The window for a solution remains open, but it is narrowing.
In Paris, on the eve of a G7 summit, roughly 150 Palestinian and Israeli civil society voices did something their governments have rarely managed: they agreed. Meeting under French auspices, activists from both sides of a decades-long conflict produced a joint statement calling on the world's wealthiest democracies to enforce a ceasefire, disarm Hamas, fund Gaza's reconstruction, and preserve the narrowing path toward two states. Their urgency is not rhetorical — it is the urgency of people who live inside the wound, watching the window close.
- With Gaza devastated and Israeli society still gripped by fear, 150 activists from both sides convened in Paris to demand that the G7 act before the diplomatic window for a two-state solution shuts entirely.
- The core tension remains unresolved: Hamas insists on Israeli withdrawal before disarmament, while Israel insists on disarmament first — a deadlock that has stalled progress for six months despite a 20-point framework both sides nominally accepted.
- Settler violence, settlement expansion, and a financially hollowed Palestinian Authority are quietly eroding the conditions that any future Palestinian state would require, deepening instability on the West Bank and strengthening Hamas's grip on Gaza.
- Civil society leaders warn that peace diplomacy has become too elite-driven and too disconnected from lived reality — and note the bitter irony that it is sometimes easier to bring Israelis and Palestinians together in Paris than in their own region.
- The G7 summit at Évian-les-Bains is unlikely to produce a joint statement on Gaza, yet the Paris gathering has placed a rare, unified civil society diagnosis on the table — one that world leaders can choose to heed or ignore.
On a Friday in Paris, something uncommon occurred: roughly 150 Israeli and Palestinian activists sat together, found common ground, and told the world's richest democracies what to do next. Ahead of the G7 summit in Évian-les-Bains, these civil society groups produced a joint statement and five working groups with concrete proposals — enforce a ceasefire with real monitoring, disarm Hamas, fund Gaza's reconstruction transparently, and weave the various peace initiatives into a single coherent program rather than letting them run at cross purposes.
The urgency behind the proposals is unmistakable. Gaza remains devastated and largely hidden from international view. Settler violence and settlement expansion continue to erode the conditions for a viable Palestinian state. The Palestinian Authority, financially starved and lacking democratic legitimacy, has failed to dislodge Hamas, and without proper funding it risks deepening that failure. Each side blames the other for not following through on the steps laid out in Donald Trump's 20-point plan, and a recent Cairo meeting made only limited headway on Hamas disarmament. The groups warn plainly: the window for a two-state solution is narrowing.
The gathering drew support from Arab and European foreign ministers, including EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas. But the sharpest observation came from John Lyndon of the Alliance for Middle East Peace, who noted that openness to a two-state solution exists within Israeli society — it simply isn't reflected by its political parties. Peace diplomacy, he argued, has been too top-down, too removed from the people it is meant to serve. The fact that it was sometimes easier to convene these groups in Paris than in Israel itself, where government restrictions complicate such meetings, underscored his point.
The proposals extend beyond the immediate crisis. The groups called for multi-year reconstruction funding with genuine Palestinian ownership, explicitly linking Gaza and the West Bank rather than treating them as separate problems. Regional integration, they suggested, could help end the occupation — but only if it is not used as a substitute for Palestinian statehood. Palestinian elections this year, they argued, are part of the same logic: legitimacy matters for any durable peace.
A G7 joint statement on Gaza is considered vanishingly unlikely. Yet the Paris meeting offered something the conflict has long lacked — a shared diagnosis from people who live inside it, who know both societies, and who chose to work together anyway. Whether that diagnosis reaches the ears of those with the power to act remains the open question.
In a Paris conference room on Friday, something unusual took shape: roughly 150 activists and organizers from Israel and Palestine sat together and agreed on what their governments should do next. They had come from opposite sides of a conflict that has calcified into opposing certainties, yet they produced a joint statement and five working groups full of concrete proposals. Next week, when the G7 gathers in the spa town of Évian-les-Bains, these groups want the world's richest democracies to listen.
The proposals are specific. Enforce a ceasefire with real monitoring. Disarm Hamas—though the two sides remain deadlocked on the sequence, with Hamas demanding Israeli withdrawal first and Israel insisting on disarmament first. Fund reconstruction in Gaza, which the groups note is "currently hidden from view." And crucially, stop treating the various peace initiatives as separate tracks; weave them into one coherent program. The Board of Peace initiative and other diplomatic efforts have been running in parallel, often at cross purposes. The civil society groups want integration.
