Two-state resolution of Israeli-Palestinian conflict would solidify volatile Middle East | Opinion

Israeli separation wall next to the Shuafat refugee camp

Once Israel's coalition government is in place, peace discussions with Palestine may resume.

(Abir Sultan/EPA)

By Yael S. Aronoff and Saliba Sarsar

The election results in Israel seem, at first glance, to dash hopes of restarting the peace process. But the coalition government has yet to be assembled, and it is unclear what the actual policy positions of that new government will be. What is clear, however, is that a two-state resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to be the one and only realistic path forward, and we hope it will continue to be the stated policy of the new coalition government.

Notwithstanding Israel's election results, there are reasons to have some cautious optimism about future peacemaking efforts. It was reported that in the U.S.-sponsored talks that were suspended a little less than a year ago, Netanyahu had agreed to continue negotiations on the basis of the 1967 boundaries with swaps, a position he long rejected, but, apparently ultimately accepted -despite his subsequent denials. This represented a crucial breakthrough, which brought the Palestinians, the U.S. and Israel into alignment. Whether the new government in Israel can and will come back to this position remains to be seen.

It should be clear to all by now that Israel and Palestinian leadership are incapable of reaching a peace agreement entirely on their own. The U.S. must remain committed to the process. President Barack Obama seemed to have lost hope in serious peace negotiations and did not even mention them in his last State of the Union address. On the other hand, his recent statement expressing his intention of staying involved in this endeavor through the end of his term is encouraging.

Ironically, the regional dynamics are conducive to make progress toward peace. The Middle East is undergoing major upheavals and radicalization, particularly with advances made by the brutal Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. A Shiite Iran with hegemonic and nuclear ambitions has caused deep concern among Sunnis. Therefore, most Palestinians (those represented by Fatah), as well as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states all share common strategic interests with Israel in blocking Iran's influence and preventing the growth of extremist violence. An Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement would serve these broader interests.

The Hamas factor needs to be taken into account. Abbas is placed in a difficult position here. Under pressure from a Palestinian street unhappy about the continuing occupation and the PA's cooperation with Israeli authorities, he entered into a unity agreement with Hamas. However, Hamas' official stance advocating the destruction of Israel and its refusal to reject the use of terror tactics keep it from being an acceptable partner for Israel and the United States. Creative ways can and should be found to overcome this dilemma in order to allow negotiations to take place.

Under President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Egypt is gradually striving to resume its leadership role in the Arab world, despite his moves to impede democratization in that country. El-Sisi has outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood, and sponsored the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas last summer. An Egyptian court recently declared Hamas a terrorist organization. Giving Egypt an expanded role in the process would serve Egypt's interests by further raising its stature, regionally and internationally.

Jordan also has strong interest in resuming peace talks. Jordan is currently burdened with over 800,000 Iraqi and Syrian refugees and the resultant financial, socioeconomic, and educational challenges. The Islamic State is operating near its borders.

Although the Saudi government would never say it publicly, Saudi interests align with Israel's. The Saudis proposed the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, and recognizing this contribution through more direct Saudi engagement is desirable as well.

The only way Israel will maintain its core Jewish identity is for it to relinquish control over several million Palestinians living under its occupation. This is a basic truth, which, if not acted upon by the new government, will need to be pursued by future governments. And the only way Palestinians will achieve their long sought after self-determination and statehood is by taking steps to reassure Israeli citizens that such a step will not threaten their long-term security.

It also is a basic truth that only a permanent conflict-ending agreement based on two states can lead to normalized relations between the Arab states and Israel. This would not solve all the Middle East's conflicts by a long shot. But it would enhance regional stability and advance important U.S. national interests.

Yael S. Aronoff, a Jewish-American scholar, is the Michael and Elaine Serling and Friends Chair of Israel Studies, Director of Jewish Studies, and Associate Professor of International Relations at James Madison College at Michigan State University.

Saliba Sarsar, a Palestinian-American scholar, is Professor of Political Science and Associate Vice President for Global Initiatives at Monmouth University.

Follow The Star-Ledger on Twitter @starledger. Find The Star-Ledger on Facebook.

If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.