International, Political

Ceasefires and the Two-State Solution: Path to Peace or Political Strategy?

As we approach the anniversary of the brutal genocide in Gaza, it is clear that ceasefires have become the international norm as the default solution for the region. The conflict in Palestine is one of the longest-standing in modern history, and with each outbreak of violence, calls for a ceasefire and a two-state solution resurface, often presented as potential routes to peace. However, the historical and political context of these solutions suggests they serve more as strategic tools than genuine resolutions. A ceasefire and a two-state solution might seem like inevitable outcomes, but for whom is this truly an end? For Israel, the US, and Arab rulers, these strategies often reflect deeper political interests rather than any real concern for long-term peace or justice for Palestinians.

Ceasefires: Political Strategy, Not Peace

Ceasefires have been a recurring feature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While portrayed as steps towards peace, in reality, they are often used to manage the conflict rather than resolve it. Historically, ceasefires have been employed to prevent escalation, reduce pressure on Israel, or protect American geopolitical interests. These truces tend to follow cycles of intense violence, offering temporary relief without addressing the core issue of occupation. But for whom are these ceasefires truly intended?

  • For the US, a ceasefire often means calming tensions in the Middle East to preserve American influence in the region. The US has used ceasefires to manage Arab and Palestinian outrage, preventing popular uprisings or movements that could destabilise regimes allied to Washington’s interests. A ceasefire can also buy time to pursue broader objectives, such as reinforcing alliances or reasserting control over the region’s political landscape.
  • For Israel, a ceasefire serves as an opportunity to regroup militarily and strategically. By halting hostilities on their terms, they can maintain the status quo, control the pace of the conflict, and plan their next moves. Ceasefires give Israel breathing space to consolidate gains, expand settlements, and fortify its position in occupied territories.
  • For Arab rulers, ceasefires provide a way to placate domestic populations who sympathise with the Palestinian cause. By supporting ceasefire agreements, they can appear supportive of the Palestinian struggle while avoiding direct confrontation with Israel or the US. These governments often lack the political will or military capacity to challenge Israel, preferring inaction and the status quo while Palestinian suffering continues.

Historical Examples of Ceasefires

Several ceasefires over the years demonstrate how temporary halts in fighting have served broader political purposes:

  • The 1949 Armistice Agreements: Following Israel’s War of Independence, the ceasefire agreements between Israel and its neighbours—Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria—were not a resolution of the conflict but merely a pause. The Palestinian issue was left unresolved, and the armistice lines became the foundation for future tensions.
  • The 2014 Gaza War Ceasefire: After 50 days of intense fighting between Israel and Hamas, a ceasefire was brokered by Egypt. While it temporarily ended the violence, it did nothing to change the fundamental dynamics of occupation, blockade, and resistance in Gaza. In fact, Gaza’s situation worsened after the war, with increased destruction and further entrenchment of the blockade.
  • The 2021 Gaza Ceasefire: Similar to previous ceasefires, the 2021 agreement halted the immediate bloodshed but did not address the underlying causes of the occupation. Instead, tensions continued to simmer, leading to expectations that future confrontations would be even more severe.

The pattern is clear: after every ceasefire, the next round of violence becomes more intense and devastating. Rather than offering a genuine path to peace, these truces seem to act as temporary releases of pressure, after which hostilities resume in a more lethal form. The failure to resolve the core issues—Israeli occupation, Palestinian displacement, and unequal rights—means that each ceasefire is merely an interlude before the next crisis.

The Role of Key Actors in Ceasefires

  • The US: Historically, the US has positioned itself as a broker of peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but its actions reveal a different agenda. By consistently providing military and financial aid to Israel, the US has enabled Israel’s occupation and expansion of settlements. While advocating for ceasefires, the US is often protecting its own strategic interests, such as maintaining regional stability and securing energy resources, rather than pushing for a just solution. Washington’s history of supporting autocratic regimes in the Middle East further demonstrates its commitment to preserving the status quo rather than addressing the root causes of the conflict.
  • Arab Rulers: Arab governments, particularly those in Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf, have largely abandoned the Palestinian cause, despite paying lip service to it. These regimes, reliant on US support and wary of challenging Israel militarily or diplomatically, often support ceasefires as a means of containing public anger within their own borders. Arab rulers have consistently failed to take meaningful action to protect Palestinians, focusing instead on maintaining their own power and stability.
  • Israel: For Israel, ceasefires are a way to manage the conflict on its own terms. By controlling the timing and terms of each ceasefire, Israel can dictate the course of the conflict. The ultimate goal for many in the Israeli political establishment is the realisation of a “Greater Israel,” encompassing not only the current state but also parts of the West Bank and Gaza. For Israel, ceasefires are a tactical tool that allows them to pursue this vision incrementally while avoiding international pressure to make concessions.

The Two-State Solution: An Illusion of Equality?

The two-state solution has long been presented as the only viable path to peace, with Palestinians and Israelis living in their own sovereign states side by side. However, this vision is far from reality. In practice, the proposed two-state solution would likely result in a highly unequal arrangement, with Palestinians living in fragmented, non-contiguous territories that resemble open-air prisons more than sovereign states.

  • Gaza as a Precedent: Gaza, under blockade by Israel, is often described as the world’s largest open-air prison. While it is technically under Palestinian control, Israel maintains strict control over its borders, airspace, and maritime access. Gaza’s economy, infrastructure, and social services have been crippled by years of siege and periodic bombardments. If a two-state solution were to materialise, the West Bank could face a similar fate, with Israel retaining control over security, borders, and key resources.
  • Control of Authority: Under most two-state proposals, Israel would maintain a military presence in the Jordan Valley, effectively cutting off the future Palestinian state from the outside world. Israel would also retain control over Jerusalem. This level of Israeli control would prevent the Palestinian state from exercising true sovereignty, leaving it dependent on Israel for security and economic viability.
  • Economic Dependence: A two-state solution would likely cement the economic dependence of Palestine on Israel. Israel currently controls imports, exports, and movement in and out of the Palestinian territories. A future Palestinian state would face similar restrictions, limiting its ability to develop independently. This imbalance of power would leave Palestine in a perpetual state of subservience to Israel, unable to achieve true autonomy.

Ceasefire and Two-State Solution – An End for Whom?

A ceasefire may provide temporary relief from violence, but history shows it is often used for political manoeuvring rather than a step towards lasting peace in the Middle East. Likewise, the two-state solution, while appealing on paper, offers little more than a continuation of the current inequality under a different guise. The real winners in these scenarios are those who benefit from maintaining the status quo—Israel, the US, and Arab rulers. For the Palestinians, these so-called solutions offer little hope for genuine self-determination, justice, or peace.

In the end, the conflict will not be resolved by ceasefires or an unequal two-state solution, but by addressing the root causes of occupation that fuel the cycle of violence. Until then, each ceasefire and proposed solution serves merely as a brief pause in a conflict that shows no signs of truly ending.

Need Help?

Leave a Reply