Diplomatic observers said the renewed support for a two-state solution showed that attempts to maintain the status quo in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had fallen apart. But they said it was not yet clear whether Beijing – a rising power broker in the Middle East and a long-time proponent of a two-state solution – could play a central role in the peace process.

John Calabrese, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Middle East Institute and an associate professor at American University, said that a “two-state solution” appeared to be the “default option” for Israel and Palestine.

Support for a two-state solution was widespread in 1947 when the United Nations came up with a plan to partition the region into two distinct states, with a Jewish-majority Israel and an Arab-majority Palestine, while the city of Jerusalem would become an international zone.

Arab leaders rejected the UN proposal, and decades-long conflicts between Israel and Arab countries ensued, casting a shadow over prospects for a two-state solution.

The idea saw new light in 1993 when Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation officially recognised each other and started the peace process, with Washington and Cairo brokering a deal called the Oslo Accords.

The Oslo Accords divided the West Bank into three regions, with around 60 per cent of it Israeli-controlled. The Palestinian Authority – set up as an interim governing body for a future Palestinian state – had sole control of less than 20 per cent of the West Bank and most of the Gaza Strip.

But there has been little progress since then as disagreement grew. In 2007, Hamas, which denied the legitimacy of Israel, took control of the Gaza Strip from the Palestinian Authority.

Jean-Loup Samaan, a senior research fellow at the Middle East Institute of the National University of Singapore and a former adviser with the French defence ministry and Nato, described the past 15 years as “the collapse of the Oslo process”, as the election of Hamas in Gaza and the increase in Israeli settlements in the West Bank had closed the window for diplomatic initiatives.

He added that Western governments had considered the peace process to be in a stalemate and had prioritised the war on terror.

Nitzan Horowitz, Israel’s former health minister and former leader of the left-wing political party Meretz, said the idea of a two-state solution was marginalised before the Israel-Gaza war.

“The current Israeli government even openly opposes it. Israeli public opinion, which in the past mostly supported the two-state formula, has largely turned its back on it,” he said.

Faith in a “two-state solution” sank to a historical low on both sides, with just 34 per cent of Israelis and 33 per cent of Palestinians supporting it in 2022, according to a survey by the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research.

Washington, a leader of the Oslo process, has also turned lukewarm about the proposal, especially as Israel has taken steps to normalise relations with Arab nations during US President Joe Biden’s administration and that of his predecessor Donald Trump, Calabrese said.

Calabrese said the Trump and Biden administrations prioritised Israeli-Arab normalisation, security cooperation and economic integration while “turning a blind eye” to the Palestinian issue.

“It had the effect of sidelining the Palestinian issue,” he said.

In the meantime, two trends consolidated – the “ascendancy of a hardline right-wing government” in Israel along with an “impotent Palestinian Authority whose fecklessness and corruption” empowered Hamas, Calabrese said.

But the October 7 attack on Israel proved that the status quo was fragile, said Nidal Foqaha, director of the West Bank-based Palestinian Peace Coalition-Geneva Initiative.

“October 7th constituted a wake-up call to the whole world, but most importantly to Israelis who also believed that all parties, including Hamas, are contained and comfortable with the status quo,” he said.

03:05

Four-year old American girl freed as Hamas and Israel release hostages under a 4-day truce

Four-year old American girl freed as Hamas and Israel release hostages under a 4-day truce

Wu Sike, a former Chinese envoy for Middle East Affairs, said the war had shown that while Israel had “absolute military superiority”, it was difficult to achieve long-term peace and stability through military subjugation.

“The Palestine issue remains at the centre of the Middle East problem … if the issue is not resolved, [conflict] will erupt sooner or later in different forms, regardless of any major changes in the regional and international situation,” Wu said.

Beijing supports a two-state solution based on the “pre-1967 borders”, meaning that all Israeli settlements in the West Bank should be dismantled.

Foqaha said China had “very strong leverage” to play a positive role in bridging gaps and easing the negotiation process, as Beijing has positive relations with both Palestine and Israel.

“Beijing enjoys excellent relations with the two sides of the conflict, with almost all of the relevant regional players and international players,” he said, adding that this positioned China to play a role alongside the US.

Horowitz said Washington would undoubtedly be an essential broker in the peace process, and China’s commitment – including financial and other aid – would help improve the chances of a solution.

The former Israeli minister said if Washington and Beijing could agree on a mutually acceptable two-state solution, it would give the peace process renewed momentum.

However, observers said a “two-state solution” could not be achieved in the foreseeable future as long as the different parties held different views and Israel continued its attempts to eliminate Hamas.

“In the short term, it is not possible to renew the peace process because now the war is still ongoing, and there is a deep mistrust among the parties,” Horowitz said.

He added that progress towards a comprehensive solution to the conflict would only be conceivable after the situation in the Gaza Strip is stabilised, and progress might require political changes in the Israeli leadership as well as for Palestine.

Samaan agreed that the leadership of both Israel and Palestine needed changes for communication to resume, while external powers – especially the US, but also China – could play decisive roles in the future.

“There is actually no reason why Washington and Beijing would not agree on a ‘two-state solution’ in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” he added.

But while Beijing has been outspoken about the need for a ceasefire in recent months, its practical efforts to address the conflict have fallen short compared with those of Washington. So far, no Chinese minister has visited Israel or the Palestinian territories. Aside from a Middle East tour by Zhai Jun, China’s envoy to the region, the country’s diplomatic efforts have largely taken place in Beijing.

Samaan noted that in the latest crisis, Beijing has remained cautious about getting trapped in the dispute. “It did not play any role, for instance, in the hostage crisis,” he said.

China has not condemned Hamas for its October 7 attack, which has led to uncertainty in its diplomatic prospects with Israel and could hinder Beijing’s impact on the peace process.

Fan Hongda, a professor at the Middle East Studies Institute of Shanghai International Studies University, said that given Israel’s current attitude towards Beijing, “I pessimistically believe that it will be difficult for China to play a central role in solving the question”.

Samaan said China’s biggest advantage was that it was “not the US”, meaning that it did not carry the same baggage as Washington in the Arab world.

“At the moment, many Arab countries are frustrated with the US policy and its support to Israel,” he said.