The window for a solution remains open; but it is narrowing.
In Paris, Israeli and Palestinian civil society joined foreign ministers from across the world to insist that the two-state solution has not yet died — only that it is dying. One year after the UN-backed New York Declaration offered a fragile roadmap toward Palestinian statehood, the gathering sought to hold open a diplomatic window that violence, settlement expansion, and political withdrawal are steadily forcing shut. Western nations announced coordinated sanctions against settler networks, and an eight-point action plan was drafted for G7 leaders — a collective act of will against the drift toward irreversibility.
- The window for a negotiated two-state settlement is narrowing with each passing week as Gaza remains devastated, the West Bank fractures under settler violence, and Israeli expansion near Jerusalem threatens to make Palestinian statehood physically impossible.
- Israel's E1 settlement project east of Jerusalem would effectively sever the West Bank from East Jerusalem, and diplomats see it as a deliberate strategy to foreclose any viable Palestinian state before negotiations can resume.
- Britain, France, Canada, and Norway took the rare step of announcing coordinated sanctions against Israeli networks financing and enabling settler attacks on Palestinians — a unified show of Western pressure that signals growing impatience with the status quo.
- An eight-point action plan calling for a permanent ceasefire, settlement freeze, Gaza reconstruction, and stronger civil society protections will be presented to G7 leaders, though both Israel and the United States declined to attend the Paris conference.
- The absence of Israel and the US exposed the conference's central tension: a coalition of governments and civil society actors is working to preserve a diplomatic framework that the most consequential parties have largely walked away from.
On a Friday in Paris, Israeli and Palestinian civil society groups sat alongside foreign ministers from dozens of nations to argue a case the world seemed increasingly tempted to abandon: that a two-state solution remains possible, and that the international community must not let it slip away. The meeting came one year after the UN-backed New York Declaration had sketched a roadmap toward Palestinian statehood — a moment that had prompted France, Britain, Canada, and others to formally recognize Palestinian sovereignty. The year since had been brutal. Gaza lay devastated. The West Bank was fracturing. The window, civil society groups warned, was still open — but closing fast.
France had called the conference because the moment felt urgent. A spokesperson for the French Foreign Ministry said the gathering had become essential precisely because of what was unfolding on the ground: endless cycles of violence, mounting civilian casualties, a stalled ceasefire in Gaza. The conference would produce an eight-point action plan — calling for a permanent ceasefire, an end to settlement expansion, reconstruction in Gaza, and stronger international support for civil society — to be delivered to G7 leaders meeting in the French Alps the following week.
The stakes were existential. Israel's advancing E1 settlement project east of Jerusalem threatened to cut the West Bank in half and sever it from East Jerusalem, fragmenting the land Palestinians would need for an independent state. Britain, Canada, France, and Norway responded with coordinated sanctions against Israeli networks financing settler violence in the occupied West Bank — a rare show of unified Western pressure. The civil society action plan was unsparing: settler terrorism was accelerating, de facto annexation was underway, and both Israelis and Palestinians remained trapped in fear and trauma.
Yet the conference also revealed the framework's isolation. Israel declined to attend, with its embassy arguing the gathering had nothing to do with promoting peace and questioning whether France could meaningfully mediate at all. The United States also stayed away. What remained was a coalition of civil society actors and Western governments trying to preserve a diplomatic option that the most consequential parties had largely abandoned. The action plan would go to the G7. Whether it would move anything remained to be seen.
In Paris on Friday, Israeli and Palestinian civil society groups gathered with foreign ministers from dozens of countries to make a case the world seemed increasingly willing to abandon: that a two-state solution remains possible, and that the international community must not let it slip away. The meeting came one year after the United Nations-backed New York Declaration had sketched out a roadmap toward Palestinian statehood, a moment that had prompted France, Britain, Canada, and others to formally recognize Palestinian sovereignty. But the year since had been brutal. Gaza lay devastated. The West Bank was fracturing under the weight of settler violence and expansion. Israel remained under threat. The window for a negotiated settlement, the civil society groups warned in their materials, was still open—but it was closing fast.
