Until Israel rids itself of Netanyahu, forget a two-state solution

By Michael Day

As the more powerful actor in a two-party conflict, the onus is on Israel to turn to compromise and political discourse

The deaths of 24 Israel Defence Forces (IDF) soldiers in Gaza in a single day may pale in comparison to the vast total death toll of this three-month war. But it will add disproportionate pressure on Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu to compromise in a conflict in which he has been utterly deaf to calls for restraint or reason.

Many Israelis and moderate voices in Netanyahu’s war cabinet want to prioritise the release of hostages in Gaza over a sustained bombardment that appears more effective in causing humanitarian disaster than annihilating Hamas, the group responsible for the 7 October mass killings.

Netanyahu has been resisting calls for a ceasefire. Far-right ministers in his coalition oppose a deal to gain the hostages’ release from Gaza as it would require the release of all or many incarcerated Hamas members. And Netanyahu needs the extremists’ support for the coalition to survive. He is widely blamed by the Israeli public for the catastrophic security failings that allowed Hamas to attack with impunity on 7 October.

The press has been quick to remind Netanyahu of his comments to a Likud party meeting in 2019: “Anyone who wants to foil the establishment of a Palestinian state needs to support the strengthening of Hamas and the transfer of funds to Hamas.” We know how that ended.

Netanyahu would probably be comprehensively defeated in a general election. And out of power he would be more vulnerable to the prosecutors trying to nail him on corruption charges.

On all sides, pressures are growing on Netanyahu – from the US and its allies, from the Israeli public and from within his war cabinet. These will only increase if, as expected, a formal proposal delivered by the Egyptian government for the release of the hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners and a long-term cease-fire emerges.

In an attempt to pre-empt this, the Israeli government has reportedly suggested a pause in its military offensive against Hamas for up to two months, in exchange for a phased release of the remaining 100-plus hostages in Gaza.

Without an end to the fighting, the Arab states will not begin to even discuss the Strip’s reconstruction. Arab leaders, under pressure from their own public, also need signs that Israel is prepared to change course from the past two decades and start to discuss a long-term political solution to its interminable conflict with the Palestinians.

A post-war peace settlement with the Palestinians – let alone a genuine attempt to allow them their own state – is probably the last thing on Netanyahu’s mind. Despite the chaos and horror, he appears more concerned with his own political survival, which perversely is guaranteed only for as long as the current conflict continues. 

On Sunday, the UK Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said it was “disappointing” that Netanyahu has announced he is not in favour of a Palestinian state. But in his very next breath Shapps underlined why neither he nor anyone should be surprised or disappointed by Netanyahu’s intransigence. “In fairness, he [Netanyahu] has said that all of his political career, as far as I can tell,” Shapps told Sky News. Shapps’ comments encapsulate Western cant and complacency towards the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The US makes periodic murmurings about the need for Palestinian statehood. But its one-sided role as protector and funder of Israel has undermined this (although even Washington’s patience must have limits). Biden is now under fire from Democrats for supporting Israel’s demolition of Gaza, which has killed over 1 per cent of the population and is effectively recruiting the next generation of antisemitic militants.

Reports suggest Netanyahu told Biden that he has not entirely ruled out the creation of a Palestinian state. But Netanyahu’s office then noted that any such development would revolve around a Palestinian state without full sovereignty – and therefore not a state at all.

It was the token nature of statehood offered in Clinton-era peace plans that saw them ultimately collapse in 2000. Almost a quarter of the century on, the status quo hasn’t changed. And Israel is relying on the same defence strategy of deterrence, surveillance and ruthless retaliation. But it failed spectacularly on 7 October, as Israeli security expert Uri Bar Joseph has noted in a thorough dismantling of Israel’s strategic failure.

“What’s missing is the political component, whose role would be to reduce our enemies’ motivation to go to war against us,” he says. “The only answer to the security problems in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is a peace agreement and the two-state solution.”

Israel needs to accept reality. As the more powerful actor in a two-party conflict, the onus is on it to turn to compromise and political discourse. But it can’t begin the long slog towards the light while the political considerations of Israel’s prime minister stand in the way.

The decades-long Israel-Palestinian conflict needs a political solution. But until Israel rids itself of Netanyahu, that conversation can’t even begin.