“. . . a review of actual cases shows a whole category of
wars in which the very idea of defeating the enemy [military] is unreal.”
“[i]inability to carry on the struggle can, in practice,
be replaced by two other grounds for making peace: the first is the
improbability of victory; the second is its unacceptable cost.”
Clausewitz
Introduction
The
latest iteration of violence in the Middle East was marked by the Hamas attack on
Israel on 07 Oct and the war that Israel has waged on the Gaza Strip ever since.
There now seems to be no solution to peace other than the two-state solution.
An Israeli state and a Palestinian state existing side by side in peace can no
longer be treated as a dangerous illusion. The reason for this thought is due
to the fact that there are, after all, only a few possible alternatives to the
two-state solution: Palestinian self-rule in both the Gaza Strip and West Bank,
and an eventual political solution that would result in the establishment of a
Palestinian state.
The
Two Extreme Positions
The
two-state solution lies between the two extreme viewpoints. There is Hamas’s
solution, which is the destruction of Israel. There is the Israeli
ultra-right’s solution, which is the Israeli annexation of Gaza and the West
Bank and the dismantling of the Palestinian Authority (PA). Unfortunately, both
sides have not considered each other as having a right to establish a nation,
so conflicts and war have continued.
Israel’s opposition to a non-Hamas Palestinian Authority
governing Gaza and its declared international opposition to the reoccupation of
Gaza by Israel have also prevented any solution.
Stepping away from the extremes is the Conflict Management’
approach pursued for the last decade or so by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu, which aimed to maintain the status quo indefinitely, but the world
is witness to just how that has worked out.
There is also the idea of a binational state, ending
Israel’s status as a Jewish state. Bi-nationalism in this context expresses the
idea that the land should be transformed into a secular state, a
constitutional-liberal state, with Arabs and Jews co-existing in a secular
democratic system. Its famous maxim is ‘One Land for Two Peoples’, and its most
famous proponent was the Palestinian American writer Edward Said. This is
distinguished from the two-state solution, according to which two states, one
Israeli and the other Palestinian, coexist next to each other. [1]
But can these alternatives resolve the conflict without causing even greater
calamities?
Two-State
Solution
US
President Joe Biden and his top national security officials have repeatedly and
publicly reaffirmed their belief that it represents the only way to create
lasting peace among the Israelis, the Palestinians, and the Arab countries of
the Middle East.[2] The call for a return to
the two-state paradigm has been echoed by leaders across the Arab world,
countries of the European Union, Australia, Canada, and even Washington’s main
rival, China.
India's Permanent Representative to the United Nations,
Ruchira Kamboj, articulated India’s position in Mar by stating, "Only a
two-state solution, achieved through direct and meaningful negotiations between
both sides on final status issues, will deliver an enduring peace. India is
committed to supporting a two-state solution where the Palestinian people are
able to live freely in an independent country within secure borders, with due
regard to the security needs of Israel."[3]
The two-state solution dates back to 1937, when a British
Commission suggested a partition of the British mandate territory, then known
as Palestine, into two states. Ten years later, the UN General Assembly passed
Resolution 181, which proposed two states for two peoples: one Arab and one
Jewish. Although the resolution’s recommended territorial partition, it left
neither side satisfied, the Jews accepted it, but the Palestinians, encouraged
by their Arab state sponsors, rejected it. The ensuing war led to the founding
of the state of Israel; millions of Palestinians, meanwhile, became refugees, and
their national aspirations languished.[4]
But a lack of leadership, trust, and interest on both
sides and the repeated failure to change those realities have made it
impossible to conceive of a credible pathway to a two-state solution. After the
07 Oct 2024, incident, it has become even more difficult. The Israelis and the
Palestinians are angrier and seem less likely than ever to achieve the mutual
trust that a two-state solution would require.
