Knesset’s rejection of Palestinian state further alienates Israel’s allies

In an utterly unnecessary act of defiance, Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, last month voted by a decisive majority to reject the establishment of a Palestinian state and, with it, the notion of a two-state solution to the more than century-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It was an empty gesture that further damaged Israel’s already badly dented international reputation, which has suffered immensely as a result of the way it is conducting its war in Gaza and its delaying tactics over reaching a ceasefire deal there, as well as for its moves to expand the settlement policy while turning a blind eye to settler violence against Palestinians.

What was the purpose of tabling and passing a resolution that states that “the establishment of a Palestinian state in the heart of the Land of Israel would constitute an existential threat to the State of Israel and its citizens, perpetuate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and destabilize the region?” Beyond defying those in Israel and across the world who support Palestinian statehood, it was a populist move to push into a corner the centrist and more left-wing parties, but even more the parties that represent the Palestinian citizens of Israel, in what amounts to some sort of distorted loyalty test in the midst of a war.

Those far-right coalition members who tabled the resolution equated support for the establishment of a Palestinian state with treason or treachery, which is extremely problematic, especially at a time of war. The absurdity of this Knesset resolution, passed by 68 votes to nine, is that it altogether rejects the establishment of a Palestinian state, even as part of a negotiated settlement with Israel, and hence enshrines a situation of perpetual conflict — and not only with the Palestinians.

What nobody needed was an unnecessary, extremely damaging and provocative act by the Israeli legislature

Yossi Mekelberg

For the Likud party and its coalition partners, their explicit rejection of the idea of a Palestinian state came as no surprise, but for a party such as Benny Gantz’s National Unity, which fashions itself as an alternative to Likud, it raises the question: In what sense is it a genuine alternative to the current government? Moreover, and even more shamefully, opposition leader Yair Lapid’s center-left Yesh Atid party abstained on the vote, even though only two years ago, during his short stint as prime minister, he stated from the podium of the UN General Assembly: “An agreement with the Palestinians, based on two states for two peoples, is the right thing for Israel’s security, for Israel’s economy and for the future of our children.”

Even the more left-leaning Labor Party followed suit by abstaining, thereby choosing not to make a stand in favor of the kind of peace agreement that its own leaders once aspired to in the Oslo Accords. The only groups to oppose the resolution were lawmakers mainly representing the Palestinian citizens of Israel, namely the Ra’am and Hadash-Ta’al parties.

The right, including the ultra-Orthodox parties, no longer surprise anyone and they did not disappoint their supporters with their opposition to a historic compromise with the Palestinians that would lead to peace between the two peoples. That is what we have learned to expect of them and that is who they are.

However, we are entitled to feel deeply let down by Israel’s centrist parties and those who speak in the name of peace and liberal progressive ideas. While in the midst of the worst crisis in the nation’s history, they have spinelessly refused to present a vision that could free their country from the prison of never-ending war and guide it toward a different future that presents some hope.

Israeli society and politics have undeniably changed since the horrendous events of Oct. 7, 2023, and the collective trauma inflicted by the atrocities of Hamas will linger on for a long time, leaving little room for the revival of a peace camp that calls for a two-state solution as the best way to advance security for all and as a moral imperative. But what nobody needed at this time of ongoing bloodshed and destruction was an unnecessary, extremely damaging and provocative act by the Israeli legislature.

Many Israelis see the potential for peace, security and regional integration should such a solution come to fruition

Yossi Mekelberg

Furthermore, more than ever, Israel at this juncture desperately needs the support of its friends and allies, yet instead it constantly alienates them as it tells them, and the rest of the world, that it overwhelmingly opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state. In which case, the only conclusion — that is also based on what is taking place on the ground in the West Bank and in Gaza and on the statements of Israeli officials — is that Israel is on the march toward annexation of at least the West Bank.

This Knesset resolution, which passed with hardly any objections and none at all from the Zionist parties, is as good as declaring that the objective of the Israeli state is a one-state solution under its complete control. And with the Palestinians living there, especially those in the Occupied Territories, deprived of the same political, human and social rights bestowed on the Jewish population. How, then, can Israel possibly fend off the many accusations of apartheid already being leveled at it?

Ironically, there is a huge discrepancy between politicians from the Zionist parties and the people who vote for them. Even in the immediate aftermath of Oct. 7, more than a third of the Jewish population, according to the Israel Democracy Institute, supported peace based on a two-state solution. And, early this year, a survey commissioned by the Geneva Initiative presented the question: “If an agreement was signed with US support that included: return of the hostages, agreement to establish in the future a nonmilitarized Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and total normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia, would you support or oppose this agreement?” More than 51 percent of those asked replied in the affirmative. In other words, many Israelis have not closed the door on this option and they see the potential for peace, security and regional integration should such a solution come to fruition.

For now, the most pressing issue is to reach a ceasefire in Gaza that would gradually see the end of the killings and devastation of the last 10-plus months and the return of the hostages. Nevertheless, a ceasefire could and should be only a first step toward an eventual and comprehensive peace between the Israelis and Palestinians that ensures everyone’s security and rights, while the reconstruction of Gaza is established as a top priority, as is rebuilding relations between the two peoples.

In order to achieve this, I have yet to see a better way forward than the two-state solution. However, those who stood against it in the Knesset or even cowardly avoided the vote have voted for propagating the conflict and the daily tragedies it brings with it.

• Yossi Mekelberg is a professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg