Is lasting peace in the Middle East possible without adopting a two-state solution – one Jewish and one Palestinian?
“Peace without the two States is unfeasible”, says, without hesitation, Tiago André Lopes, when asked about what we can expect for the relationship between Israel and Hamas. What has now been announced paves the way for more comprehensive discussions, particularly regarding the political solution for the Gaza Strip. But, for the international relations specialist and professor at Lusíada University, if the solution does not involve the creation of two states, it will be very difficult to achieve lasting peace for the region.
“This would ultimately lead to the frustration of the legitimate expectations of the Palestinian people, expectations that have existed since the 1930s.” The first proposal for the creation of two separate states – Jewish and Arab – appeared in the Peel Commission report in 1937. It was at that time, still with the British commissions, that it was realized that “cohabitation would be impossible and that it would therefore be necessary to move towards a partition process”, recalls the analyst to CNN Portugal. The problem that soon arose, and which led to the abandonment of this idea, is “how is the territory divided? This is a bigger problem. We are almost a century into this process and we still haven’t managed to complete the design of the map”.
To do this, Tiago André Lopes advises consulting the 1967 maps. “It’s a starting point” to start the conversation, he says.
It is recalled that the first partition plan for Palestine was approved by the United Nations General Assembly in 1947, leading to the 1948 Palestine War. As a result, the State of Israel was established in the area that the UN had proposed for the Jewish State, still occupying almost 60% of the area proposed for the Arab State. Israel took control of West Jerusalem, which was supposed to be part of an international zone. Jordan took control of East Jerusalem and what became known as the West Bank, annexing it the following year. The territory that became the Gaza Strip was occupied by Egypt but never annexed. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, both the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip have been militarily occupied by Israel, becoming known as occupied Palestinian territories.
Palestine Partition Plan (UN)
“We can imagine the hypothesis of a plurinational state, but that would mean that there would be a majority Arab population. That’s why this is an impossible, fanciful hypothesis”, says Francisco Pereira Coutinho, specialist in international law and professor at Universidade Nova. The Israeli government would never accept this. Therefore, “the only possible solution, and the one adopted by the international community, is the division into two states”, he argues. However, for this to happen, it would be necessary “firstly for the occupation of Palestine to end and, secondly, for Israel to seriously recognize this possibility. But at this moment they don’t even want to discuss this hypothesis, we are very far from that”, recognizes Pereira Coutinho, admitting that in this situation “peace is compromised”.
Two States: the solution requested by the international community
On Thursday, while Israel and Hamas reached agreement on the outline of a ceasefire involving a further , in Oslo, Norway, delegates from more than 80 countries participated in a meeting of the Global Alliance for the Implementation of the Two-Two Solution States, a structure created last September with the aim of advancing the path to a ceasefire in Gaza, securing the release of Hamas hostages, and identifying specific measures to facilitate the realization of the two-state solution.”
“Promises that a ceasefire is imminent give us hope. However, a ceasefire alone will not resolve the issue,” he said.
Espen Barth, Norwegian Foreign Minister. “While we must do everything we can to end the war, we must also continue the important work of preparing for what will happen when the war is over. Gaza is part of Palestine and must be governed and rebuilt by Palestinians. We must work together to maintain the momentum towards creating rigorous peace through a two-state solution,” he said.
“We need action, not words. The international community must do more to ensure that the two-state solution becomes a reality”, appealed the Norwegian minister.
He wasn’t the only one. Joining a number of other international leaders, President of the European Council, also celebrated the peace agreement, but recalled that the European Union “remains committed to a comprehensive, fair and lasting peace, based on the two-State solution”.
“The entire international community wants a two-state solution, because it is the only chance to guarantee a path to peace”, says Francisco Pereira Coutinho. “If we could get to the solution, not necessarily with these borders, that would be ideal.” If this does not happen, “it means that the Palestinians will continue in this situation of subjugation, of military occupation, without the right to Israeli citizenship but also without sovereignty over their territories.”
Israeli family members of Hamas hostages protest against ceasefire agreement (EPA)
The two-state solution is the one approved by the UN, signed in numerous resolutions, and currently defended by the majority of countries. All that is needed is “a strong international position” to demand its implementation. “What is at stakeIt’s not just peace in the Middle East”, highlights Tiago André Lopes. “This is one of the issues that most weakens the UN’s position as a guarantor of peace.”
“We cannot consider it legitimate, for example, that the Albanians in Serbia have the right to self-determination and the creation of Kosovo, and then consider that the Palestinians have to resign”, says Tiago André Lopes. “It’s not just a question of political peace, it’s also social peace,” he says.
Even with a ceasefire, a solution to the conflict is not in sight
However, it is not predictable that we will be any closer to achieving this solution. “First of all, the three phases of the agreement do not envisage the creation of two states. We know that the North American intention is to retrain the Palestinian Authority, but the deadlines for finding a political solution for Palestine are not defined. It is not worth It’s a shame to continue with political processes without a tight calendar”, considers Tiago André Lopes. Furthermore, he recalls, “Netanyahu is openly against the Oslo agreements and the two states. Therefore, if he continues in power, there is no negotiation possible.” For these reasons, the commentator is quite skeptical regarding the possibility that this now announced agreement will ensure lasting peace.
“The ceasefire agreement is not a peace agreement, it is just the temporary cessation of hostilities”, highlights Francisco Pereira Coutinho. However, “in theory we will only be able to reach the last stage when we manage to find a platform to debate the political future of the Gaza Strip. We need to know who will govern.” This is why Pereira Coutinho is optimistic about the first phase of the agreement, but has less hope for the subsequent phases.
“This American administration has made it very difficult to adopt the two-state solution, even moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Trump seems to be more committed to expanding the Abrahamic treaties. If we had a great political solution in which the Arab monarchies guaranteed the security of Palestine, ensuring that Israel would not feel threatened by a Palestinian state was perhaps a possible and impossible solution.”
Failing to achieve this objective now “will obviously lead to an even greater radicalization of the Palestinian process”, predicts Tiago André Lopes. “This is already the fourth generation of Palestinians who are hoping to have a state. In the West Bank, for example, new movements of young people, more radicalized, are beginning to emerge, who doubt the legitimacy of the Palestinian authority in leading this process” and who are increasingly less believe in a political solution.
