It has become almost impossible to envisage a situation that would offer the necessary conditions for an end of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. None of the parties concerned—Israel, the Palestinians, the United States, or the international community—have the desire, ability, or legitimacy to launch a political process that would close the door on the occupation.
However, there are indications that the United States and others are beginning to consider initiating a political process after the end of the war on Gaza. President Joe Biden has reiterated his commitment to the two-state solution. That said, this may well remain little more than a U.S. slogan, with little chance of becoming a reality.
To avoid being drawn, yet again, into an endless process, it is worth presenting a different point of view and laying out what would constitute an acceptable package from a Palestinian and Arab perspective. In the absence of such efforts, I fear that Washington’s thinking will remain confined to an outdated framework and will attempt a return to a perpetual form of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations that fail to end the occupation or lead to an independent Palestinian state. If the United States is still looking to promote such an approach, ignoring the events since October 7, it is better to be frank about the futility of this enterprise, because nobody is convinced anymore that it can lead to positive results.
While it seems clear that there is zero chance of a serious political process, it is still useful to outline the features of a plan that would address the main causes of the conflict and lead to an end to the Israeli occupation. The United States, working through the Middle East Quartet—the United States, Russia, the United Nations, and the European Union—or through the United Nations, should begin by declaring that the ultimate goal of negotiations is to end the Israeli occupation and establish a Palestinian state within a timeframe of three to five years. This process of reverse engineering would mean that the Quartet or the UN would define the objective at the outset, before there are negotiations over the steps to achieve it, not over what the objective should be.
The way to put this process in motion is for the international community to commit to recognizing the state of Palestine on the basis of the 1967 borders, through a binding resolution by the United Nations Security Council before negotiations begin. This would prevent Israel from procrastinating and attempting to buy time, as it has done in the past.
Fresh elections would then be needed, both in Israel and in the occupied Palestinian territories, to produce new leaders who are committed to ending the occupation and who have the legitimacy required to conclude such an agreement. Opinion polls indicate that the current Israeli governing coalition would suffer a major defeat in elections today and lose its majority in the Knesset, while the Palestinian national authority can no longer claim to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people, at least until it holds new elections to determine who can.
The rebuilding of Gaza would then be launched in cooperation with the international community, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, as part of an integrated package. Guarantees would be required to ensure that Israel does not destroy the territory’s infrastructure again, as it has done many times. An international fund would also be set up to help Palestinians remain on their land in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, and to prevent their forced displacement, which the international community claims to oppose.
It is evident that this plan is very ambitious, but these elements represent the bare minimum of what would be required if the international community truly wants to end the occupation and establish a Palestinian state. The reality, however, is that the absence of such international will, coupled with Israel’s intransigence, makes implementing such a proposal almost impossible. Therefore, the most realistic scenario is that Israel will continue to reject ending the occupation while the international community continues to pay lip service to the two-state solution, without taking the necessary measures to achieve it.
The situation will continue to deteriorate toward an all-out armed conflict. This would pit an Israeli government that does not hesitate to engage in the mass killing of civilians, backed by armed extremist settler groups that have already begun ethnically cleansing Palestinian areas in the West Bank and Jerusalem, against a young generation of Palestinians who have lost hope in any Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories or the fulfillment of their national aspirations on their land. This generation increasingly believes that armed struggle holds more promise than a never-ending political process that yields no results. Such armed resistance had already started in the West Bank months before the October 7 attack by Hamas, and is likely to continue and spread throughout the Palestinian territories.
The Palestinians’ current demographic majority within the territories controlled by Israel will continue to grow, especially given the fact that Palestinian women, on average, have four children, compared to three for Israeli women. This trend will continue until the international community recognizes that Israel is overseeing a racist, apartheid system.
As all hope of establishing a Palestinian state fades, while the Palestinians refuse to remain under perpetual occupation, they will begin to demand equal rights in a process similar to what took place in South Africa. Their efforts would be aimed at building a new binational state of Palestinians and Jews, rather than dissolving themselves into the current Israeli state.
Israel will continue to reject this demand, as did the government of South Africa. It will keep in place a system of apartheid and minority rule over the majority, while constantly working to displace the Palestinian population. The Palestinians will resolutely push back against such endeavors. They will be supported by Jordan and Egypt, both of which will keep their borders with the Palestinians closed to prevent Palestinian land from being emptied of its population. International public opinion will, belatedly and over time, crystallize into opposition against apartheid, just as it refused to accept such a system in South Africa.
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict would thus be resolved demographically, perhaps along the lines of a Belgian- or Swiss-style confederation. This would enable Palestinians to accomplish their national and political aspirations without seeing their identity disappear into that of Israel. It is clear that there can be no quick or easy solution to the conflict for as long as the international community accepts the occupation. If the world continues to ignore the basis of the conflict, it will eventually be forced to deal not only with the occupation itself, but also with the system of apartheid it has wrought. History has shown us where that can lead.
