US Undersecretary of State George Ball, known for his criticism of Israel, published in 1977 an article called “How to Save Israel in Spite of Herself.” This idea comes up whenever peace negotiations are stuck and the parties cannot extricate themselves from the stalemate, harming perceived American interests as well. Given the current internal situation in Israel and Palestine and the regional crisis, this question seems again relevant.

The situation appears bleak. The diplomatic process is in total impasse. Stability and quiet on the security front, as well as the sense that the two-state solution is desirable but the chances of implementing it are more remote than ever, have pushed the subject off the Israeli discourse. Expansion of settlements, which gives the Palestinians a reason not to restart talks, is proceeding almost without hindrance, reinforcing the commonly held opinion that Israel is closing off the two-state option. Ideas about alternatives to the two-state solution are discussed. The failure of the incoming government to include pursuit of the two-state solution in its basic guidelines, and its makeup, indicate a lack of real commitment to the two-state solution.

There seems to be no end to the rift between Fatah and the Hamas movement governing Gaza. Lack of a political horizon and a financial crisis are causing increasing unrest in the West Bank. So far, the Palestinian leadership is not considering resumed violence hoping that President Barack Obama’s visit, as well as Israel’s desire to prevent deterioration, will result in the process being restarted. The turmoil in the Arab world as well does not bode well for the diplomatic process

The international community led by the United States, is again facing the question whether to intervene or to allow the parties to stew in their own juice until an explosion will reshuffle the cards and perhaps allow more favorable starting conditions for a political solution. After all, early in Obama’s first term, after his failure in jump-starting the diplomatic process, he concluded that the international community cannot want to resolve the conflict more than the parties themselves in general, and Israel in particular. If it is not important to Israel to preserve its Jewish-democratic character through the only solution capable of ensuring it, the two-state solution, and it wishes to maintain its hold on the territories, even if the price is a slide toward apartheid and an end to the Zionist dream, why should the international community worry about Israel’s future?