Let’s, I hope start out agreeing that it should be the goal, assuming security for all involved is adequately assure.
Gaza is going to be hard pressed to rebuild and the mutual security trust that two states would require is hard to imagine.
I also wonder how viable a Palestinian state of two parts is.
Maybe though the aftermath of recent events will create the international pressure to make something happen, perhaps Israel not recognizing Gaza as part of the state but ceding a viable state of the West Bank?
I don’t know whether this thread is the place to discuss what many propose as an alternative goal, namely a one-state solution with equal rights for all residents of the territory. If the OP wants to declare this thread specifically restricted to discussion of outcomes involving two separate sovereign states, I’m good with that.
Regarding such outcomes, the big question in my mind is how the hell Israel expects/proposes to withdraw (all or some of) its settlers from occupied territories in the West Bank in order to restore Palestinian territorial control there.
I mean, IIRC the far smaller task of moving Israeli settlers out of Gaza several years ago was nonetheless hotly contested and controversial. Wouldn’t leaving the West Bank settlements possibly be disruptive enough even to provoke something on the order of insurrection or civil war? (Not to mention all the other reasons that settlement expansion was a bad idea in the first place, and has not gotten better over time.)
I believe Israel has forever rejected a two-state solution even in the face of pressure from the UN and the G7 and the US.
January 23, 2024
The United Nations chief warned Israel on Tuesday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ’s rejection of a two-state solution will indefinitely prolong a conflict that is threatening global peace and emboldening extremists everywhere.
In his toughest language yet on the Israeli-Hamas war, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told a ministerial meeting of the U.N. Security Council that “the right of the Palestinian people to build their own fully independent state must be recognized by all, and a refusal to accept the two-state solution by any party must be firmly rejected.”
The alternative of a one-state solution “with such a large number of Palestinians inside without any real sense of freedom, rights and dignity … will be inconceivable,” he said. - SOURCE
As I recall, perhaps erroneously, they were pretty close to a two state solution during the early 1990s. Maybe no is Netanyahu’s answer now, but ten, twenty, or thirty years from now who can say?
Yeah, but remember that in politics “forever” generally means “unless and until somebody really gets serious about putting pressure on us”.
Dunno. Over the decades, I have been reluctantly developing the impression that talk of a relatively distant path to a two-state solution has largely been a stalling tactic on the part of various Israeli governments. The ongoing expansion of Israeli settlement activity just does not seem to suggest a government serious about the prospect of acknowledging Palestinian territorial rights. I would like to be wrong about that.
I’m fine having that discussed but see it as short discussion. Israel would never agree to no longer being a state “of Jewish character” in any foreseeable future as an existential issue.
And my interest is not in debating if that is right or wrong but what is realistically possible.
My take would be that don’t have to move any more than Israeli Arabs do. They are offered citizenship in the new country and assured of their rights, which hopefully are respected better than Israel sometimes does for its Arab minority.
One suspects … hopes … that Bibi’s days in power are numbered. A new coalition under enough pressure and given enough incentive and security guarantees may change course. Or not. The question of the thread.
Palestine isn’t a viable state now, and won’t be without immense reconstruction and investment,much more than they’ve gotten to date. More than half of Gaza is completely flattened and the West Bank chewed up by settlements. Even if Israel were to withdraw completely (including the settlements) and also stop blockading all, the Palestinians are in no shape to form a viable state, and that makes a 2-state solution overall not viable now.
Then there would need to be a buffer zone administered by a neutral party. I don’t see that happening.
This is the real answer, or half of it. Until Israel has a government willing to negotiate a permanent solution in good faith (that is, not indefinitely delaying), there will never be peace. And the other half is the Palestinians must also have a government willing to negotiate a permanent solution in good faith (that is, not be a local warlord).
Peace is not merely a lack of war. Building peace means giving enough justice to enough people. And I see no viable solutions to reach peace with the current regimes. I’ll have to let others who are familiar with the local polities tell me more of how change could happen. Maybe the peace builders will be given a chance.
