The current Biden administration has expressed its strategic desire to keep the objective of a two-state solution alive, however the support for such a political project among Israelis and Palestinians is at a low point.
When President Joe Biden visited Israel and the West Bank, in his recent visit, he emphasized on the importance that the current administration under his command was giving to the establishment of a two-state solution, speaking about a commitment to push forward with such a solution in both his visit to Jerusalem and Bethlehem.
Recent polling of the Israeli and Palestinian positions regarding this scenario is however mixed, with a study carried out by the Israeli Democratic Institute revealing that only a minority of Israeli Jews currently believe and support the two-state solution if it were to put forward as part of a peace agreement today.
Additionally, a survey carried out by the Geneva Initiative in 2021 where it searched the levels of support, or opposition regarding negotiations for a two-state solution found around 51% of the Palestinian population is still in favour of a such an agreement under international support coming to reality.
However, when one analyses the current the various different points of view in the Palestinian side one can also conclude that Palestinian society is even more divided among those asked, with a recent survey carried out by the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research showing that Palestinian support for the concept is also declining.
More specifically, their survey demonstrates that although 2018, about 48% of Palestinians supported the two-state solution if it was put forward as part of a peace agreement in contrast with only 39% of support in the last survey where the question was put last December.
This was a fall from the 2018 survey that indicates that the incremental drop of support for the two-state solution happened while the support for a one state solution took a considerable rise from 2018 where only a small portion of 9% supported a one state solution with equal civic (and political) rights to a 29% in the last survey.
From these studies we can conclude that support from the mainstream of Arab Palestinian society has in its current state reached its lowest.
It demonstrates as well that due to the current developments, from the point of view of Palestinians and their leadership as well as the Jewish Israelis and the Israeli leadership, the development of the situation has reached an extreme point where both sides have a government that is either completely committed to avoiding that solution or simply put incapable of delivering it.
It should be taken into account that when the two-state peace solution is mentioned, one must have in mind that the concept of the two-state solution is primarily based on some variation of the mutual recognition reached between the Israeli government and Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in the 1993 Oslo Accords.
These Accords established that with some clarifications and modifications refers to a model of peace based on the establishment of two states Israel and Palestine along the 1967 war cease fire line as a border.
There would be an exchange of some territories from both sides and populations with the full exodus of Israeli settlers from the West Bank (Judea/Samaria) and a division of Jerusalem that both sides would agree on.
When analysing strategically the political context of the two-state solution one must ask whether under the current security paradigm of Israel and with the situation in the West Bank of settler expansionism the two-state solution is possible or not.
Is it possible to separate both populations peacefully and efficiently without extremism rising according to the parameters laid out by the international community in December 2000 or in the 2008 Annapolis process.
The short answer for such a challenging task is that although under the current context it is highly difficult to carry out such an endeavour, in the very least under a strong effort with a consistent support of the US, part of such a political objective could be achieved- the separation of both populations into two different territories.
This would significantly lower the cases of violence between both communities as it was seen during the beginning of the summer of 2021 during the Jerusalem riots of Al Aqsa and the riots in the mixed cities in Israel between Jews and Arabs and the small war with Gaza.
There are three main strategic challenges when facing the realization of the dual state peace.
Firstly, on the ground there is still clear signs that it is feasible, with 80% of Israelis who live beyond the pre-1967 border line living extremely close to it, it is possible to keep 80% of Israelis where they are without harming the probability of the rise of a Palestinian state.
Palestinian society generally accepts this idea, although there would still be the strategic challenge of relocating about 30,000 Israelis, something Israel is capable of doing it and the Israeli political-military elite would be open to do under the establishment of a long-term peace and is equipped to do it efficiently and effectively.
The second challenge is the political feasibility which faces two critical problems, the biggest of them being that the Israeli state sees itself is not in a position to resume negotiation given that resuming negotiation would go against the mainstream political goals and strategic interests that dominate the Israeli strategic mindset, mainly the control of Jerusalem and the gradual annexation of the West Bank.
Mainstream Israelis have for the most consistently voted more to the right since the end of the last Intifada, and see Arab Israeli with increasing distrust, wanting to live in a society that is as much separated from Palestinians as possible.
In addition, the majority of mainstream Israelis believe for the most part that Judea and Samaria- the West Bank- should be regained since in the perspective of many the West Bank is the original historical homeland of Jews.
Consequently, Israeli demands do not match any of the demands from Palestinian society, which in itself is divided between the leadership of two different entities- Hamas which currently governs Gaza and the PLO which controls part of the West Bank.
The third strategic challenge that the process that the dual state faces is what can be referred as the socio-political dimension, where we face the divisions within Israeli society regarding the issue, with polls showing that although the majority ,61% Israeli citizen’s support two states, close to 20% support the idea of an even greater annexation and the other 20% openly supporting the keeping of the current status quo.
