Even before the end of the fighting, it is clear that one of the achievements of Hamas is the return of the Palestinian issue to the forefront of the international stage, and what appears to be international resolve also on the part of the Western countries, led by the United States, to promote the two-state solution. Recent evidence of this resolve emerged at the meeting on January 22 of the Foreign Ministers of the European Union, to which the Foreign Ministers of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Israe and the representative of the Arab League were also invited. The driving force behind the invitation was Josep Borrell, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, whose effort to resolve the conflict has “burned in him” for a long time, and even more so since October 7 and the ensuing war, joined by severe humanitarian consequences and the fear of the war expanding to other fronts.
At the meeting, Borrell presented a 12-point plan that should lead to a two-state solution. The first step in the “comprehensive” plan is an international conference with the participation of Arab countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the Arab League) and the European Union countries; the United States and the United Nations will also be invited. Israel and the Palestinian Authority will not be invited, and talks with them will be held in parallel. The agreement will be drafted by Israel and the Palestinians, and the intention is to provide both parties with security guarantees and a package of incentives (and, if necessary, “sticks” to complement the “carrots”). The whole process should take about a year.
The rationale behind the Borrell initiative (which has not yet received the consent of all EU members and it is doubtful it will gain consensus in its current form) is that the two sides are unable to conduct negotiations at this time, and therefore the international community must take the initiative and, in Borrell's blunt language, force a solution on the parties. It is clear from Borrell’s statements that he hinges the main criticism of the lack of progress on the two-state solution on Prime Minister Netanyahu. (As an aside, according to Borrell, there should no longer be talk of a “peace process,” rather, talk of a “process for a two-state solution.”) Netanyahu’s refusal to discuss the issue and moreover his refusal to raise an alternative that would be a basis for discussion has aroused much criticism, as evidenced by the comment of the German Foreign Minister (who shows more understanding of Israel's position in the context of the war than many of her colleagues) that the two-state solution is the only solution “and those who oppose it have so far not presented an alternative.”
In conclusion, in the absence of a political vision regarding the day after, Israel will find itself facing a broad international front (including the US) that is more determined than before to act to end the conflict on the basis of two states.
Even before the end of the fighting, it is clear that one of the achievements of Hamas is the return of the Palestinian issue to the forefront of the international stage, and what appears to be international resolve also on the part of the Western countries, led by the United States, to promote the two-state solution. Recent evidence of this resolve emerged at the meeting on January 22 of the Foreign Ministers of the European Union, to which the Foreign Ministers of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Israe and the representative of the Arab League were also invited. The driving force behind the invitation was Josep Borrell, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, whose effort to resolve the conflict has “burned in him” for a long time, and even more so since October 7 and the ensuing war, joined by severe humanitarian consequences and the fear of the war expanding to other fronts.
At the meeting, Borrell presented a 12-point plan that should lead to a two-state solution. The first step in the “comprehensive” plan is an international conference with the participation of Arab countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the Arab League) and the European Union countries; the United States and the United Nations will also be invited. Israel and the Palestinian Authority will not be invited, and talks with them will be held in parallel. The agreement will be drafted by Israel and the Palestinians, and the intention is to provide both parties with security guarantees and a package of incentives (and, if necessary, “sticks” to complement the “carrots”). The whole process should take about a year.
The rationale behind the Borrell initiative (which has not yet received the consent of all EU members and it is doubtful it will gain consensus in its current form) is that the two sides are unable to conduct negotiations at this time, and therefore the international community must take the initiative and, in Borrell's blunt language, force a solution on the parties. It is clear from Borrell’s statements that he hinges the main criticism of the lack of progress on the two-state solution on Prime Minister Netanyahu. (As an aside, according to Borrell, there should no longer be talk of a “peace process,” rather, talk of a “process for a two-state solution.”) Netanyahu’s refusal to discuss the issue and moreover his refusal to raise an alternative that would be a basis for discussion has aroused much criticism, as evidenced by the comment of the German Foreign Minister (who shows more understanding of Israel's position in the context of the war than many of her colleagues) that the two-state solution is the only solution “and those who oppose it have so far not presented an alternative.”
In conclusion, in the absence of a political vision regarding the day after, Israel will find itself facing a broad international front (including the US) that is more determined than before to act to end the conflict on the basis of two states.