I would certainly expect several states in the region to provide assistance to a newly formed Palestinian state. I would also expect the United States would be keen on helping a nascent Palestinian state to find their footing. But you’re right, we can just cut them loose and say “Good luck!”
Honestly a path forward needs a stable good faith partner yes but cannot hold out for there not being warlord elements, it has to able to control for them and provide security for all despite their existing.
My presumption is that there will continue to be those committed to genocide of Israelis and an overlap of those who care less about that than using the cause for personal power.
The good faith partner has to be able to keep those elements under control. Same other way. There will be extremists unhappy on the Israel side. Israel must control them completely. And settlers who choose to stay will have to be subject to the legal system of Palestine for any violence they engage in.
Getting both sides security guarantees that are believable is part of the large ask. A buffer zone likely is not enough.
It is tautological, yet tells us nothing, that an any-number-of-states solution is viable should it be pushed by decisive parties who will ensure that corruption and extremism is rooted out, aid pours in, etc.
Note that, at present, no Israeli or Palestinian governments are competent to deal with this in any way, shape, or form, and why would a third party want to get involved?
With all due respect to violent settlers, the army can brush them aside without too much trouble. They are hardly an issue at the negotiating table, unless someone has an ulterior motive for insisting they be there.
I’m going to admit here that I have a great deal of cynicism when it comes to the Israel/Palestinian situation. It’s been this way my entire life and part of me expects this conflict to continue in perpetuity. When the Palestinians attacked this last time I wanted to ask Israel, what did expect to happen?" But then I wanted to Palestine who are currently suffering and ask them about their recent offensive, What did you expect to happen?
It just seems like an intractable problem and I haven’t seen a viable way out since the early 1990s when it seemed like peace was so close. So I’ve grown used to the situation as is and cynical. And being cynical isn’t helpful. But I’ve got to believe one day they’re going to get tired of killing one another. Hopefully before one side or the other is driven from the river to the sea.
I do not see these two statements being reconcilable. If the past decades have proven anything, it’s that there are too many extremist dumbfucks in leadership positions on both sides who cannot live together. I don’t see how one can avoid this conclusion given the history of the conflict dating back at least as far back as 1948 and even earlier.
Replacing Netanyahu will not change things substantively. I do not believe any government in Israel could be part of statehood negotiations with the Palestinians and retain support. Even if they tried, they would fail owing to extremist sentiment and actions on one or both sides.
I’m inclined to believe there is no viable two-state solution (if there ever was one). There is no viable negotiated solution. Hamas (and Iran) want to destroy Israel. Israel wants all the land. Nobody truly gives a fuck about the Palestinians.
I believe Israel is in the process of fulfilling its manifest destiny. Like the settlers in the American West, they are encountering setbacks augmented by much better and more lethal technology than the Native Americans ever had. Still, if current trends hold (and there is a slight possibility they could change), I believe Israel will ultimately succeed at some point – don’t know when - in taking over Gaza and the West Bank. What will happen to the Palestinians? No idea. I don’t think most Israelis really care (and certainly none in leadership). Whatever happens to them, they won’t become Israeli citizens.
The bottom line here is always depressingly the same. There’s enough land and barely enough resources to sustain everybody. All they have to do is not try to kill one another. History shows this is asking too much. “Can’t we all get along?” The answer is no, they can’t. Consequently, both sides reap what they sow and it is axiomatic that others end up suffering as well.
I think a BIG part of that is there are powers in the region which have no interest in seeing Israel and Palestinians make peace.
Maybe in a vacuum of just those two a solution could be found. But, as long as other regional powers want to see the strife continue, it is almost trivially easy for them to keep stirring the pot. As such, I doubt a solution will ever be found without a much, much broader re-alignment of politics in the Middle East and I don’t see that happening for a long time and (probably) not without a lot of violence along the way.
It’s not an accident that leaders on both sides are extremists. Netanyahu won multiple elections, and although Hamas is unpopular, polls show it’s not because of their stance on Israel. There’s too few people on either side who even want to resolve the situation, if that means compromising on their aims - and that’s why I’m pessimistic about achieving any kind of solution in the short or medium term.
Get that Theocratic crook out of office and things may change.