Between Danger and Opportunity

Much has been said about the resolution, with political and ideological opponents alike claiming victory based on their interpretations of its often vague wording. Likewise, voices across the political spectrum have criticized the resolution, finding much to question and much to be disappointed by.

The resolution is indeed vague, and particularly in the areas where clarity and precision are most urgently needed.

While the US claims that the International Security Force intended to oversee and reinforce the ceasefire will be ready to deploy in early 2026, no countries have explicitly agreed to contribute troops. It remains entirely unclear who, exactly, this force will consist of.

There is still no clear timeline for IDF withdrawal from the parts of the Strip where they remain active. And as we know from the occupied West Bank, a “temporary” occupation can easily, and often by design, become permanently entrenched.

The language outlining a pathway toward a Palestinian state remains similarly vague, with no firm timelines. Netanyahu continues to reaffirm his opposition to such a pathway in Hebrew, despite praising both the resolution and Trump in English.

But it is in these gaps, ambiguities, and omissions that the responsibility of those who want to shape a hopeful future for the region becomes clear. Now is precisely the moment for those committed to a two-state solution, with a Palestinian state living alongside a Jewish state, to remain engaged, and to push for strong, pragmatic steps toward that future.

When the Abraham Accords were first established, many in progressive circles dismissed them and disengaged from the process. While much of the accords offered easy diplomatic wins, we now see that they, and the countries poised to join them, especially Saudi Arabia, have laid groundwork for a Middle East in flux. Israel must now decide whether it wishes to be, as it claims, a nation among nations, or instead an isolated “super Sparta.”

Before October 7, the Saudis were inclined to sign onto the accords with only vague promises of some future Palestinian state. It is now clear that domestic pressure makes this politically impossible without a credible and concrete pathway toward Palestinian statehood.

With a US president more inclined toward transactional relationships than partnerships rooted in shared democratic values, we are seeing the consequences: a US administration moving to deepen ties with Saudi Arabia while increasingly sidelining Israel.

Israel now stands at an inflection point. It can choose a path of profound danger or profound opportunity. But whatever it chooses, it must be clear: the decision rests in its own hands, and the responsibility to protect its citizens, the very purpose of Zionism and the Zionist project, rests with the choices it makes.

This is why it is incumbent upon all of us, regardless of political ideology, to identify the opportunities created by this resolution. We must not disengage. We must make it clear to current and future Israeli leadership that those of us in the diaspora who care deeply about Israel’s future want it to choose the path of opportunity.

That begins with pressure to sharpen the areas where the resolution remains vague, not because we can change or shape the resolution itself, but because we can still change and shape the future.

The only force that can truly enforce the ceasefire and gain the trust of the people of Gaza is a local Palestinian force. If that is not the Palestinian Authority, then Hamas will fill the vacuum.

It is unrealistic to believe that an external international force will either (a) accept the risks of confronting Hamas and local militias or (b) earn the trust of local residents over Palestinian forces.

There must also be a clear timeline, one that Israel cannot unilaterally veto, for IDF withdrawal from the Strip, tied to specific, actionable milestones.

And a credible pathway to a two-state solution must be explicitly laid out, holding both Palestinian and Israeli leadership to concrete steps toward that outcome.

What is most important about this resolution is not its individual clauses, but that it shows that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can no longer be pushed to the margins or ignored. Even Israel’s strongest supporters now recognize that the conflict was never isolated from regional dynamics.

This, too, is what the Abraham Accords helped reveal: that incremental steps toward regional integration can be opportunities to shape a more hopeful future.

The rhetoric from not only Netanyahu’s extreme-right coalition, but from Netanyahu and the Likud themselves, shows they know they are losing ground. Gone are the fantasies of the “Gaza Riviera” and resettling the Strip. Even their ability to either tacitly or explicitly support settler violence in the occupied West Bank has eroded as allies have no choice but to confront the deteriorating situation in the region.

And Israeli public opinion is shifting. Poll after poll shows that when asked about a two-state solution as part of broader regional normalization, a majority of Israelis support it. It is clear that the Israeli public is ready for this - will their future leaders be brave enough to seize upon this shift?

Because it will fall to them to expose not only the danger of the messianic right’s ideology and the emptiness of its rhetoric, but, more crucially, to present a clear, credible alternative. 

One that speaks not only of peace and security, but of borders and neighbours. One that acknowledges not just the need for a Palestinian state, but the hope a Palestinian state must embody. One rooted in empathy not only for Israelis, but for Palestinians, with whom they will always share this land.

And it will fall to us in the diaspora to recognize this moment, this narrow space between danger and opportunity, and insist that Israel choose the latter.

This is not a left-versus-right issue, nor a progressive-versus-conservative one. It is about the future of the State of Israel. And anyone who claims to care about that future should make clear that it is precisely because we care that this opportunity must be seized.

Our greatest privilege is sovereignty in our nation-state. It must be used to build the future we have long believed was possible.