The current ruling coalition in Israel remains opposed to
any such solution. Politics in Israel has also shifted gradually to the right,
with a perception that sections of Palestinians are not reconciled to the
existence of Israel and have opposed compromises in the past.
Notwithstanding these issues, if the conflict is to be
resolved peacefully, the two-state solution is the only idea left standing for
want of a better alternative.
The
Oslo Process
The
idea of a Palestinian state lay mostly dormant for decades as Israel and its
Arab neighbours became preoccupied with their own conflict, one result of which
was the Israeli occupation and settlement of Gaza and the West Bank after the
1967 Six-Day War, which placed millions of Palestinians under direct Israeli
control but without the rights accorded to Israeli citizens. [5]
Eventually,
however, terrorist attacks launched by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)
and an uprising of the Palestinian people against Israeli occupation in the
1980s forced Israel to come to terms with the fact that the situation had
become untenable. [6]
In 1993, Israel and the PLO signed the American-brokered
Oslo Accords, recognizing each other and laying the groundwork for a phased,
incremental process intended to eventually lead to the establishment of an
independent Palestinian state. The two-state solution’s moment appeared to have
arrived.[7]
There was apparently a detailed outline of what the
two-state solution would look like: a Palestinian state in 97 per cent of the
West Bank and all of Gaza, with mutually agreed swaps of territory that would
compensate the Palestinian state for the three per cent of West Bank land that
Israel would annex, which at that time contained some 80 per cent of all the
Jewish settlers on Palestinian lands.[8]
The Palestinians would have their capital in East
Jerusalem, where predominantly Arab suburbs would come under Palestinian
sovereignty and predominantly Jewish suburbs under Israeli sovereignty. The two
countries would share control of Jerusalem’s so-called Holy Basin, the site of
the most important shrines of the three Abrahamic faiths. [9]
But a final agreement on those terms never materialized.
In the end, the edifice of peace that so many had laboured hard to construct
was consumed by violence as the Palestinians launched another, more intense
uprising and the Israelis expanded their occupation of the West Bank. The
ensuing conflict lasted for five years, claiming thousands of lives on both
sides and destroying all hopes for reconciliation.
Prime Minister Netanyahu, who had dominated his country’s
politics for the preceding fifteen years, had persuaded the Israelis that they
had no Palestinian partner for peace and therefore did not need to address the
challenge of what to do with the three million Palestinians in the West Bank and
the two million in Gaza whom they effectively controlled. He sought instead to
“manage” the conflict by kneecapping the PA and taking steps to make it easier
for Hamas, which shared his aversion to the two-state solution, to consolidate
its rule in Gaza. At the same time, he gave free rein to the settler movement
in the West Bank to make it impossible for a contiguous part of a Palestinian
state to ever emerge there.
The Palestinians also lost faith in the two-state
solution. Some turned back to armed struggle, while others began to gravitate
towards the idea of a binational state in which Palestinians would enjoy equal
rights with Jews. Hamas’s version of a ‘One-state Solution’, which would do
away with Israel altogether, also gained greater traction in the West Bank,
where the popularity of Hamas began to eclipse the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas,
the President of the PA. [10]
Abandoning
the Cause
The
Arab states had decided to all but abandon the Palestinian cause. They had come
to see Israel as a natural ally in countering the Iranian-led ‘Axis of Resistance’
that had taken root across the Arab world. This new strategic calculation found
expression in the Abraham Accords, negotiated by the Trump administration, in
which Bahrain, Morocco, and the United Arab Emirates each fully normalised
relations with Israel without insisting on the establishment of a Palestinian
state.[11]
There were also talks regarding the normalisation of ties
between Israel and Saudi Arabia, the custodian of Islam’s holiest sites.
Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United States were also on the brink of a
regional realignment.
The war has changed everything. The assault on Gaza has
immense humanitarian implications. On the West Bank, anger over the war is
compounded by the systematic violence of Israeli settlers who have assaulted
Palestinians and driven some from their homes. Few Palestinians believe that
the Israelis will allow them to build a viable state free of military
occupation.