What animates their urgency is a sense of closing doors. "Gaza is devastated, Israel remains under threat," their statement reads. "Settler violence, settlement expansion and de facto annexation and threats to the Palestinian Authority continue to undermine the viability of a future Palestinian state. Israelis and Palestinians alike remain trapped in fear, insecurity and trauma." The language is measured but the anxiety is real. For six months, progress has stalled. Each side blames the other for not following through on the steps laid out in Donald Trump's 20-point plan. A recent meeting of Palestinian groups in Cairo made only limited headway in persuading Hamas to surrender its remaining heavy weapons to an unspecified Palestinian organization. The window for a two-state solution, the groups warn, is narrowing.
The Paris gathering drew support from Arab and European foreign ministers, including Kaja Kallas, the EU's foreign policy chief. But the real insight came from John Lyndon, executive director of the Alliance for Middle East Peace, a coalition representing more than 200 NGOs. He observed something both hopeful and damning: there is openness to a two-state solution within Israeli society, but the political parties do not represent it. "Diplomacy for Israelis and Palestinians has been too elite-driven, too top-down, and increasingly removed and alien from the lived reality of Israelis and Palestinians," he said. He pointed to the irony that it was sometimes easier to convene these groups in Paris under French government auspices than in Israel itself, where government restrictions make such gatherings difficult.
The moment carries particular weight because of what is happening on the ground. Israel, heading toward elections later this year, is permitting escalating settler violence on the West Bank. The Palestinian Authority, financially starved and lacking democratic legitimacy, has not dislodged Hamas's entrenched rule in Gaza. Without proper funding for the Palestinian Authority, the groups warn, instability in the West Bank will deepen Hamas's grip on Gaza, leaving Israel with a security crisis that has no political solution. The call for Palestinian elections this year is part of the same logic: legitimacy matters.
The proposals also include something less visible but equally important: transparent, multi-year reconstruction funding with real Palestinian ownership and civil society involvement, explicitly designed to link Gaza and the West Bank rather than treat them as separate problems. Regional integration could be a catalyst for ending the occupation, the groups suggest, provided it is not used as a substitute for Palestinian statehood.
The odds of the G7 issuing a joint statement on Gaza are described as vanishingly small. But the Paris meeting represents something the conflict has often lacked: a shared diagnosis from people who live inside it, who know both societies, and who have chosen to work together anyway. Whether G7 leaders will heed that diagnosis remains to be seen.
Citações Notáveis
Diplomacy for Israelis and Palestinians has been too elite-driven, too top-down, and increasingly removed and alien from the lived reality of Israelis and Palestinians.— John Lyndon, executive director of the Alliance for Middle East Peace
Gaza is devastated, Israel remains under threat. Settler violence, settlement expansion and de facto annexation continue to undermine the viability of a future Palestinian state.— Joint statement from Palestinian and Israeli civil society groups
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does it matter that these groups met in Paris rather than in Israel or Palestine itself?
Because the restrictions are real. Lyndon said it plainly—the Israeli government makes it harder to convene these coalitions at home. Paris gave them neutral ground and diplomatic cover. That's not nothing, but it's also a symptom of how constrained the space for joint work has become.
The statement says the window is narrowing. What does that actually mean in practical terms?
It means the conditions that might have allowed a two-state solution are deteriorating. Settlers are expanding, the Palestinian Authority is weakening, Hamas is entrenching. If those trends continue unchecked, the math changes. At some point, the territorial and political facts on the ground make a viable Palestinian state impossible.
Why is the sequencing of ceasefire and disarmament so stuck?
Because it's a trust problem dressed up as a tactical one. Hamas won't lay down weapons while Israeli forces occupy Gaza. Israel won't leave while Hamas has weapons. Both sides have legitimate security concerns, but neither side believes the other will honor their end of the bargain. Someone has to move first, and no one wants to be that someone.
What's the significance of the UK, Canada, and Australia funding peace groups?
It's a signal that some governments are betting on civil society as a channel when official diplomacy has stalled. These groups have relationships across the divide that governments don't. They're also less bound by electoral cycles and political pressure. It's a hedge against the idea that only top-down diplomacy matters.
Do you think the G7 will actually do what these groups are asking?
Probably not in any unified way. A joint statement on Gaza is unlikely. But individual countries might move on funding, on pressure regarding settler violence, on reconstruction mechanisms. The real question is whether this Paris meeting shifts how diplomacy is framed—whether it makes it harder for leaders to ignore the fact that civil society on both sides still wants to work together.