The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has persisted for over a century, remains one of the most deeply entrenched and complex disputes in modern history. The two-state solution, which envisions a separate, independent Palestinian state coexisting peacefully with Israel, has long been presented as the key to resolving the conflict.Â
However, despite decades of diplomatic efforts, this vision has not materialized, and the situation on the ground today suggests that it is no longer a viable solution. With violence escalating and geopolitical dynamics shifting, it is increasingly clear that a new approach is required, one that better reflects the lived realities of both Israelis and Palestinians.Â
At its core, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is driven not just by territorial disputes but by deep religious and cultural divides. The conflict is often framed as a battle over land, but it is also about control of sacred sites, particularly in Jerusalem. For groups like Hamas, the conflict is viewed as a religious obligation to protect Islam, with the land seen as a sacred trust that must never be surrendered.
This religious framing of the conflict shapes the strategies of militant groups and complicates efforts to negotiate peace, as both sides see the stakes as existential. Many Palestinian factions, especially those influenced by Islamist ideologies, view the fight as a religious war, further entrenching the belief that the conflict is not just political but a matter of faith. As long as this religious narrative dominates, compromise will remain difficult, and any political settlement will be fragile.Â
Even if Hamas were eliminated as a political and military force, the underlying issues that fueled its rise would not disappear. Hamas is not the only group responsible for violence against Israel; it is part of a broader history of Palestinian militancy. Founded in the late 1980s, Hamas quickly became known for its suicide bombings and rocket attacks, and its refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist.
HOWEVER, HAMAS was not the first Palestinian group to resort to terrorism. Fatah, the dominant faction within the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), also employed violent tactics in its early years, including hijackings and bombings. While Fatah’s methods have evolved, the legacy of militant resistance has left a lasting imprint on Palestinian political culture.
Ongoing and escalating violence
Even if Hamas were dismantled, other extremist groups would likely emerge, driven by the same grievances that have perpetuated decades of violence. The cycle of terror would continue, and a new extremist group could easily fill the vacuum left by Hamas, ensuring that violence remains an ongoing threat.Â
In light of the ongoing and escalating violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel may find itself with little choice but to annex Gaza and the West Bank.Â
For decades, the international community has advocated for a two-state solution, believing that the creation of a separate Palestinian state alongside Israel would bring peace and stability.Â
However, this vision has failed to materialize.Â
Key obstacles such as the entrenched violence of militant groups like Hamas, the internal fragmentation of Palestinian leadership, and the absence of genuine negotiations have rendered the two-state solution increasingly unrealistic. Amid this failure, annexation appears to be a pragmatic option to address the immediate security threats Israel faces.Â
Annexing Gaza and the West Bank would end the fragmentation that has plagued the region for decades. Currently, the Palestinian territories are divided: Hamas controls Gaza, and the Palestinian Authority, led by Fatah, governs the West Bank. These divisions have complicated any attempts at peace, as Palestinians are unable to present a unified position in talks with Israel.
Meanwhile, the ongoing threat of terrorism emanating from Gaza, coupled with the continued instability in the West Bank, has left Israel vulnerable to attacks, including the devastating Hamas assault on October 7, 2023. The result is a situation where both Palestinians and Israelis live in constant fear of violence. Annexation would allow Israel to bring these territories under direct control, ensuring greater security and eliminating the militant strongholds that continue to perpetuate violence against Israeli citizens.Â
Although annexation would present significant challenges, it could provide Israel with a more stable and secure future. It would allow for the dismantling of terrorist groups like Hamas, which has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to use violence as a tool of resistance against Israel.Â
By removing the power bases of such groups, Israel could effectively curb the ongoing cycle of terrorism that has plagued the region for decades. Furthermore, annexation could offer an opportunity to reshape the political landscape in a way that prioritizes security and stability over the unrealistic and unachievable notion of a two-state solution.Â
WHILE ANNEXATION is a controversial step, it may be the only realistic option left to break the cycle of violence. Without a fundamental shift in the balance of power, the cycle of attacks, retaliation, and failed negotiations will likely continue, leaving both Israelis and Palestinians trapped in a seemingly endless conflict. In this context, annexation could serve as a harsh but necessary measure to safeguard Israel’s future and confront the ongoing threat of terrorism head-on.Â
This past week, the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) held an emergency summit in Riyadh to address the growing violence in Gaza and Lebanon. This summit reflected not only the deepening dissatisfaction with Israel’s actions but also a broader shift in regional power dynamics.Â
Saudi Arabia, once a firm advocate for the two-state solution, has become more vocal in its criticism of Israel and expressed support for a rethinking of the conflict. The growing influence of regional powers like Iran and Turkey suggests that the traditional US-Israel alliance is being increasingly challenged. This shift signals a reorientation in the Middle East, where the two-state solution is no longer seen as the answer.
Given the changing geopolitical landscape and the failure of the two-state framework, it is time for the international community to support an annexation that would end the fragmentation of the Palestinian territories, which has only fueled further instability. By bringing both Gaza and the West Bank under Israeli control, the state of Israel would be able to address the immediate security threats posed by militant groups and dismantle the terror infrastructures that continue to undermine any peace process. It would also allow Israel to directly manage the territories and improve security and governance, eliminating the power bases that perpetuate extremism.
While annexation would not be a panacea for all the region’s problems, it would enable Israel to exert more control over the situation, ensure the protection of its citizens, and begin to address the deeper issues of statelessness and inequality that have fueled the conflict.Â
The author is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco.
