The Cost of Peace
"Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will keep it" - Luke 17:33
Ceasefire! This is the word predominant in the media when talking about the cessation of hostilities in Gaza. The current talks hosted by Egypt between the Israelis and Hamas are focused on establishing a more permanent ceasefire. However, a ceasefire is not lasting peace, and from polls carried out among both Israelis and Palestinians, lasting peace seems all but unattainable.
For years, beginning with the Oslo Accords in the early 1990s, the aim of Middle East peace has been a two-state solution with the establishment of a permanent Palestinian state, which would include Gaza and the West Bank. The settler movement and debates over the status of Jerusalem always made the concept of a two-state solution complicated, but in the wake of October 7, polling of Palestinians and Israelis reveal this idea, or rather aspiration, among the majority is dead. The primary cause for this change are security concerns and fears by the Israelis, and the perception that Israel will never be willing to negotiate with Hamas by the Palestinians illustrating a significant trust gap and how can there be trust, when there is always the threat of being attacked.
However, with the death of a two-state solution, what alternatives are there to establish a lasting peace? While seeking a ceasefire is good in the immediate term with the growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, it does not address the underlying security concerns, nor the other issues, such as economic development, that permit the conflict to continue to fester. Furthermore, it is a significant challenge when there is an absence of willing negotiating partners. For all the protesters stating that Hamas was justified in attacking, while Hamas was elected to govern Gaza in the last elections held in Palestine, they have shown no desire to govern, nor any true concern for their own people, outsourcing most normal governmental functions to NGOs and the UN. Instead, much of their energy is focused on waging conflict against Israel. And then you have Israel, where there are a number of different factions each with different agendas ranging from not trusting Hamas as a reasonable partner, to the settlers who do not want a two-state solution because that would require them to leave or become part of a Palestinian state. Neither, seems willing to take a risk and permit themselves to be vulnerable further perpetuating the conflict. Or, as Jesus states in Luke 17:33, each is more focused on saving their lives, rather than a willingness to lose it, which is necessary if there is to be any lasting peace.
It is from this vantage point where I believe the only option is for there to be a one-state solution. Yes, this spells the death of a Jewish state, and crushes the dreams of a Palestinian state. Much will be lost regarding identity, but it is the process of coming together in union where a mutual understanding of interdependency emerges, similar to a marriage. Both exist and have inordinate value to the other, but the relationship thrives or dies based on the ability of each party to work through conflict in an effort for a stronger relationship. Israelis are not leaving and Palestinians are not leaving, despite what radical factions on either side may hope. They are both rooted to the ground and it is the only home they know, but the challenge and the thought of a one-state solution is establishing the space where they learn to co-exist, even thrive, in the presence of the other, but first they both have to be willing to lose and take a risk, which does not seem remotely possible in this moment nor anytime in the immediate future. Though, is it foolish to hope?