The number of dead in Gaza already exceeds 25,000, and the end of the fighting is not yet in sight, nor is there any clarity about Israel's strategic goals. Debates intensify about what should happen after the war. The United States has come out more and more 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 to create two states for the two peoples who live between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.
However, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has again made his rejection clear: "I will not give in to full Israeli security control over all the territory west of the Jordan; and this 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 the war wreaking havoc, 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 possibilities of long-term peace. In any case, the situation will eventually change and allow 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 future with two states. Border issues must be resolved, as well as the status of Jerusalem (perhaps the most sensitive 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 as inconceivable as critics suggest. On the contrary, numerous drafts exist. A few years ago, the US research institute RAND published a visionary research review that imagined "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 would 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 necessary to conceive a single State with Jews and Palestinians living peacefully under a democratic political system that guarantees equal rights for everyone. However, in practice, it would likely take centuries to achieve this result. And, since we don't have that much time, in reality such a possibility is not relevant.
The Hamas version of "from the river to the sea" is also unworkable. Not only does Israel have the right to defend itself, but its existence is firmly supported by the international community, as well as much of the Arab world. As much as the military wing of Hamas continues to defend its fanciful option, the political leaders of this same organization have sometimes spoken of accepting a long-term ceasefire (hudna), which implies the de facto recognition of the "Zionist entity".
The Israeli extremist version of "from the river to the sea", favored today bluntly by members of the Netanyahu Government, calls for measures to "encourage" the departure of the more than five million Palestinians living 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 is more likely to lead to renewed outbreaks of violence and conflict, and to plunge the region into even greater chaos.
Although Netanyahu has proclaimed his opposition to a two-state solution, he has not made it even remotely clear which outcome he would favor. Aimless and lurching from one crisis to the next, what it is doing (whether deliberately or not) is taking Israel down the one-state path favored by its most extremist allies, and thus further away from once more than a possible peace.
Given the alternatives (which cannot even be called "solutions"), the two-state outcome remains the only viable option for peace. Once the current fighting ends (as soon as possible), all diplomatic and reconstruction efforts must be focused on getting the region back on track to 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 end up prevailing with the support of key actors such as the US, the EU and the States Arabs
It is they, and only they, who can credibly claim to know which path leads to peace
©Project Syndicate
