• Research
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie India logoCarnegie lettermark logo
Technology
{
  "authors": [],
  "type": "pressRelease",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "MEP",
  "programs": [
    "Middle East"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Middle East",
    "Israel",
    "Palestine"
  ],
  "topics": []
}
REQUIRED IMAGE

REQUIRED IMAGE

Press Release

Two-State Solution Talks Dead for Now, Focus Should be Sustainable Armistice

Negotiations over a two-state solution to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have reached a dead end. International efforts should focus on a short-term cease-fire between Israel and Hamas that can pave the way for a sustainable armistice.

Link Copied
Published on Feb 26, 2009

WASHINGTON, Feb 26—Negotiations over a two-state solution to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have reached a dead end. International efforts should focus on a short-term cease-fire between Israel and Hamas that can pave the way for a sustainable armistice, concludes a new policy brief by Nathan J. Brown.

The bitter realities on the ground make an immediate and comprehensive solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict unattainable for now. A new diplomatic approach should be based on three steps: first, a properly negotiated cease-fire; second, a medium-term armistice; and finally, addressing the underlying causes of the conflict during the respite.

Key Conclusions:

  • A new cease-fire agreement must be attractive to both sides. Hamas can be enticed with border openings, freedom of operation in Palestinian areas, and a freeze on settlements, and Israel with a cessation of attacks from Hamas and other groups, combined with a serious effort to halt arms supplies to Hamas.
  • Both have indicated interest in an armistice, but credibility and trust issues must be addressed. Palestinians need assurances that an armistice will not become a permanent solution and Israel must believe that Hamas will not use the time for a military build-up.
  • Enforcement mechanisms—settlement monitoring and border inspections—are key to the armistice.
  • The United States should encourage rather than discourage European and Arab efforts to lead negotiations among Palestinians and between Palestinians and Israelis.
  • A period of relative stability for five to ten years under the armistice could serve as a platform to address the underlying causes of the conflict. Paramount in this stage will be rebuilding Palestinian institutions and democracy.

Brown concludes:

“Acknowledging and working with existing realities must not, however, mean accepting them as permanent. The existing situation is not only short on security and justice; it is also unstable. Things can—and might well—get worse unless the United States and other outside actors couple a realistic view of the present with a serious effort to push for a more promising future. But for the present, they should stop banging their heads against the obstacles to an immediate and comprehensive solution of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Instead, it is time for Plan B.”

###


NOTES

  • Direct link to the PDF: www.carnegieendowment.org/files/palestine_israel_planB.pdf
  • Nathan J. Brown is director of the Institute for Middle East Studies at George Washington University, a nonresident senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment, and a distinguished scholar and author of four well-received books on Arab politics.
  • The Carnegie Middle East Program combines in-depth local knowledge with incisive comparative analysis to examine economic, socio-political, and strategic interests in the Arab world to provide analysis and recommendations in both English and Arabic that are deeply informed by knowledge and views from the region.
  • The Carnegie Middle East Center based in Beirut, Lebanon, aims to better inform the process of political change in the Middle East.
  • Carnegie's Arab Reform Bulletin has been transformed into a full-featured website that offers greatly enhanced search functionality, the option for readers to comment on articles, and frequent news updates.
  • Press Contact: Trent Perrotto, 202/939-2372, tperrotto@ceip.org
Middle EastIsraelPalestine

Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie India

  • Article
    Risk and Retaliation: Israel, Iran, and the Evolving Situation in West Asia

    An Israeli response to Iran’s October 1 attack is imminent. The key question is of its intensity and potential fallout, both within Iran, in terms of nuclear security policy changes, and across the broader region. The coming days are likely to reshape West Asia irreversibly.

      Gaddam Dharmendra

  • Commentary
    India’s View on Soleimani, Iran, and the United States

    For India, the equation is pretty simple: better diplomatic relations between the United States and Iran would let New Delhi deal more smoothly with both countries. A decline in the relationship adversely affects Indian interests.

      Rudra Chaudhuri

  • Commentary
    What Would a Larger Chinese Presence Mean for the Middle East?

    The recent developments around the Strait of Hormuz have once again highlighted the importance of maritime chokepoints and their connection to regional geopolitics.

      Darshana M. Baruah

  • Commentary
    As US-Iran Tensions Mount, What India Can Learn from the Oil ‘Tanker War’ in 1980s

    Last week, Britain impounded an Iranian oil tanker in Gibraltar, claiming that the vessel was carrying oil to Syria in violation of the European Union’s sanctions.

      Srinath Raghavan

  • Commentary
    Under Modi, India Has Shed its Traditional Defensiveness Towards the Middle East

    It has been a rather long learning curve for New Delhi to separate presumed transcendental religious solidarity and the logic of national self-interest in engaging the Middle East.

      C. Raja Mohan

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
Carnegie India logo, white
Unit C-4, 5, 6, EdenparkShaheed Jeet Singh MargNew Delhi – 110016, IndiaPhone: 011-40078687
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.