaks of violence and conflict, and engulf the region into even greater chaos.
Although Netanyahu has proclaimed his opposition to a two-state solution, he has not even remotely clarified which outcome he would favor. Aimless and lurching from one crisis to the next, what it is doing (deliberately or not) is leading Israel down the single-state path favored by its most extremist allies, and thus further and further away from a possible peace.
Given the alternatives (which can't even be called "solutions"), the two-state outcome remains the only viable option for peace. Once the current fighting ends (the sooner the better), all diplomatic and reconstruction efforts must focus on putting the region back on track on the two-state path. There will be resistance from the respective extremists who chant "from the river to the sea", but it is to be hoped that the moderates on each side can prevail with the support of key players such as the US, the EU and the Arab states. .
It is they, and only they, who can credibly claim to know which path leads to peace.
©Project Syndicate. Translation: John Gabriel Lopez Guix
