Dr. Hisham Al-Arou
The Palestinian cause summarizes a century of conflict between two opposing projects: a Western colonial–settler project cloaked in Zionist slogans, and a revolutionary Arab–Palestinian project that has sought to resist dismantling and displacement. From the Balfour Declaration in 1917 to the Sharm El-Sheikh Summit in October 2025, initiatives and negotiations have come and gone, with the slogans evolving from “Land for Peace” to “Economic Peace.” Yet, the core of the conflict remains the same: who has the right to the land, the identity, and sovereignty?
From the Balfour Promise to Nakba: The Establishment of the Tragedy
The Palestinian tragedy began with the Balfour Declaration, when Britain granted what it did not possess to those who did not deserve it, laying the legal and political foundation for Israel’s creation on the ruins of the Palestinian people. The British Mandate followed, practically framing this project by opening the doors for organized immigration and arming Zionist militias.
In 1948, the State of Israel was declared, culminating in what is known as the Nakba: over 700,000 Palestinians were forced to flee, and more than 400 villages were destroyed. From that moment, the cause shifted from a struggle for homeland to a refugee issue waiting for a “just solution,” which has yet to be achieved.
1967 War and the Beginning of the American Shift
The June 1967 war marked a strategic turning point. Israel’s new occupations established a reference point: UN Resolution 242 became the basis for any later settlement. During President Richard Nixon’s era, Washington gradually assumed the role of the sole sponsor of what was called the “Peace Process.”
Rogers’ initiative embodied this shift, asserting that the conflict could only be resolved through negotiations, not war. However, the unified Arab stance at the time—manifested by the 1967 Khartoum Resolution with its “Three No’s”—closed the door on any early settlement, maintaining the conflict within a confrontational framework.
From Camp David to Madrid: Breakthroughs in Solo Peace Negotiations
In the late 1970s, following the signing of the Camp David Accords (1978) between Egypt and Israel, Egypt exited the direct conflict paradigm, paving the way for the concept of “solo peace,” which fragmented Arab unity.
The Madrid Conference (1991), co-sponsored by the US and the Soviet Union, initiated direct negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis. From this conference emerged the Oslo Accords (1993) during the presidency of Bill Clinton, which established the Palestinian Authority as a transitional step toward an independent state within five years.
However, Oslo, celebrated as a historic breakthrough, contained seeds of failure: ambiguity around core issues (Jerusalem, refugees, borders, settlements) and the security dominance of Israel over the land.
From Clinton to Obama: Promises and Deadlocks
By the late 1990s, Clinton’s administration attempted to salvage Oslo through the 2000 Camp David Summit between Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak, but it ended in failure after Palestinians rejected proposals perceived to threaten their sovereignty over Jerusalem and the right of return.
The second Intifada reignited the conflict as a resistance movement against occupation rather than negotiation. During George W. Bush’s presidency, the “Roadmap” plan (2003) promised a Palestinian state by 2005, but it faded with the rise of the Israeli Right and the construction of the separation wall.
Obama’s mantra of “Two-State Solution” aimed to revive peace efforts but faced obstacles from Netanyahu’s hardline government and a deep internal Palestinian division between Fatah and Hamas. As a result, his promises became more rhetoric than real action.
Trump’s Deal of the Century: The Declaring of Oslo’s Death
When Donald Trump assumed office, he completely abandoned US neutrality. He recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, moved the US embassy there, halted UNRWA funding, and introduced what he called the “Deal of the Century,” which legalized settlement expansion and effectively annexed most of the West Bank, leaving Palestinians with isolated enclaves under the guise of a “state.”
These steps effectively ended any serious talk of a two-state solution and turned the Palestinian issue into a manageable administrative-security file, not a resolution of the conflict.
From Al-Aqsa Storm to the Sharm El-Sheikh Summit: Peace in Embers
On October 7, 2023, the “Al-Aqsa Storm” operation brought the Palestinian cause back to the forefront of the global scene. While Israel believed it enjoyed “strategic stability,” the attack exposed the fragility of its entire security and political system.
Israel’s response to Gaza was disastrous: widespread destruction, thousands of victims, and massive internal displacement. Amid mounting international and regional pressure, along with unprecedented military and humanitarian exhaustion, Cairo and the United States called for the Sharm El-Sheikh Peace Summit in October 2025.
The summit was dubbed “Peace Summit 2025,” involving a wide range of Arab and Western leaders, with promises to rebuild Gaza and launch a new political process. However, many observers believe that this summit does not revive the two-state option but rather echoes Oslo in a new security-economic format, aiming to cement the status quo under the guise of “regional stability.”
Is There Anything Left of the Two-State Solution?
From a pragmatic perspective, it can be argued that the two-state option now exists only in diplomatic rhetoric. Settlements have swallowed more than 60% of the West Bank, Jerusalem is outside any negotiations, and the Gaza Strip has been under a suffocating siege for 17 years. Meanwhile, Palestinian division continues to drain any possibility of building a unified national project.
Even on the international level, the political momentum supporting a Palestinian state has waned, as the world is preoccupied with crises in Ukraine, Taiwan, and energy. Arab regimes have become more concerned with “managing their relationship” with Israel rather than applying pressure.
What is surfacing today is not the “two-state solution” but new administrative arrangements supervised by Arab and international parties overseeing security and reconstruction, in exchange for Palestinian commitments not to revert to resistance. It’s a “cold peace” formula that does not end occupation; rather, it rewraps it with humanitarian and economic slogans.
From Balfour to Sharm El-Sheikh… a Full Circle Without End
More than a century has passed since the Balfour promise, and Palestine remains a symbol of injustice within the international system.
From Nixon to Trump, the negotiation process has been nothing but a journey in the illusion of peace, as the “peace process” became an end in itself, rather than a means to establish a state. Today, with the Sharm El-Sheikh summit, it seems the world is trying to write a new chapter of the same story, but with softer tools and less sincerity.
While the international community may succeed in imposing a “long-term truce,” it will not establish peace unless justice is restored, and unless the acknowledgment that occupation is the root of all violence becomes universal. Palestine is not a negotiation file but a cause of freedom and existence.
