Perspective 150. Israeli-Palestinian Peace: A Lost Cause?

With the tragic Gaza War reaching its first anniversary, and hostilities extending to four other fronts, there is scant room for optimism. Is there any workable way out of this mess?

Yes. In some ways the bloody present reminds us of the only viable future. Peace will come only with two states, one Jewish and one Arab, in historic Palestine. There have been moments when a clear majority on each side have supported the idea of partition into two states – unfortunately not the same moment, however.

In perspective, the changed strategic landscape of the Middle East is more conducive to Arab-Israeli peace than in the past. The Iranian threat has made some Arab states into supporters of a two-state solution, often working cooperatively (if discreetly) with Israel. The Arab League offered its own vision of such a solution some 22 years ago. The Biden administration was in the process of building a new coalition along these lines before the Hamas attack a year ago upset all calculations for the time being.

More recently, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and former Palestinian Authority (PA) Foreign Minister Nasser al-Kidwa, agreed on a proposed general framework for resolution of the conflict. Both have reasonable claim to represent the mainstream of their respective parties: Olmert comes from a Revisionist Zionist background and led the centrist Kadima Party, while al-Kidwa is the nephew of Yasser Arafat and a long-time PLO leader.

The agreed framework derives from proposals made by Olmert to PA President Mahmoud Abbas in ultimately unsuccessful negotiations of 2007-08, when he was Prime Minister. It envisions two states, based on 1949 Armistice lines (the recognized borders) with a land swap of 4.4% in order to bring some of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank inside Israel, and give the Palestinian state a corridor between the West Bank and Gaza.

In Jerusalem, Jewish neighborhoods built since 1967 would also be an Israeli part of the 4.4%, while the Old City would be put under an international trusteeship that would include Israel, Palestine, and Jordan. The Palestinian state would be demilitarized.

Olmert and al-Kidwa also included ideas for getting out of the Gaza morass and turning the page. Israeli forces would be replaced by a temporary Arab force from states supporting the framework, and a government of independent “technocrats” would administer Gaza until elections could be organized and conducted, perhaps in couple of years. Links to the PA in the West Bank would be negotiated, and a conference of donor states for the rebuilding of Gaza would be needed.

Nothing in this is inherently impossible. The Israeli Knesset recently rejected the idea of a Palestinian state in a majority vote, but a shift of ten-twenty percent in opinion would change the balance. In days gone by, close to seventy percent of the Israeli public supported the two-state solution when it appeared to be attainable. Putting the Old City under international trusteeship would be the hardest sell.

Hamas would of course continue to oppose peace with Israel, but there have been signs that it might accept a “neutral” government in Gaza in return for Israeli withdrawal. And if neighboring Arab states that oppose Islamic extremists chose to cooperate, that would weigh against a resurgence of Hamas.

Tragedies often force people to rethink basic assumptions; the 1973 war led eventually to peace between Israel and Egypt. Perhaps the Gaza War could revive what seems, at the moment, to be unimaginable?

But this will almost certainly require a change of leadership on both sides.

Thus, unfortunately, things will probably get worse before they get better.