We will soon have to revisit the two-state solution

In the heavens above the Middle East, the Angel of Death is circling. Heavens above: hell below. A week ago, it appeared certain that a ground invasion of Gaza was imminent. Hamas had attacked by land, sea and air. It seemed inevitable that Israel would return the compliment, with added ferocity.

Now, everything is less clear. Mr Netanyahu’s rhetoric remains belligerent, with little room for compromise in his war aims; the defanging of Hamas so that it could never again repeat its recent atrocities. So why is he holding back? 

Clearly, there have been councils of moderation from Washington and Riyadh – and probably also from Rishi Sunak, though it is easy to overestimate the extent to which any Israeli Government will listen to any European. But the point will have been made. Hamas was expecting an invasion and had made preparations accordingly. So if your enemy wants you to do something, is it wise to comply? Is there not a risk that the invasion and the tunnel system could turn into an almighty trap?

That is the voice of caution. Yet there is another risk. If this conflict peters out, leaving Hamas in power, still with its tunnels and the capacity to smuggle in more materiel, while its potential ally Hezbollah retains its armoury and the constant threat of a second front, would this not mean that Israel had suffered a strategic defeat? Admittedly, there could be a deal which saved the lives of many Israeli hostages. But would that be a sufficient strategic consolation? Would it not confirm what the West’s enemies have already come to believe: that we fear death more than we will sacrifice for victory? There is nothing in America’s recent dealings with Syria and Afghanistan to rebut that claim.

What a mess. As the immediate outcomes are so unclear, let us occupy ourselves by returning to the longer-term. In pursuit of its desire to destroy Israel, Hamas had a middle-term goal: to sabotage the Abraham Accords and prevent a diplomatic rapprochement between Israel and the Arab States. 

For the time being this has happened. Yet there was always a problem with that noble venture. Over the years, a lot of Arabs had grown fed up with the Palestinians. The problem seemed insoluble. There was an endless waste of time and money, plus a further factor. Although the Palestine degringolade may have been desperate, it did not seem serious. So why not allow it to grumble away? Hamas had other ideas. By killing a large number of Israelis, they launched a successful appeal from the Arab leaders to the Arab street and brought the inherent instability of the region into a renewed and sharper focus. Even before that, the Accords had a problem. Though the Palestinians had apparently been reduced to impotence, they are still there. So the Accords had a missing dimension. 

Despite that, we know what ought to be done. It is time to take a trip back thirty years, to Oslo. 

By 1993, most sensible observers realised that any settlement had to rest on two principles: a security guarantee to Israel and a Palestinian state: the two-state solution. Put like that, it sounds simple and a deal along those lines was struck at Oslo. Thirty years later, it is further than ever from implementation. Over the years, there was too much distrust. as a result, the obstacles, always formidable, have grown worse.

The Israeli settlements have made it even harder to create a Palestinian state on the West Bank. As for the Palestinian failed state, how could Gaza be turned into a viable economy offering its inhabitants a decent existence – rather than a rubbish-dump, a hell-hole where human beings, reduced to despair and rage, are ready to follow the terrorists’ drum. If life offers men no hope they will not behave well.

If their lives appear to be worthless, they will be easily led to inflict worthlessness on others.

So what is to be done? Obviously, attempts are being made to avert an invasion and release the hostages. It is by no means clear that these will succeed. It may well be that we are nowhere near the worst of this current War. But sooner or later, once the blood-letting subsides, we will have to revisit Oslo. 

That has a macabre appropriateness. Among the pleasures of that attractive city are paintings by Edvard Munch including The Scream: a work of art which symbolises so much of modern history. So when will the screaming stop? When will mankind learn to solve problems? (When will America have a decent President?) When will the Angel of Death depart from the Middle East? Not anytime soon.

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life