Israel-Palestine: Renaissance of a Two-State Solution

Though my favorite baseball team in Kansas City was always weak, a local columnist used to write every spring that it would win the championship.  I know something of hope’s unreliability as a basis for prediction. But I offer this: there will be a serious chance for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute within five years.

An agreement for Jewish and Arab states to live side-by-side between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River seems increasingly improbable. Last month’s fighting between Israel and the Hamas movement that controls Gaza and simultaneous riots and brutalities between Jews and Arabs within Israel have created a near consensus that the Oslo Process to reach that objective is dead.

Fair enough. Neither side has a leadership or constituency with commitment or capability to conclude that deal. The lack of interest Israel showed under Bibi Netanyahu will not change under a conflicted coalition government dominated by right-wing parties favoring more de facto annexation of Palestinian land. 

Nor are the Palestinians in better shape. Their bitterly divided movements are uninterested in a unified approach to their national problem. President Abbas is in the 17th year of a four-year term. His Fatah, riddled with corruption, has little legitimacy on the West Bank, while Hamas, its popularity renewed by fighting Israel, is less inclined than ever for diplomacy. 

Ever fewer Israelis and Palestinians believe two states are feasible, and their notions of a single state alternative differ wildly. No serious politician in Israel or Palestine, much less in Washington, will propose a comprehensive initiative this year or next.

Nevertheless, a sea change is underway.  Israel has long largely been spared terrorism thanks to the separation barrier and security cooperation afforded by the Palestinian Authority. Fighting with Hamas is only a periodic disturbance. The Palestinian issue featured in no recent election, and Israelis had begun to think they could ignore it, that because the Sunni Arab world wanted an anti-Iran front, they could escape regional isolation without cost to their occupation policy. 

Last month’s first shock was that many Palestinians — not only in the occupied territories but also those with Israeli citizenship or East Jerusalem residency – protested, in some cases violently, in others peacefully, but in common against the varying degrees of inequality they experience. Equally unsettling, Palestinian claims of violated or withheld rights aroused new sympathy in the U.S. among Democrats and Jews.  Desire to support Israel remains bipartisan, but May’s events portend tough debate about support’s appropriate forms and context. 

Israel-right-or-wrong will be a less compelling attitude among traditionally friendly groups, perhaps most notably youths. One-state alternatives are beginning to receive fresh attention, with equality of rights for Palestinians rivaling maintenance of that state’s Jewish nature as the priority for many.

That does not mean immediate political drama. Any Israeli government or Palestinian Authority presently on offer will probably default to expressing interest in new “Oslo” negotiations. Without changes of hearts and leaderships, however, there is no reason to believe in more success than before.

For now, friends of peace should prioritize practical improvements of Palestinian situations, under occupation and within Israel alike, and expansion of educational, social and other grassroots channels to build mutual understanding.

Concentration on Palestinian rights meanwhile will have a churning effect on Israel’s Jews, making it clearer that if both peoples want a single state, the international community will insist on equal rights for Palestinians, the fifth of today’s state with Israeli citizenship as well as the larger number under occupation. 

Israelis will then have to confront seriously the choice ex-Secretary of State John Kerry once described: a democratic but no longer Jewish state or a Jewish but no longer democratic state. 

If they opt for the former, their choice should be respected; if they tend toward the latter, the international community should make known its displeasure and disapproval in concrete terms.

Likeliest, however, is that many Israelis will begin to look anew at the benefits a fair, sustainable two-state solution could bring, including preservation of the Jewish homeland concept. That is the moment at which U.S. and other friends should respond quickly with facilitative support for a new diplomatic initiative.

Equally important, it will be the time to cash in chips with the Palestinians by urging that they seize the moment to pivot away from the temptation of growing international interest in one state back to negotiations for two states.

Many predictions are sketched into this scenario, and politics can take unexpected byways. But Kansas City did win the 2015 World Series. If there are miracles on the field and at the negotiating table in 2025, you read it here first.  

Jon Greenwald, now retired, was a senior U.S. Foreign Service Officer and Vice President of the International Crisis Group. The views here represent his own.