Denial of the Palestinian State and the Dilemma of Open Conflict

While the Israeli right declares its pursuit to kill the idea of a Palestinian state in the name of security, it overlooks a dangerous paradox: denying this state not only threatens Palestinians but also leaves Israel's own existence without historical closure, suspended in an open conflict with no clear end.

In repeated statements from the leaders of the ruling Israeli right, a discourse is entrenched that explicitly rejects any political horizon leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state, portraying this option as an existential and security threat to Israel. This discourse, which links preventing a Palestinian state with promoting settlements as a “security belt,” invokes the Gaza experience as a model used to justify the complete closure of any future settlement. However, what appears on the surface to be an expression of security resolve, in its essence reveals a mixture of ideological deviation and strategic shortsightedness, as it reflects a conscious desire to erase any political horizon for Palestinians, without realizing that this path does not provide security, but rather keeps Israel in a state of constant anxiety and an incomplete political and historical existence.

After more than seventy years of conflict, the existence of Palestinians has become a political and historical reality that cannot be bypassed or erased from the equation. Just as the idea of a Jewish state, which seemed like a surreal dream at the beginning of the last century, became a reality due to international transformations and political power, the idea of a Palestinian state, in turn, is no longer a slogan or an illusion, but has become a reality that is entrenched despite all attempts at denial. Denying this reality does not abolish it, but rather increases its complexity and postpones the moment of explosion.

What the Israeli right is proposing today in the West Bank does not represent a security project or conflict management, but rather an open recipe for endless conflicts. The image it seeks to entrench is based on settlements scattered among Palestinian cities and villages, which over decades transform into adjacent and intertwined population centers, requiring continuous and exhausting security measures. This model does not produce stability, but rather generates constant friction, making every street and village a potential flashpoint. It is a continuous fuel for a low-intensity but long-term conflict that drains everyone and does not lead to a decisive outcome.

Insisting on denying the Palestinian state is like trying to burn the only bridge to a stable future. Refusing to recognize Palestinian national rights does not achieve security, nor does it end the conflict; rather, it guarantees its continuation for additional decades. Palestinians exist on the ground, and their continued presence is part of the geographical and historical reality, and any attempt to cancel this reality means a long-term drain on Israel itself, transforming it into an incomplete entity, suspended on the whims of history, and vulnerable to political and demographic fluctuations.

The great paradox lies in the fact that rejecting a Palestinian state is, in essence, a rejection of solidifying the occupation state itself. Recognizing a Palestinian state could have constituted a moment of historical closure for the conflict file, and a final seal on the issue of existence and legitimacy. As for keeping the issue open, it keeps the state itself open to doubt and questioning, as if it has not yet succeeded in transitioning from a project of power to a stable, definitive state, despite the gains it has made in land, support, and international recognition. Political greed, and the desire for more, turns what has been achieved into a burden, and makes the entire project seem doomed to failure not because of loss, but because of the inability to be content.

At the heart of this dilemma, the issue is not about the Palestinian state as a security or political “concession,” but as an indispensable moment of historical closure. States are not measured only by their ability to impose power, but by their ability to end their foundational conflicts and establish their legitimacy within a final and recognized framework. A state that refuses to end its conflict and keeps its existence suspended on managing an open dispute remains, in reality, an incomplete project, not a stable state. From this perspective, denying the Palestinian state not only postpones the resolution of the conflict but also postpones the completion of the Israeli state itself, keeping it in a constant state of testing legitimacy and existence, instead of moving to the stage of a historically closed, definitive state.

The pretext of “security” is often raised to justify this rejection, a pretext almost all political factions in Israel agree upon. However, this claim loses much of its validity when subjected to cold political logic. Security can be ensured, to a high degree, through the establishment of a fully demilitarized Palestinian state, subject to strict international oversight and clear security conditions. Such a solution is neither imaginary nor out of reach; it is within grasp, and Israel possesses the military and technological capabilities to prevent the Palestinian state from becoming any threat. Moreover, any future violation could then be dealt with within a specific legal and political framework, and might be used as a pretext for occupation or annexation measures, instead of remaining in a state of open conflict with no horizon.

I will not try to convince Israelis with this logic, as a wide segment of them adopted it in previous stages, seeing it as the safest way to end the conflict, which led to agreements like Oslo. As for the right, it chose to entrench itself in extremism that leads to the unknown and gambles with its future. History has often deceived the powerful; overconfidence in power, and a feeling of permanent superiority, often lead to ruin. With the increasing complexity of the conflict over time, it has become clear that nothing is guaranteed, especially in light of the rapid changes in the international scene, which portend structural shifts in the global order, foremost among them unconventional American behavior, which increases the fragility of unilateral bets.

The discourse of the ruling Israeli right, which appears on the surface to be an expression of strength and confidence, reveals in its essence the absurdity of a thought that believes security is built by oppression, and that the future can be secured by killing the Palestinian dream. Reality says the exact opposite. Every attempt to eliminate Palestinians means prolonging the conflict, and at the same time means keeping the occupation state suspended, incomplete, as if it is still in the experimental stage and not in the stage of final stability. In the end, it seems that whoever tries to kill the dream of Palestinians is shooting himself in the foot, and in the future of his state, and history does not forgive those who refuse to acknowledge reality when it becomes inevitable.