France had called the conference explicitly because the moment felt urgent. A spokesperson for the French Foreign Ministry told reporters that the gathering had become essential precisely because of what was happening on the ground: endless cycles of violence, mounting civilian casualties, a ceasefire in Gaza that had stalled in its implementation. The country was trying to keep the two-state framework alive as a diplomatic possibility even as the Middle East war raged on. The meeting would produce an eight-point action plan—calling for a permanent ceasefire, an end to settlement expansion, reconstruction in Gaza, governance reforms, and stronger international support for civil society—that would be delivered to G7 leaders meeting in the French Alps the following week.
The stakes were territorial and existential. Israel had been advancing plans for a settlement east of Jerusalem known as the E1 project, which would effectively cut the West Bank in half and sever it from East Jerusalem, fragmenting the very land Palestinians would need for an independent state. Diplomats understood this expansion as a deliberate strategy to make Palestinian statehood unviable. The violence accompanying it had become impossible to ignore. Britain, Canada, France, and Norway had just announced coordinated sanctions against Israeli networks involved in financing, enabling, and carrying out attacks against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank—a rare show of unified Western pressure on an Israeli government that had expanded settlements far beyond what previous administrations had attempted.
The civil society action plan did not mince words about what was happening. Settler terrorism was accelerating. De facto annexation was underway. The Palestinian Authority was under threat. Israelis and Palestinians alike, the document stated, remained trapped in fear, insecurity, and trauma. The region was fracturing. And there was a real danger that as the G7 convened, the conflict would simply be set aside again, pushed to the margins of international attention while the facts on the ground shifted irreversibly.
Yet the conference itself revealed the isolation of the two-state framework. Israel declined to attend. The United States, historically Israel's closest ally, also stayed away. The Israeli embassy released a statement saying the ambassador had been invited but would not come, arguing the conference had nothing to do with promoting peace. The statement also pushed back on the premise of the gathering, noting that Palestinians had rejected proposals for statehood on five separate occasions and questioning whether France could meaningfully mediate between the two sides at all.
What remained was a coalition of civil society actors and Western governments trying to preserve a diplomatic option that the parties themselves seemed to have largely abandoned. The action plan would go to the G7. Whether it would move anything remained to be seen. The window was narrowing. That much, at least, everyone agreed on.
Citas Notables
Given the current situation in the region, marked by seemingly endless conflicts, too many civilian casualties and a cycle of violence, and in light of the stalled implementation of the Gaza ceasefire, we believe this conference is now more essential and urgent than ever.— France's Foreign Ministry spokesperson
The ambassador was invited but will not attend the conference, as it has nothing to do with promoting peace. France cannot act as a mediator between Israel and the Palestinians.— Israeli embassy statement
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did France feel compelled to organize this meeting now, of all moments?
Because they saw the two-state solution slipping away in real time. A year had passed since the UN declaration, and instead of progress, there was escalation—more settlements, more violence, a ceasefire that wasn't holding. France was trying to signal that this framework still mattered, that it was worth fighting for.
But Israel and the US didn't show up. Doesn't that undermine the whole thing?
Completely. It shows how far apart the parties have drifted. Israel's position is that the Palestinians have rejected statehood offers repeatedly, so why keep pushing? The US staying away suggests they've deprioritized this entirely. The conference became a gathering of people who believe in the two-state solution, not the people who would have to implement it.
What's the E1 project, and why does it matter so much?
It's a settlement east of Jerusalem that would literally bisect the West Bank—cut it in half. If it's built, you don't have a contiguous Palestinian territory anymore. You have fragments. It's the kind of move that makes statehood mathematically impossible, not just politically difficult.
The sanctions against Israeli settler networks—is that new?
The coordination is. Britain, Canada, France, and Norway moving together on this is rare. It signals Western frustration with Netanyahu's government specifically, not with Israel broadly. But sanctions are also a sign that diplomacy has stalled. When you're sanctioning, you've usually given up on negotiation.
So what happens to this eight-point action plan?
It goes to the G7. Whether it changes anything depends on whether the G7 decides to make it a priority. Right now, the people who could actually move the needle—Israel, the Palestinians, the US—aren't in the room. That's the real problem.