Israel and Palestine: Should we put off until tomorrow, something which we can't do today?

Is it time to give up on the hope of an immediate and comprehensive problem to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Should the quartet temporarily abandon its quest for a long term solution in favour of a short-term stopgap? In other words, is the current context so inhospitable to a lasting settlement that talk of a two-state solution should be sidelined in favour of securing a new ceasefire agreement?

In a recent policy brief for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Professor Nathan Brown argues exactly that. He declares that the current context is simply not compatible with the negotiation and enforcement of a permanent two-state solution. Between political division, widespread mistrust, and growing disillusionment with the efforts to provide a solution, the factors that constitute the barrier to such a solution are evident for all to see. One of the foundation stones of this barrier is Israel’s and Hamas’ refusal to recognise the others legitimacy. While this impedes the negotiation required for a long term solution it does not, as previous ceasefires have shown, preclude the negotiation of interim solutions.

However, in a recent presentation to the Brookings Institution, Senator John Kerry declared that behind the seemingly intractable conflict lies an opportunity for significant progress. In his opinion, the kernel of this opportunity is Obama administration and the leadership which it can bring to negotiations. Like Brown, Kerry recognises that with the uncertainty surrounding the new Israeli government’s commitment to a two state solution is worrying, but he also believes that there are “four major causes for hope”. The first of these regards the geopolitical consequences of the rise of Iran- fear of Iran’s increasing power has created a willingness among other states to work with Israel. The second of these is Arab Peace Initiative, which could help to create a home-grown framework for peace. The third is the fact that the boundaries of an acceptable solution are increasingly apparent, and the fourth is the dawning of the Obama administration.

Both men acknowledge the reality that a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian must be a regional one. The direction of the next step taken to counter the Iranian nuclear program, stability in Pakistan, and the outcome of the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan will all impact on the composition of any roadmap to peace between Israel and Palestine. However, even with a positive outcome in each of these areas tend to migrate towards Professor Brown’s stance. The rejuvenating power of the “Obama effect” has been diminished by the severity of the economic crisis, and the orientation of the new Israeli government threatens by its very nature to fundamentally undermine any efforts aimed at a two state solution.

While a suspension of the audacity of hope would not sit well with the Obama faithful it may well fit more smoothly with an increasingly jagged reality. Nathan Brown suggests a “Plan B” which waylays an approach centred on a two state solution in favour of “bare bones short term agreements and looking then to a medium term armistice”. This plan is based around the belief that these limited term agreements would foster an environment more conducive to the elaboration of a long-term solution. What remains key, independent of the approach chosen, is the inclusion of the Arab states in the process and the economic and political rehabilitation of the Palestinian state.

With each option the end goal remains the same, what changes is the timeframe. There is no denying that the only viable solution is one which proposes two states and which conclusively resolves the border question, the right to return, and Jerusalem. Any acknowledgement that the current situation may indeed hinder moves towards this solution must be accompanied by an iron clad commitment to creating conditions which favour its realisation. As Nathan Browne so aptly wrote “acknowledging and working with current realities does not mean accepting them as permanent”.