Hasan Dajah

After decades of conflict and faltering negotiations, the "two-state solution" conference and the announcement of what became known as the political solution have revived hope for the possibility of breaking the political deadlock between Palestinians and Israelis. However, this hope, despite its brilliance, faces a solid wall of realistic and political obstacles, making its implementation a daunting task, and perhaps nearly impossible in the foreseeable future.

Announcing the start of negotiations, in terms of form, is a symbolic step toward transforming slogans into tangible reality, through a Palestinian executive body that will oversee the implementation of the agreements and work to transition from rhetoric to actual implementation. This body will also build the institutions of the Palestinian state, establish a mutual security plan, and achieve economic development that will restore trust between the two peoples. Observers believe that the presence of an international supervisory body could alleviate the mutual suspicion that has marred every previous round of negotiations. The council could provide a permanent framework for monitoring, funding, and mediation, thus granting the political process a minimum level of continuity.

On the economic front, the Palestinians' living conditions appear more pressing than political slogans. The promised state cannot be built on economically exhausted land deprived of its water resources. The recent conference opened the door to a broad development plan that includes agricultural, energy, and infrastructure projects under the supervision of Arab and Western donor countries, in an attempt to transform peace into a tangible economic return for the citizen. However, this vision clashes with the reality of the occupation, which restricts movement and keeps the Palestinian economy hostage to its security measures. This renders talk of a "peace economy" merely an aspiration on paper unless these restrictions are lifted.

The water issue, in turn, poses a real test for any future agreement, as the Palestinian territories depend on shared water resources under Israeli control. Experts emphasize that empowering Palestinians to control their water resources is a pillar of effective sovereignty, not merely a technical item. The Peace Council may have a potential role in formulating new agreements that take into account equitable distribution and environmental sustainability in light of climate change and resource scarcity in the region.

On the Palestinian side, the internal division between Gaza and Ramallah poses the most serious obstacle to any political process. While the Palestinian Authority affirms its commitment to the two-state solution, Hamas continues to reject any agreement that includes recognition of Israel. Analysts emphasize that unifying Palestinian decision-making and rebuilding the political system on democratic foundations are essential conditions for the success of any peace agreement, as the absence of unity means the absence of popular legitimacy, thus rendering any future commitments fragile.

Critical issues such as Jerusalem, refugees, and borders remain open wounds that previous negotiations have failed to address. Jerusalem remains a focal point of symbolic, spiritual, and political conflict, while refugees cling to the right of return, which Israel rejects, and borders are contested by intertwined maps and expanding settlements. Former diplomats believe that ignoring these issues without just courageous solutions will make the Peace Council merely another initiative added to the list of stillborn initiatives.

Internationally, positions have ranged from conditional welcome to cautious support. The United States spoke of an "opportunity that should not be missed," and the European Union called for respect for international law. Key Arab countries such as Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia expressed clearer support for the new path as a gateway to broader regional stability. However, many question the seriousness of international commitments given the major powers' preoccupation with other crises, making political enthusiasm vulnerable to evaporation over time.

Ultimately, it appears that the path to a two-state solution remains fraught with obstacles, and the announcement of the start of negotiations has not significantly changed the facts on the ground: the occupation persists, settlements expand, the Palestinian division persists, and trust between the two sides is virtually nonexistent. As one political researcher in Ramallah put it, "Every peace agreement requires two willing parties and a genuine ability to implement it, and in our case, we have neither the full desire nor the full ability."

However, there remains a glimmer of hope in the scene. The initiative-however fragile, is a reminder that the only alternative is an indefinite continuation of the conflict, which no one can tolerate anymore. Between desire and reality, the unshakable fact remains that a just and courageous solution, if the will exists for it, will remain the only way to grant Palestinians and Israelis the chance for the normal life that future generations deserve.