Is it possible to bring peace in the Middle East?

Hamas’s attack on 7 October 2023, Israel’s war on Hamas in Gaza, and now its war on Hezbullah in Lebanon have forced the world to face a difficult reality. The seven million Jews and seven million Palestinians who are, at present, living between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan have every intention of remaining rooted where they are. So, can any political solution be found that allows them to live peacefully side-by-side? 

The state of Israel has around 9.4 million citizens, of whom around two million (approximately 20 per cent) are Palestinian Arabs. In Gaza, there are 2.3 million Palestinian Arabs. On the West Bank, there are 3.2 million Palestinian Arabs and 700,00 Jewish settlers living in around 150 settlements and 190 outposts. Israel’s military occupation means that there are 645 ‘fixed movement obstacles’ (including 49 checkpoints), where Palestinians face humiliating delays. Since October 7, Israel has intensified its occupation and done little to prevent Jewish settlers driving Palestinians off their land.

We’re having to face up to the fact that the present formula - with the State of Israel controlling most of the West Bank - isn’t working and clearly can’t last for ever. This situation has existed since the Six Day War of June 1967 – so long in fact that it’s almost been accepted as normal, and many in the outside world are hardly aware of what it’s like on the ground. Israel’s occupation of Gaza has existed since 1967 and its blockade since 2007.

Most of the world – including most recently the International Court of Justice – considers Israel’s occupation illegal in international law. Although Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, it remains responsible in international law for Gaza as the occupying power.

Because of the events of this last year, the world seems at last to have woken up to the fact that the present situation is intolerable.

Could the two state solution work?

Political and religious leaders all over the world have been calling for the creation of two separate states – Israel and Palestine – as the only long-term solution to the bitter conflict that has been going on for well over a century. 

It sounds very easy: Israel would stay as it is, and a Palestinian state would be created on the West Bank and Gaza, with some kind of corridor linking the two together. But is it as simple as it sounds? These are the main reasons why many commentators have been arguing that the two-state solution has been dead in the water for many years: 

Firstly, the presence of 700,000 Jewish settlers in 150 settlements on the West Bank - and the network of roads that can only be used by them - make it impossible for a viable, contiguous Palestinian state to be created. The West Bank would look like a piece of Swiss cheese, with Palestinian areas looking like a collection of Bantustans. 

Secondly, if a Palestinian state were to be created on the West Bank, and if all the settlements were to remain, it would contain a considerable minority of Jewish settlers, who would inevitably feel that they are second-class citizens – in the same way that the 20% of Israeli citizens who are Palestinian Arabs feel that they are second-class citizens in a Jewish state.

Thirdly, recent Israeli governments have made it abundantly clear that they will never accept the creation of a Palestinian state. They have heard the warlike rhetoric of some Palestinian leaders and suspect that Palestinians would use their separate state as a base from which to attack Israel. 

Fourthly, Palestinians are unable to speak with one voice because of the deep divisions between Hamas, which has been ruling Gaza since 2005, and Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, which have been ruling most of the West Bank. While many Palestinians – and all the countries of the Arab League - are prepared to accept the two-state solution, others are not. The basic demand of all Palestinians is an end to the occupation and the opportunity to determine their own future.

It looks therefore as if the two-state solution has become a kind of mantra chanted by those who either don’t know enough about the situation on the ground or haven’t worked out what it would mean in practice.  

One state?

The only alternative to the present situation and the two-state solution has to be the one-state solution. There are several different models of what it would look like: a single state, a bi-national state or some kind of federation. Belgium and Switzerland are examples of single states which are divided in such a way as to give different parts of the country a considerable amount of independence. 

It’s easy of course to rehearse all the reasons why this must sound utterly naïve, utopian and unattainable. Jews and Palestinian Arabs couldn’t possibly live together in this way when there’s so much anger and bitterness that has built up over the years. Jews in Israel feel that they’re surrounded by individuals and states that are crying out for Israel’s destruction. There’s so much antisemitism around all over the world that the only place where Jews can feel safe is in a Jewish state. A single state would mean t hat Israel would cease to be a/the Jewish state. 

Movements like One Democratic State (ODS) have for several years been responding to these arguments and trying to make a convincing case for the one-state solution. They point out, for example, that by its continuing military occupation since 1967 Israel has already in effect created one single state. In a single state there would be complete equality between citizens of all races and religions.

If Germany and France could make peace after two violent world wars; if pressure from the outside world led to the end of apartheid in South Africa; and if Catholics and Protestants could find a formula that enables them to live side by side in Northern Ireland, is it beyond the wit of human beings to find a formula that brings this intractable conflict to an end? 

This may seem like a totally unrealistic pipedream. It might be many years – even decades – before it could ever come about. But perhaps it’s only when we’re prepared to recognise that the status quo is intolerable, and that the two-state solution is unworkable, that we may be willing to start thinking about the one-state solution.