6 days ago
29
ARTICLE AD BOX
A status-quo situation allowed for the October 7 attack to take place. It’s time for us all to put on our thinking caps and discuss how we can move forward from here.
By ZVIKA KLEIN DECEMBER 20, 2024 08:24 Updated: DECEMBER 20, 2024 08:50
It’s time for us all to put on our thinking caps and discuss how to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - If not to achieve peace, at least for us to live here securely.
(photo credit: The Jerusalem Post archives)
It’s time for us to have an honest discussion about a three-word phrase that has become a bit of a cliche: The day after.
We are, at least according to leaders of Israel, the US and the negotiating countries, “closer than ever” to an initial hostage deal. There is a ceasefire in Lebanon. Hamas is close to being destroyed in Gaza. Even the brutal Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad has crumbled.
But what now? How do we move forward? How do we restore the faith of Israelis in their country’s institutions? And probably most importantly: What do we do about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
The two-state solution has been the most known or internationally supported solution for our conflict with the Palestinians. But Israelis don’t support such a solution anymore.
Many who advocated for a two-state solution have mixed feelings post-October 7. For example, the Knesset delivered a decisive message in February, overwhelmingly rejecting the unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood. With 99 votes out of 120, this was no mere routine decision but a bold affirmation that extended far beyond the coalition of a government proclamation issued earlier that week.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, switching seamlessly between Hebrew and English, didn’t miss the opportunity to emphasize its significance: “The people of Israel and their elected representatives are united today as never before.”
Support for a two-state solution among Israelis is eroding, as reflected in a Pew Research Center survey published in September 2023 – a month before October 7. The numbers tell a stark story: just 35% of Israelis believed peaceful coexistence with an independent Palestinian state is possible – a steep decline from 50% a decade before.
Among Arab Israelis, optimism has dropped by a staggering 33 points since 2013, while Jewish Israelis have seen a 14-point decline.
After October 7, and in the middle of the longest war Israel has ever had, a survey conducted by the Jerusalem Center for Foreign Affairs (JCFA) in June painted a telling picture of where Israelis stood on the idea of a Palestinian state within the framework of normalization with Saudi Arabia. The survey headline was clear: 64% of Israelis opposed it.
The numbers weren’t surprising but remained jarring. On the Right, opposition was overwhelming at 84%. Centrists were more divided, with 54% against, while just 24% of left-wing voters rejected the idea.
Stay updated with the latest news!
Subscribe to The Jerusalem Post Newsletter
Unsuccessful old ideas
THE PROBLEM is that the Western World still holds by a two-state solution, and Israeli leaders haven’t yet succeeded in finding an alternative solution that is either practical or at least has public support.
A two-state solution, as described by pre-1967 borders, has for many decades been the centerpiece of international peacemaking. Ranging from the United Nations to the European Union, it is saluted regularly as the best route out of the Israeli-Palestinian impasse: Israel keeps its security, and the Palestinians get a state of their own, with their capital is East Jerusalem. Even the United States, while inconsistent in its actions, continues to endorse the concept rhetorically.
The Arab League’s 2002 peace initiative took it a step further, offering Israel full normalization with the Arab world in exchange for returning to those contentious borders. Within Israel, movements like Peace Now and what remains of the political Left once championed this vision, though their influence has waned in recent years. Across the ocean, organizations like J Street and Americans for Peace Now still carry the torch, insisting that freezing settlement expansion is essential to any real dialogue.
Academic think tanks such as the International Crisis Group and even some interfaith leaders have floated innovative approaches to these unique challenges. However, these ideas often stay in the brainstorming sessions, rejected by leaders of different persuasions unwilling to give an inch on their entrenched positions.
There is also the broader vision of regional cooperation with a two-state solution anchored within a wider framework. Egypt and Jordan, at various points, have indicated a willingness to help make it work if Israel shows flexibility. Different US administrations have flirted with wrapping the two-state formula into a broader regional approach in the hope of selling skeptical Arab states on the idea.
RIGHT-WING Israeli politicians and commentators have been recommending annexing the West Bank, an area giving Israeli citizenship to its Palestinians. Their goal was straightforward: Allow Israel to continue as a Jewish state. Proposals going this way, for the most part, exclude Gaza because it has such a hostile and enormous population; likewise, it was then assumed it could self-govern.
Senior politicians like former defense minister Moshe Arens, former president Reuven Rivlin, and Uri Ariel have publicly demonstrated opposition to the division of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and instead supported a one-state solution.
Ambassador to the UK Tzipi Hotovely, who was then an MK, referred to the West Bank as a part of Israel’s historic homeland. Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett supported Zone C’s annexation, comprising 60% of the West Bank that is under the control of Israel. Journalist and former Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick questioned the population figures concerning Palestinians, saying they were inflated and that annexation would add just 1.4 million Palestinians to Israel’s population. Glick, however, favors a one-state solution based on Jewish majority rule but with the preservation of democratic values and protection of minority rights.
David Friedman, former US ambassador to Israel, has introduced a bold new plan for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, titled The Future of Judea & Samaria. Speaking at a convention in Nashville earlier this year, Friedman dismissed the two-state solution as unrealistic and dangerous, particularly after Hamas’s violent October 7 attack. “A Palestinian state is an existential threat to Israel,” he said, adding that “Israel has no margin for error.”
Friedman’s plan outlines a different path forward: Israel would maintain sovereignty over Judea, Samaria, and the Jordan Valley, with complete security control to ensure its safety. Palestinians would be free to govern their daily lives within their communities, with significant development funding from Gulf nations. In addition, the US, Israel, and Abraham Accord countries would work together to expand regional peace and stability.
THE ISRAELI-Palestinian conflict has no shortage of proposed solutions, but each comes with its own complexities. Another suggestion is the confederation solution: A confederation between two independent states, namely Israel and Palestine. Such a model would mean close cooperation between the two states regarding security, economy, and shared resources, presumably including open borders and joint institutions. It requires the right balance between giving sovereignty to both states, ensuring they work together properly, and dealing with freedom-of-movement sensitivities.
The reality for now is keeping the status quo – managing the conflict, not resolving it. It aims at stability, with the avoidance of major escalations. But this is far from ideal: it extends the suffering of Palestinians under occupation, nurtures resentment and radicalization on both sides and may lead to violent flare-ups. Meanwhile, ongoing settlement expansion further erodes the chances of a two-state solution.
Some of the other ideas that could be considered are those that can contribute toward bringing better prospects for peace, which include stabilizing the Palestinian economy to reduce tensions, and grassroots and dialog-promoting programs to build trust and understanding. But after October 7, these ideas seem almost like science fiction – and I haven’t even started getting into the possible solutions for Gaza when the war is over.
If we are really the 'Start-Up Nation,' shouldn’t we be able to think of more creative or probable solutions?
I’ve decided to go on a journey and publish as many suggestions for solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as possible. A status-quo situation allowed for the October 7 attack to take place. It’s time for us all to put on our thinking caps and discuss how we can move forward from here. If you have any suggested strategies, plans, or solutions, I would love for you to email me at zvika@jpost.com
English (US) ·