On July 18, Israel’s Knesset (unicameral parliament) passed a resolution rejecting potential Palestinian sovereignty and the “two-state solution” that envisions a stable and prosperous Palestinian state alongside Israel. Solution The resolution was passed by a majority (68 votes to 9) the day before the International Court of Justice handed down its landmark, non-binding, ruling. Advisory Opinion On July 19, the UN General Assembly called for Israel to halt its occupation of Palestine in 2023. Classified The International Court of Justice’s ruling that many of Israel’s actions in the occupied territories violate international law is the first judgment to directly classify the illegality of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory. On the one hand, the Court called on states to make a mandatory distinction between Israel and the occupied territories, called on Israel to cease its illegal occupation and settlement activities, and held that Israel is obliged to pay compensation to Palestine for “the damage caused to all natural or legal persons” in the occupied territories. On the other hand, the Knesset resolution declared that it “firmly opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state in western Jordan. The establishment of a Palestinian state in the heart of the Land of Israel poses an existential danger to the State of Israel and its people, perpetuates the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and destabilizes the region.”
Above all, the broad support for this resolution undermines the persistent perception that talk of abandoning two-state coexistence is merely a political ploy for the survival of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the far-right. The support for the resolution by Benny Gantz’s relatively centrist National Unity Party further supports this example. Finally, the fact that opposition leaders (such as the leaders of Yesh Atid and Labor) chose to sit out the vote instead of voting no bodes ill for the two-state idea and how much capital Israeli political parties are willing to invest in it domestically.
past
The Knesset resolution was more than an immediate reaction to the (then) impending International Court of Justice ruling. Numerous resolutions by the UN Security Council and General Assembly, as well as other international bodies, have long maintained that both the Israeli occupation and settlement construction in occupied Palestine are illegal. Historically, Israel has responded to such developments with vocal criticism in words and a worsening of the occupation through increased settlement activity in practice. But what stands out in the Knesset resolution is its explicit rejection of the two-state solution, which is in some ways unprecedented.
Historically, Israel has agreed to this principle, especially since the Oslo Accords (1993, 1995). Even Netanyahu in 2009 approved He advocated for the establishment of a Palestinian state (albeit on conditions that Palestinian leaders found unacceptable), a policy that Netanyahu stuck to in principle in the years that followed, despite resistance from other far-right leaders. I swore They are making it virtually impossible for the Knesset to adopt a decision in favor of a two-state solution. With his own position under strain due to corruption charges and adverse court decisions, Netanyahu is now strongly deny So far, the two-state solution seems to reflect a reliance on far-right parties for political survival more than anything else. The Knesset resolution historically signals a larger, more entrenched approach to Israeli policymaking (beyond Netanyahu).
Historically, when international opinion has converged against Tel Aviv on any issue (including through multilateral institutions), Israel has responded to that convergence with the same level of rejection of that position. For example, when the UN intensified its calls for Israel to withdraw from the territories it has occupied since the 1967 war, Israel effectively annexed East Jerusalem through the 1980 Jerusalem Basic Law and reaffirmed the undivided city as Israel’s capital. Despite the UN Security Council declaring the transfer invalid in Resolution 478 and calling on states not to recognize the new capital, Israel has doggedly negotiated for decades, receiving an additional boost in 2017 when it moved the US embassy to Jerusalem under the administration of Donald Trump. This stance has also been true in its relations with its strongest ally, the United States, on issues where Israel has maintained a critical stance. February, marchand July Earlier this year, Israel announced further expansion of its West Bank settlements after the United States announced Criticized As evidence that the move is a continuation of long-standing efforts, Israel also welcomed Joe Biden when he visited Israel as vice president in 2010. announcement A proposal to build 1,600 new settlements in East Jerusalem (the occupied territories) drew condemnation from the then-Vice President. Now, with growing global criticism, renewed support for a two-state solution, and the International Court of Justice explicitly ruling Israel’s occupation illegal, Israel is rejecting it at the same level, abandoning its previous stance of accepting a solution in principle but attaching its own conditions.
future
A two-state solution is a fact in theory and law. The United States, along with the United Nations, has historically supported the proposal (Antony Blinken). repetition This position was changed after the Knesset resolution. Of the 193 UN member states, 145 recognise the State of Palestine, but India Historically Deepening ties with Israel, especially Noisy express support The Arab stance to insist on Palestinian sovereignty until 2024 is based both on geopolitical pragmatism and on morality and principle. Given the trend toward stability through economic integration that characterized the Middle East before October 7, the current crisis has brought home the need to take advantage of this trend by resolving the most fundamental issues in West Asia’s fault lines before they undermine efforts at stability. The more Israel resists a Palestinian state, the more Arab states will be forced to make an unwanted choice: either give up on a Palestinian state or reassess new formal and informal relations with Israel that are already strained by the disproportionate and unfair military power of the IDF. Indiscriminate Attacks on civilians in Gaza. Conversely, the longer Israel resists a Palestinian state, the greater the risks to large-scale connectivity projects such as the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, which depend heavily on the stability of Arab-Israeli relations.
If Israel’s historical adherence to past decisions regarding Palestinian sovereignty is any indication, Tel Aviv is more likely to intensify its opposition to Palestine in the short term than to withdraw the resolution. In any case, the future of stability in the Middle East is once again tied not only to the issue of a ceasefire in Gaza but to the more fundamental issue of a Palestinian state. It is this fundamental issue that could lead Israel to withdraw its decision in the long term if the political and economic costs ultimately become unbearably high. So far, these costs have been minimal in substance.
Bashir Ali Abbas is a research fellow at the Council for Strategic and Defence Studies, New Delhi, and visiting fellow for South Asia at the Stimson Centre, Washington, D.C. The opinions expressed here are personal.
