Year XXXVII, Number 1, March 2024

Piergiorgio Grossi
Regional Secretary in Liguria of UEF-Italy

There are countless positions and analyses by political scientists and journalists on the war in Palestine. Some start from analyses that refer to historical events that date back decades, others limit themselves to starting from last October 7^th, but the characteristic feature of these analyses is the search for responsibilities, errors and faults of one party or the other.

It is rare to hear voices that raise, without preconceptions, the problem of a lasting peace after the end of hostilities. If we want to build a road to peace, we cannot start by pointing to an enemy. Those who want peace must support both the Israeli and the Palestinian circles who want the coexistence of the two peoples.

Almost all commentators and diplomats, from the UN to the EU, and even the Pope, after calling for a truce, indicate the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel as the road to peace, a solution now defined as that of “two peoples, two states”.

Are we sure that the simple establishment (if ever possible) of a sovereign Arab-Palestinian state, independent of Israel, can ensure peace in that land in the future? The historical experience of both Europe and other continents demonstrates that divisions into national states, in the presence of conflicts between them, sooner or later lead to wars, and even more so in our case between two states divided by historical grudges, territorial disputes, religious, linguistic and ethnic conflicts.

The events of the last 15 years have highlighted two major obstacles to the "two peoples, two states" hypothesis:

1- the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel scares the Israeli public opinion and ruling class, which, after the aggression of 7 October by Hamas, associates the idea of a Palestinian state (as Gaza was considered) with that of a constant danger of attacks against their security.

2- the policy of allowing Jewish settlers in the territories of the West Bank, who have reached the number of 600,000 people spread across approximately 250 different settlements, has made it very difficult, if not impossible, to make the settlers, and therefore Israel which supports them, accept in the future their belonging to a Palestinian state. Even the hypothesis of dismantling the Jewish settlements and give the land back to the Palestinians appears fanciful, given the importance of the settlements. Equally difficult is that a future Palestinian state will accept the status quo, namely the current astounding fragmentation of the West Bank territory, with vast areas controlled by the Israeli army.

So, if "two peoples, two states" is not a realistic option, is there another way for the two peoples to coexist?

Yes, it exists! It's called the Israeli-Palestinian Federation; it may apparently seem even more unrealistic than the two states, but if we stop and think about it, it is the only way to lasting peace, because it would guarantee security and rights to the two ethnic groups, something not guaranteed by the existence of two states. Certainly the construction of a federation is subject, like other solutions, to conditions yet to be achieved during the constituent federative process. I would single out at least three of them.

1 - A credible international guarantee is needed, which should be given by the EU (the territory's main trading partner) and the neighboring Arab countries. The USA and Russia cannot be considered unbiased guarantors.

2 - Like all Federations, it requires the existence of two state entities that recognize each other and have the authority to sign the federal pact; therefore, the Palestinian State must be established, but it can be accepted in the perspective of being part of the Federation, not as an independent sovereign State potentially hostile to Israel.

3 - As happened with Europe, which began its federative path starting from the sharing of its strategic resources of coal and steel (the ECSC), also in the Middle East area the common sharing of water and energy resources will be a precondition in the negotiations of the constituent process.

The realization of these three conditions is certainly not simple: the European Union has not yet equipped itself with a foreign policy that makes it a reliable partner; however, the push towards the abolition of the right of veto in foreign policy has become very strong in view of future enlargements, boding well for the future.

The neighboring Arab states do not seem interested in the birth of a Palestinian state, even more so if federated with Israel, but the recent "Abraham Accords" reveal that there may be promising developments in this direction too.

The recognition of the legitimacy of the State of Israel, already signed by the Palestinian National Authority, is still questioned by Hamas, whose policy, however, has not had the support it was hoping for from the Arab world, which now considers that policy as an obstacle to Palestinian rights and to peace.

The undeniable difficulties must not prevent us from starting the federal constituent process: the construction of Peace is too important an asset for us to give up.

I am well aware that today the opponents of such a project are predominant both in Israel, where the coalition led by Netanyahu currently in government pursues the goal of a single Jewish state from the Jordan to the sea; and in Palestine, where Hamas, which won the elections in 2006, still enjoys a broad support.

I am also aware that international diplomacy, from the UN to the Pope, does not have this hypothesis on its agenda. It is the pacifists and the federalists, the only components of civil society who place Peace as the supreme goal, who must put on the table the project of the Israeli-Palestinian Federation, open to a broader federal process that could spread to the whole Middle East.