What Comes Next in Palestine?

The Israeli-Palestinian issue, with its deep historical roots and complex web of political, religious, and social dimensions, has been a persistent source of tension and tragedy. The events of October 7, 2023 and the following invasion are part of a new bloody chapter in an ever-evolving story.

Which begs the question, "what comes next in Palestine?" How should the chapter end?

Our goal is to give you a platform for your thoughts and visions of what should come next. Below you will find a valuable timeline and links to educate you on the 360 degrees of this two-century problem. It is the context in which your idea will live. We want you to reflect, think through the issue and use the survey below to share your ideas, big and small, on what you think should come next in Palestine.

Many of us are invested in the fates of Israelis and Palestinians because we have friends, family or an interest in seeing an end to suffering in this region. Learning more about the history is a good way to create a proper frame for our thinking. Use the timeline below to refresh your memory or immerse yourself in the details.

Hamas, Netanyahu and the Recent History of a Two-state Solution

Hamas, or the Islamic Resistance Movement

Hamas' stance on the two-state solution has evolved over time, showing a degree of pragmatism despite its historical opposition to the state of Israel.

Initially, Hamas envisioned a Palestinian state encompassing the entire territory of the British Mandate for Palestine, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. However, in agreements with Fatah in 2005, 2007, 2011, and 2012, Hamas indicated a tacit acceptance of the 1967 borders and previous accords between the PLO and Israel. This included signing the 'Palestinians' Prisoners Document' in 2006, which supported a Palestinian state on all territories occupied in 1967, and recognizing the President of the Palestinian National Authority's authority to negotiate with Israel. In 2017, Khaled Mashal, chief of the Hamas Political Bureau, declared the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders (West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem) as acceptable, though Hamas would not recognize the statehood of Israel or relinquish their goal of liberating all of Palestine​​.

The debate over whether Hamas would recognize Israel is ongoing. While Hamas leaders have stated they do not recognize Israel, they indicate a de facto acceptance of its presence. Many scholars believe that Hamas's acceptance of the 1967 borders implicitly recognizes Israel. This shift in stance was further underscored by statements from Ismail Haniyeh, a senior political leader of Hamas, and Khaled Mashal, indicating a willingness to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, albeit with certain conditions like the resolution of the refugee issue, the release of Palestinian prisoners, and Jerusalem as its capital​​​​.

In a broader context, Hamas has made statements supporting the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, with diplomacy preferred for achieving this goal. They have expressed support for political gains made at the U.N. that do not harm national Palestinian rights. Importantly, Hamas has indicated support for a Palestinian state limited to the 22 percent of the mandate of Palestine represented by the 1967 borders, contingent on approval in a Palestinian referendum. This position is seen as a small step from the formula of land swaps recognized as necessary to accommodate changes since 1967, as long as the 1967 borders are the starting point for any trades​​.

Overall, Hamas' position has shifted towards a more nationalist approach, indicating a willingness to settle for part of historic Palestine rather than the whole area. This approach, which prioritizes Palestinian national interests, suggests that negotiations with Hamas over interests rather than values could potentially lead to tangible outcomes​​.

This nuanced and veiled change of opinion is outweighed by how well Hamas manages Gaza. Despite recieving millions in payments from Iran and other Arab states, the majority of the money goes into the coffers of the organization. Hamas enforces political loyalty with violence. They siphon funds and material from inbound shipments intended for Gazans. Leadership with a genuine interest in the good of the people do not act this way.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu

Benjamin Netanyahu's history with the two-state solution reflects a complex and often contradictory stance, marked by both declared support and actions that undermine its prospects.

In the 1990s, as leader of the Likud party, Netanyahu was a vocal critic of the Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). His first term as Prime Minister following the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 was characterized by dragging out negotiations and increasing settlement construction, effectively undermining the Oslo process. He was also noted for his opposition to the Gaza Disengagement in 2005, resigning from his Finance Minister position in protest against Ariel Sharon's plan to withdraw settlers and soldiers from Gaza​​.

Netanyahu's return to power in 2009 marked a shift in his public stance on the two-state solution. Under pressure from U.S. President Barack Obama, he delivered a speech at Bar-Ilan University stating his support for a Palestinian state. However, the conditions he attached, such as demilitarization, Israeli control over borders and airspace, and the requirement for Palestinians to recognize Israel as a "Jewish state," were seen as unrealistic and effectively stripped the proposed Palestinian state of any real sovereignty​​.

Despite these declared intentions, Netanyahu's actions have often contradicted his professed support. In a 2019 election campaign, he promised to extend Israeli sovereignty over Jewish settlements in the West Bank, which would amount to annexation and rule out a two-state solution. He justified this by claiming Palestinian statehood would endanger Israel's existence and maintained that all settlements were integral to Israel. This move was seen as aligning with his long-standing policy of prioritizing conflict management over conflict resolution​​.

Moreover, by 2014, Netanyahu had dispensed with his earlier willingness to negotiate the creation of a Palestinian state, buoyed by the support of U.S. President Donald Trump. He announced intentions to annex the Jordan Valley and other parts of the West Bank, further diminishing the likelihood of a viable Palestinian state. These actions drew condemnation from Arab leaders and Palestinians, who seek to establish a state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip​​.

In summary, Netanyahu's history with the two-state solution is marked by a pattern of rhetorical support, countered by actions and policies that have significantly hindered its realization. His tenure has seen a significant expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and a move towards policies that effectively negate the possibility of a viable, sovereign Palestinian state.