The remarks by Yair Golan in an interview with Radio 103FM — that “recognition of a Palestinian state is without a doubt a negative step for Israel” and that “talking about a Palestinian state is truly destructive for Israel” — are troubling and disappointing.
They are troubling because they echo one of the key assumptions that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the right have worked for years to instill in the public discourse: that the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, in line with UN resolutions, is inherently harmful. They are disappointing because they align with efforts — especially now, against the backdrop of growing international recognition of Palestine — to remove from the agenda the only option that could realistically secure safety and stability for both peoples.
The political project of the ruling right is clear. When they speak of “sovereignty” and “expanding settlement,” they mean annexing the territories without granting citizenship to the millions of Palestinians who live there. In the West Bank, this translates into tighter restrictions and expanded settlement activity, and in Gaza, it has meant a war whose declared aim is the destruction of Gaza City and the displacement of its residents.
At the same time, the political camp expected to provide an alternative has responded with hesitation and confusion. A year ago, when the Knesset voted on a declaration promoted by right-wing parties stating that “the Israeli Knesset strongly opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan,” Benny Gantz of Blue and White voted with them, while Yesh Atid and the Democrats did not even show up to oppose the measure. More recently, Yair Lapid voiced his explicit opposition to a Palestinian state at a Washington conference, and Golan followed suit.
Golan now leads the merged Meretz and Labor parties, which, despite their weaknesses, had always considered themselves part of the peace camp and openly supported the creation of a Palestinian state. Yet the new Democrats party offers a different formula: not ending the military presence or achieving a peace agreement, but what Golan calls “civil separation under continued security control.”
For supporters of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, the upcoming elections pose a problem. While the Arab parties’ platforms include the right words — support for a Palestinian state, evacuation of settlements, and so on — none of them see it as their mission to persuade the Jewish Israeli public. They send strong parliamentarians to the Knesset, but their success is not measured by their ability to expand support for peace among Jewish voters.
What is missing today from Israel’s political landscape is a peace party — one that can unite those who already support ending the conflict and creating a Palestinian state, while also consistently working to persuade those who are not yet convinced. A party that leads public campaigns to strengthen support for a negotiated agreement, and that links the question of peace with issues of social justice — such as the heavy economic price of ongoing conflict, which drives up military spending — and with equality, addressing entrenched discrimination against the Arab-Palestinian minority in Israel and other groups in society.
Such a peace party would need to be a joint Jewish-Arab party. Working together is not only morally right, but also based on the understanding that most people in our society share common interests, around which they can organize for change. A party is not meant to replace the important work of civil society organizations — NGOs, movements, and protest groups that play a crucial role — but rather to provide a political tool for mobilizing public support and shaping policy directly.
After nearly two years of devastation in Gaza and amid a right-wing government intent on deepening the crisis, the need for a peace party in Israel has become urgent.
Uri Weltmann is a member of the leadership of Standing Together.