In his speech to the 12th meeting of the EU-Israel Association Council meeting, held on October 3, for the first time in ten years, Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid, reiterated his commitment to the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This came days after Lapid delivered a speech on September 22 at the United Nations General Assembly in which he pushed the two-state solution to the center of global attention once again. He said that "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," adding that a large majority of Israelis support the vision of this two state solution.
This was the first time since 2016 an Israeli prime minister has spoken about the two-state solution at the United Nations. In 2016, at the same forum, then-prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu voiced his support for the two-state solution.
A comparison between Netanyahu’s 2016 and Lapid’s 2022 speech can perhaps offer an explanation why Lapid’s speech caused such an uproar in Israel. Some claim that Netanyahu spoke about the two-state solution as if it was something from the past, while Lapid showed enthusiasm to the solution not typical of Israeli officials over the past 13 years i.e. since Netanyau became prime minister in 2009.
A Reference Solution
The two-state solution is a point of reference approved by the international community for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It derives its legitimacy from United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 of November 22, 1967 calling for Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied during the 1967 war.
The solution envisions an independent State of Palestine peacefully coexisting alongside Israel. The proposed Palestinian state would be established on the June 4, 1967 border to include the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem i.e. on 22% of the lands of historic Palestine, while the Israeli state would include the remaining 78% of land.
The 2002 Arab Initiative and the roadmap proposed by the Quartet on the Middle East, which consists of the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia, were both based on this solution. The mentioned roadmap proposes the establishment of a Palestinian state by 2005 in exchange for putting an end to the Intifada uprising and freezing Jewish settlement in the Palestinian territories.
However, currently the implementation of the two-state solution is facing challenges due to the sheer size of the issues that have to be resolved before involved parties approve the solution. These include the return of Palestinian refugees and the resulting crucial demographic changes, as Israel is concerned over the rapid growth of the Palestinian population within the 1948 border, which can undermine the future Jewish state if it stops expanding. The biggest point of contention in the two-state solution is the status of Jerusalem, a highly sensitive issue revolving around the significance of the holy city for parties of the conflict.
According to some views, to implement the two-state solution Israel needs to introduce radical changes to its settlement policy and withdraw to the 1967 border, currently an unrealistic move from an Israeli perspective, due to the ongoing settlement activity in the West Bank, on the western side of the Jordan River.
That is why some Israeli researchers are talking about the so-called “one-state solution”, which envisions a one bi-national state for Israelis and Palestinians with one common identity for all. Israel’s perception of the implementation of this plan was explained by Minister of Defense Benny Gantz in his speech before the Munich Conference in February 2022 where he reiterated rejection of the pre-1967 borders for an Israeli state, adding that the Palestinians can have an “entity”, but not a full-fledged state, and that Israel will respect their sovereignty and governance.
Various Reactions
Lapid’s support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict drew an array of reactions reflecting each party’s position on the peace process as well as personal attitudes towards Lapid. These can be outlines as follows:
1- Harsh criticism from the right wing:
The reactions to Lapid’s statements have less to do with the content than with the contenders on the right side of the political spectrum fighting for their constituents’ votes and trying to look tough. Opposition leader Netanyahu criticized Lapid because he is “bringing the Palestinians back to the forefront of the world stage and putting Israel right into the Palestinian hole.” Netanyahu said that the right-wing government led by him had removed the Palestinian state from the world agenda.
The outrage also came from within Lapid’s coalition government. Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported that some officials have reservations about Lapid’s initiative, and that they were surprised that he did not consult with them before delivering his speech. Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked, a member of the Jewish Home, which, according to polls, is likely to lose the elections, spoke out against Lapid whom she said had no legitimacy to advance such policies and “to complicate matters with words which will damage Israel.” Justice Minister Gideo Sa’ar followed suit saying that the endorsement of a terrorist state in the West Bank will endanger Israel’s security, and that a majority of the Israeli people won’t allow it.
2- Support from the left wing:
Chairwoman of the far left-wing Meretz party Zahava Gal-On called Lapid's address a “historic speech,” pledging that her party will stand behind Lapid to help realize his vision to put an end to the suffering of both Israelis and Palestinians. Diaspora Affairs Minister Nachman Chai welcomed Lapid’s speech at the UN as excellent, and stressed that there is no future for the State of Israel as a democratic Jewish state without separation from the Palestinians. Lastly, leader of the Labor Party Merav Michaeli called Lapid's speech "Zionist, important and strategic for the state."
3- Cautious reactions from the Palestinians and the Arabs:
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas appears to have been surprised by Lapid’s statements, and have taken a confused attitude. After describing the statement as positive, he backed down and attacked Israel blaming it for failure of the peace process throughout all stages, since the days of the Oslo Accords.
Saudi Prime Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan welcomed Lapid's support for a two-state solution, but stated that it must be translated into actions, and stressed that peace requires direct dialogue between the Palestinians and Israelis.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry, in an exclusive interview with Al-Monitor, commented on Lapid's speech at the UN saying it is not enough to declare one’s intentions. He expressed the hope that that the new Israeli government will endorse the two-state solution and effectively reinitiate negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, and implement them.