Conclusion
After
decades of US-led diplomacy failed to achieve the desired outcome, it seemed to
many analysts that the dream had died. But today, a two- or three-state
solution with Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank is a reality that seems to be the
only way forward.
To quote Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, “If you
are angry over what we are doing to face the Palestinian uprising, it is not
that we do not understand. We understand their dreams very well, but
unfortunately, here we have a conflict between two dreams... We agree with the
Palestinians having a dream, but they should understand that it is impossible.”[12]
The atrocities committed by Hamas on 07 Oct now being
replaced by the destruction and deaths caused by Israel. There is thus a
stronger need for a credible process that can eventually lead to an agreement.
Both sides need to understand each other’s dreams.
Continued fighting cannot bring Israelis and Palestinians
closer to long-term peace. There needs to be a concept of victory beyond
military accomplishments. War must be a means to achieve a better reality.
Though there are seemingly unresolvable complexities, a solution cannot remain
‘unresolved forever, for which attitudes need to change.
Wars often don’t end until both sides are convinced that
they are better off coexisting with their adversaries than confronting them.
The fact is, no one can predict how far the two sides are from that point that
can lead to a solution that has eluded them for decades.
Endnotes
[1] Yi LI (2011) Edward Said’s Thoughts
and Palestinian Nationalism, Journal of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies (in
Asia),
[2] Indyk, Martin. “The Strange
Resurrection of the Two-State Solution: How an Unimaginable War Could Bring
About the Only Imaginable Peace.” Foreign Affairs, April 9, 2024. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/palestine-strange-resurrection-two-state-solution-indyk.
[3] “Welcome Any Country Interested in
Using Its Voice to Deter ...?: US.” The Times of India, April 18, 2024. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/us-welcomes-countries-to-deter-russian-offensive-and-help-in-gaza-conflict/articleshow/109415108.cms.
[4] “General Assembly - Question of
Palestine.” Question of Palestine, April 30, 2024.
https://www.un.org/unispal/data-collection/general-assembly/#:~:text=The%20Question%20of%20Palestine%20and%20the%20General%20Assembly&text=The%20question%20of%20Palestine%20was,under%20a%20special%20international%20regime.
[5] “History of the Question of Palestine
- Question of Palestine.” Question of Palestine, April 29, 2024.
https://www.un.org/unispal/history/.
[6] Robinson, Kali. “What Is Hamas?”
Council on Foreign Relations, April 19, 2024. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-hamas.
[7] Indyk, Martin. “The Strange
Resurrection of the Two-State Solution: How an Unimaginable War Could Bring
About the Only Imaginable Peace.” Foreign Affairs, April 9, 2024. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/palestine-strange-resurrection-two-state-solution-indyk.
[8] Ibid
[9] THE
STATUS OF JERUSALEM, Prepared for, and
under the guidance of, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights
of the Palestinian People UNITED NATIONS New York, 1997 https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/The-Status-of-Jerusalem-Engish-199708.pdf
[10] Indyk, Martin. “The Strange
Resurrection of the Two-State Solution: How an Unimaginable War Could Bring
About the Only Imaginable Peace.” Foreign Affairs, April 9, 2024. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/palestine-strange-resurrection-two-state-solution-indyk.
[11] The
Abraham Accords: Israel–Gulf Arab Normalisation. (2020). Strategic Comments
[12] Haider,
Ejaz. “Why War In Palestine Will Continue.” The Dawn, April 21, 2024. https://www.dawn.com/news/1828763.
Major General Jagatbir Singh, VSM (Retd) is a Distinguished Fellow at the USI of India. Commissioned in 1981 into the 18 Cavalry, he has held various important command and Staff appointments including command of an Armoured Division.
Article uploaded on 07-05-2024
Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the organisation that he belongs to or of the USI of India.