Has the two-state solution been jeopardised?

While Israel’s onslaught on Gaza continues in all its horror, attention has once again turned to what settlements could end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Despite various ideas being put forward by different actors, global powers have traditionally championed the two-state solution.

Establishing two separate states—one for Israelis and one for Palestinians living side by side—was deemed the best way to achieve enduring peace. US President Joe Biden emphasised this concept in his discussion with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Other world leaders did the same, including the leaders of the five nations with a permanent seat at the United Nations (UN) Security Council.

The consensus over this option has been so substantial that Netanyahu’s recent explicit rejection of the two-state solution has triggered widespread outrage. However, the international community’s outcry is hypocritical. Netanyahu’s steadfast “opposition” to the idea has remained unchanged since the signing of the first Oslo Accords in 1993. He did everything in his power to sabotage this option by all means possible.

On the other hand, by sticking to the two-state solution and not seeking more feasible options, the international community cast doubts about its willingness or sincerity in addressing the Palestinian issue.

BLOG: Two small protests in the Occupied West Bank that speak louder than words

Presenting a concept that reached a dead end due to countless obstacles as the “sole way forward” has led to accusations that this solution is merely a public relations exercise aimed at absolving the concerned from their responsibility.

The origins of the two-state solution

The two-state solution is not new. In November 1947, the UN endorsed the two-state proposal, aiming to partition British-controlled Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem designated as an international zone (corpus separatum). Zionist leaders welcomed the proposal as it allocated 55 per cent of Palestine’s land to a Jewish state, despite Jews comprising only a third of the population. However, the Arab side rejected the plan due to concerns over the displacement of the indigenous majority population in favour of recent Jewish immigrants and the fate of the Arab minority within the proposed Jewish state.

Following the UN’s decision, the conflict escalated, leading to a cycle of violence that led to the establishment of the State of Israel. Before that, over 750,000 Palestinians were forced to flee their homes in the episode known as the “Nakba” or the “catastrophe”. It led to the destruction and erasure of numerous Palestinian towns, primarily in the 77 per cent of Mandated Palestine that became Israeli territory.

The 1993 US-brokered Oslo Accords aimed to revive the two-state solution by acknowledging the Palestine Liberation Organisation as the representative of Palestinians and recognising Israel’s right to peaceful coexistence. It involved transferring administrative control to the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank and Gaza, with the goal of establishing two separate states. Despite Palestinian hopes for statehood with East Jerusalem as the capital, the Oslo process ultimately failed.

Immediately after signing the Oslo Accords, Israel implemented a policy of “cantonisation” in the West Bank and Gaza, undermining territorial integrity in these areas. Consequently, the Oslo process became an effective cover for Israel’s annexation policy, giving Tel Aviv the green light to build and expand settlements in Palestinian territories.

READ: Tel Aviv punishes PA in response to Turkiye severing trade ties with Israel

President Bill Clinton tried to revive this solution during the Camp David Summit in 2000, but this attempt was short-lived. Tensions escalated following a provocative visit by Hawkish ex-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to the sacred Muslim site of Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa in Jerusalem, sparking the second Palestinian Intifada and plunging the region into a vicious cycle of violence.

Which factors have jeopardised this track?

Many elements have seriously dented this track. For instance, Israel’s demand for the “disarmament” of the potential Palestinian state as a condition for the two-state solution is one of the primary obstacles hindering this option. This condition severely undermines the very idea of a sovereign and independent Palestinian, depriving it of equal standing in international relations.

Another factor undermining belief in the two-state solution is the sceptical attitude of a significant portion of both populations towards peaceful coexistence in a two-state manner. According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Centre (before 7 October, 2023), only 35 per cent of Israelis (including both Jewish and Arab respondents) believe that: “A way can be found for Israel and an independent Palestinian state to live together in peace.” This decrease marks a nine-point drop from 2017 and a 15-point fall from 2013. Among Jewish Israelis, agreement with the statement declined from 46 per cent in 2013 to 32 per cent last year. The drop was sharper among Arab Israelis: optimism fell from 74 per cent in 2013 to 41 per cent by 2023. Additionally, a recent Gallup poll indicated that 65 per cent of Israelis oppose the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

The negative stance of Israel’s current far-right government is the final nail in the coffin of the two-state solution. Netanyahu rejected calls for Palestinian sovereignty over Gaza’s future, arguing that Israel’s security needs are not compatible with the existence of a Palestinian state. Israeli President Isaac Herzog made similar statements.

Importantly, the issue of illegal Jewish settlers in the occupied Palestinian territories also poses an insurmountable obstacle. The number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) has reached around 700,000, as per UN reports. Having close to a million Jewish settlers, alongside three million Palestinians in the occupied territories, is enough to block any future Palestinian state. Paradoxically, there is a deafening silence by the international community about this huge obstacle.

This disparity is further exacerbated by the higher population growth among settlers compared to Palestinians.

Ultra-Orthodox Jews, constituting one-third of the settlers, have a fertility rate of 6.5 live births per woman in Israel. In comparison, the current fertility rate among Palestinians stands at around 3.8 births per woman. If this demographic trend persists, by the middle of the century, the Israeli and Palestinian populations in the West Bank could be equal. Therefore, the likelihood of accommodating a Palestinian state without the Israeli government dismantling illegal settlements and relocating settlers within the pre-1967 borders diminishes day after day.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Many more issues plague the two-state solution, and successive Israeli governments made sure to debilitate this agreed-upon peace plan. Therefore, it is time for the international community to start punishing the Israeli decision-makers for crippling this solution and oblige Tel Aviv to make a U-turn on such obstructive and prejudicial policies.

OPINION: The ‘Made in Israel’ right to self-defence

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.