Three moves that could put a two-state solution within reach

In the aftermath of the recent Iran-Israel war, the prospect of peace between Israelis and Palestinians seems ever more distant. While the world focuses on the resolution of cross-border conflicts, history shows that it will be the internal politics of all parties that will ultimately drive change for the better.

After months of mass protests against Netanyahu’s anti-democratic government, the horrors of October 7, and the devastating war that followed, I became convinced that at 63, I would never witness a peace agreement.

Yet, in the past month, I have started to reconsider – not because the situation has improved, far from it – but because history shows that moments of crisis can spark seismic political change.

The Middle East is no stranger to dramatic political shifts. The first significant example is the transformation following the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Six months before, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat had declared, “the stage of total confrontation with Israel is to begin”. After heavy casualties, Israel eventually repelled the Arab forces. Though militarily inconclusive, the war had profound political consequences.

Just four years later, in November 1977, Sadat stunned the world by declaring he was willing to travel to the ends of the earth to protect Egyptian lives. In an unprecedented move, he traveled to Israel’s Knesset, becoming the first Arab leader to address the Israeli parliament. By September 1978, the Camp David Accords were signed, and in March 1979, Egypt and Israel formalised peace.

In just over five years, the geopolitics of the region had been transformed.

Another pivotal moment came with the 1987 First Intifada, which erupted after two decades of Israeli occupation. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza began a mass uprising of civil disobedience and violence, reviving the exiled Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). By 1993, following direct talks in Madrid and secret negotiations in Oslo, the Oslo Accords were signed, marking the first mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO.

In his speech, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin declared, “we who have fought against you, the Palestinians, we say to you today in a loud and clear voice: Enough of blood and tears”. The hope sparked by the Oslo Accords paved the way for the Israel-Jordan peace treaty of 1994.

The third transformation followed the collapse of the 2000 Camp David Summit. The failure of talks, coupled with Ariel Sharon’s provocative visit to the Temple Mount, ignited the Second Intifada. Over the next five years, more than 3,000 Palestinians and 1,000 Israelis were killed, and the conflict became more entrenched.

However, amid this violence, the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative emerged. Unanimously adopted by the Arab League, it offered Israel full recognition in exchange for withdrawal from occupied territories and a just resolution to the Palestinian refugee issue. Though rejected by the Israeli government, this proposal marked a radical shift in Arab attitudes and suggested that even in the darkest times, new possibilities can arise.

More recently, the 2020 Abraham Accords saw Israel establish diplomatic relations with the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco, further demonstrating how both internal and external incentives can drive momentum for peace.

In short, the Middle East is capable of change, often when it seems least likely.

For such a breakthrough to occur, three conditions — two international and one domestic — must align.

The first revolves around the role of Saudi Arabia. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) holds extraordinary influence. Only he could propose a multi-Arab peacekeeping force to take over Gaza — on the condition that Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank hold free and fair elections for the first time since 2007 — which could be transformative.

Such a move would allow Gazans to finally reject Hamas and the West Bank to replace the deeply corrupt and unpopular Mahmoud Abbas. A fresh, credible Palestinian leadership could emerge — one with the legitimacy to engage in real negotiations. Only MBS has the authority to create a proposal that neither faction could easily refuse.

The second piece of the puzzle lies in Israel’s domestic politics. A surprising figure has emerged: Yair Golan, a former deputy chief of staff, and a hero of October 7 after he drove south and helped rescue Nova festival party goers and others.

Now leader of the new Democrats party (third largest in recent polls), Golan has consistently advocated for ending the Gaza war, ending the occupation, and turning to a two-state solution.

The radical — but plausible — strategy could be this: Golan publicly reaches out to MBS, offering to discuss Saudi-Israeli normalisation that includes a path to Palestinian statehood. Then, either publicly or through back channels, he would encourage MBS to initiate demands for new Palestinian elections. At the same time, Golan would approach Israel’s ultra-Orthodox parties with a bold deal — support a two-state solution in exchange for permanent exemption from military service.

The combination of these two initiatives would be a renewed focus on achieving a two-state solution with security in Gaza protected by the multi-Arab peacekeeping force.

The deal with the ultra-Orthodox parties is not just political horse trading. It’s pragmatic. Peace would reduce the need for a large standing army. And for the ultra-Orthodox, this has been their core demand for years — one Netanyahu has dangled but never delivered.

Such a deal would fracture the current governing coalition and force new elections. Even with Netanyahu’s current bump in popularity after the Iran war, this move could usher in a peace-oriented government ready to break the stalemate.

Of course, none of this is easy. Deep-seated mistrust runs through every layer of this conflict. Israeli trauma from October 7, the rise of radical settlers in the West Bank, and the unbearable suffering of Palestinians in Gaza all cast long shadows. Many, understandably, cannot yet imagine peace.

But history tells us the unimaginable has happened before.

In March 1973, Sadat flying to Jerusalem was unthinkable. In the early ’90s, the idea of Israel shaking hands with the PLO seemed absurd. Boldness created those moments. Caution and the status quo continue to kill innocents.

Peace is not inevitable. But it is possible. If we want to bring home the hostages, end the humanitarian nightmare in Gaza, and restore dignity and security to both peoples, we must be willing to think radically.

The October 7 massacres were 50 years after the outbreak of the Yom Kippur war. So now imagine that Sadat’s visit to the Knesset could be mirrored by November 2027, by a newly-elected Palestinian President speaking to the Knesset and that by March 2029 we could have a signing of a peace agreement on the lawn of the White House between two sovereign states, Israel and Palestine.

Unthinkable? Only if we let it be so.The time for despair has passed. The time for bold thinking — once again — is now.