4- International support:
US President Joe Biden and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau welcomed Lapid’s statements. Biden described Lapdi’s speech as a courageous statement, while Trudeau said that a two-state solution – with Israelis and Palestinians living in peace, security, and dignity – is in everyone’s best interest.
The American Jewish Committee, or AJC, said a durable two-state solution is the only realistic resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while the New York-based Israeli Policy Forum released a statement saying that the organization “applaud” Lapid for “unambiguous commitment to two-state solution.
Multiple Implications
An analysis of Lapid’s declaration on the two-state solution, which used a more serious and solemn language and is not based on actual diplomatic efforts, outlines three key implications for Israel’s domestic landscape.
1- Diplomatic implications:
In his speech at the United Nations General Assembly, Lapid addressed the world leaders saying “a large majority of Israelis support the vision” of a two-state solution.
Yet, polls say otherwise. According to a poll by Israel’s Channel 12, 49% of Israelis oppose the deal, 28% support it, while 23% of respondents said they don’t know.
Another poll conducted by Israel’s Channel 13 showed that 43% of Israelis oppose the two-state solution, 39% support it, while 18% answered that they do not know.
Regardless of Lapid’s consideration for the Israeli public opinion, he appears to have phrased his speech for diplomatic reasons to present himself as the level-headed purveyor of Israeli policy with whom the Jewish state’s friends at the UN can live, according to The Jerusalem Post, which can give him diplomatic reputation among other world leaders, and suggest to those concerned with the peace process that he maybe has a real peace project.
Some believe that Lapid, through his speech, also wanted to give some hope to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who is very much interested in the peace process, in light of the worsening security situation in the West Bank and Israel’s concern that the situation would be further inflamed during Jewish celebrations.
2- Ideological implications:
The Jewish News Syndicate, or JNS, said that with just 29 words, from the stage at the United Nations General Assembly, temporary caretaker Prime Minister Yair Lapid may have completely changed Israel’s fifth election landscape from the first four election cycles over the past two-and-a-half years. The paper added that the first four inconclusive elections all focused on one issue and one issue alone: whether then-reigning Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was fit to continue serving as Israel’s premier? Since Netayahu returned to power in 2009, and during election campaigns, no essential differences have re-emerged between Israel's left-wing and right-wing camps over major security and diplomatic matters. Yet, following Lapid’s speech at the UN, a clear difference between the two camps resurfaced i.e. even at the level of reactions to his speech. Some even believe that the issue of the two-state solution has the strong potential to become the defining issue of Israel's fifth election cycle.
The right-wing’s view is that Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank will never lead to peace. Rather, it will lead to the creation of a hostile anti-Israel state in the Jewish Nation’s Biblical heartland.
On the other side, Israel’s left-wing politicians want to be dissociated from the Palestinians at any cost, in the hopes that ceding territory and creating a Palestinian state will somehow protect Israeli democracy and end dangerous and Western talk that Israel is some kind of apartheid state.
Although he has positioned himself as a "centrist" with the help of Israel's predominantly left-wing media, Lapid espouses both left-wing and progressive views, and brought back the issue that has defined the difference between left and right since former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin signed the Oslo Accords in 1993.
That is why Lapid’s speech may have changed the election paradigm from "anybody but Netanyahu" to an essential issue which is the future of Israel and the peace process.
3- Electoral implications:
Many analyses associated Lapid’s speech and his electoral position. All public opinion polls have shown that Lapid is unlikely to form the new government with politicians that now form his current government. Either Netanyahu has a modest opportunity to come back to power or all will reach a dead end where no camps can win a majority enabling them to form a new government.
While Lapid is not the only potential frontrunner from the camp opposing Netanyahu to lead the new government, he is viewed as the undisputed leader of this camp, especially because he managed to remove Netanyahu from the premiership after 12 years at its helm. The camp opposing Netanyahu is widely ideologically diverse and the spectrum goes from the far left-wing Meretz party to the center-right National Unity Party led by Gideon Sa'ar. In each of the last four election cycles, this camp won an average of 50 seats in the Knesset, but according to recent polls they may not go over this average. This means if Lapid’s party Yesh Atid managed to increase its share of the votes, it would be at the expense of other parties of the camp.
Overall, the conclusion is that Lapid will not have to change his strategy and use mobilization rather than trying to persuade voters to back his party. His statements appear to have been designed for this purpose. That is, he wants to mobilize voters who ideologically back him or those who were not previously enthusiastic enough to cast their ballot. But his statements about the two-state solution may spur this bloc and push it to the ballot box to make a difference for him. In short, Lapid’s speech may represent an attempt to give hesitant centrist voters or non-voters a reason to go to the ballot box, a bet that Lapid may see as his best opportunity.
Overall, considering hardships preventing the two-state solution or even resuming relevant negotiations amid the current political composition, the most logical likelihood is that Lapid’s desire to make a huge difference in the next Knesset elections to his favor. And even if and when Lapid won the premiership and wants to adopt once again the two-state solution, his success will largely hinge on the composition of his new government and its approval with such a plan.