The trend over the last 5 years is that less and less people support the idea of a two-state solution.
Increasingly more Palestinians of the younger generations support the idea of a two-state solution because the believe that through such a political effort there will be more equal rights.
On the Israeli side, most of mainstream Israeli society (80%) opposes this.
From the perspective of the Palestinian civic leadership, such as Huda Abuarquob, most see the two-state solution being the most important one not only because the Israeli occupation as it exist is present on every aspect in Palestinian society.
From their perspective, with a regression since the time of Yitzhak Rabin, claiming that since the assassination of Rabin, Israel has become increasingly more expansionist.
In addition, the Palestinian youth of today, born after the assassination of Rabin and the Oslo peace meeting, do not see the Israeli government as a viable partner, with the majority also not seeing the Palestinian leadership as effective or worth of political faith or trust, either Gaza and West Bank.
Consequently, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Palestinian houses in Jerusalem cannot simply be solely blamed on Israeli leaders and the Israeli government, since the fault is mainly centred strategically speaking around the failure of the Palestinian leadership to create a stable society for Palestinians.
The majority no longer supports the two-state solution, and due to it not being viable or realistic, are moving to support a one-state solution, with civil rights model being the preferred one, although the need for strong partners on both sides that will join forces to change the status quo is necessary.
There are two strategic alternatives that only a limited number of people in Jewish society are currently talking about.
The first alternative is correctly considered by the Israeli side as unsustainable for the peaceful existence of both peoples and this is the one-state solution.
Although it is something that the majority of Israeli society does not accept, this becoming a reality with the annexation of the West Bank.
This is also something that most of the Israeli leadership was aware historically, with David Ben Gurion, the first leader of Israel being aware that after the 1948 war when Israel had strategically the chance to occupy the West Bank that that would be a grave strategic mistake since it would make Israelis the minority in the newly founded state.
If things continue as they are, the long-term effect will be the gradual disappearance of a real Palestinian Authority since it will continue to lose power and become increasingly weaker.
With this context, at the current stage of Israeli expansion into Palestinian territory the West Bank will inevitably be swallowed by Israel, along with the Palestinian population that lives in it that will now carry a societal resistance conflict through subversive means against Israeli society as an ultimate result.
This option is from a strategic point of view unacceptable to the Israeli elite, since it would put Jews at the mercy of an Arab majority and exposed to constant danger.
The other option which is the only viable path is the creation of a real actual border between the two people, which would not mean that both sides would have an independent country for each other, but rather be both autonomous with a clear border separating each other.
Most of the Israeli public does not understand this dilemma to the full extent and only wish to be separated to maximum extent possible from Palestinians due to the fatigue from riots and terrorist attacks.
Although most do not think of the situation in the following manner, of co-existence e getting to a point of no return.
Not talking to each side and not addressing the various different challenges in an adult and mature manner for a responsible strategic decision-making process is in itself a challenge and thus it is important to put into consideration moderate voices from the Palestinian side as well as from the Israeli talking and addressing the issues in a clear manner to find common ground.
This initiative must be played by an external actor with great influence and that is major power with a presence in the region, and the only major power that has this capability in the region is the US.
Only a serious actor such as the US can thus make this process real, and although the US government has the capability and instruments to create a platform and promote measures and policies for a common understanding for both sides, it is central that it also discourages the expansion of the settlements policy, the main factor making a common understanding between the Palestinian leadership and the Israeli government not possible.
The possibility of the US government taking such a position is however highly unlikely as of now and since the Trump administration that officially normalised the settlements and supported, a policy that the Biden administration has not reversed.
President Biden, in his recent visit to both the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government has made a speech where he made the promise that his administration was committed to advancing the project of a peace agreement under the establishment of the dual state deal.
However, a speech is not in itself enough, peace-making measures must be taken and the current administration is hypocritical since President Biden and his administration have greater challenges where they are putting more resources such as facing Russia through the war in Ukraine and confronting the rise of Chinese power in the pacific.
Furthermore, Biden understands that his promise is not strategically a serious or feasible one under the current paradigm and with the current approach to the reality of the conflict between Palestinians and Israeli society.
He understands that the current reality on the ground in Israel and in the West Banks as well as the present political reality in the Israeli political system is not conducive to allowing a two-state solution to become a reality or even start its process.
Although the announcements regarding financial aid made by the current administration are a positive sign, however it is not in itself enough for the advancement of a peace process between Palestinians and Israeli state.
Currently the Abraham Accords may have raised Israel´s regional profile, there has been a conscious decoupling of the Palestinian issue from the Accords, which in practice has allowed Israel to weaken prospects for a two-state compromise on the ground.
The Israeli political leadership has created in the present time a situation that fits their interest and intends on maintaining it without external pressure to change the paradigm from the US.
By The European Institute for International Law and International Relations.
