Following recent hostilities in the Gaza Strip, remarks attributed to a senior Israeli diplomat have sparked debate about the future status of a Palestinian state. In a broadcast interview with a British television outlet, Israel’s ambassador to London, Tzipi Hotovely, addressed questions about whether Palestinians will establish a state after the conflict, and the response she offered became a focal point of discussion across international media and policy circles.
“The answer is absolutely no,” the diplomat stated plainly during the exchange, signaling a firm stance on the issue. The remark was presented as a direct clarification of Israel’s position in the wake of continued security and political considerations facing the region.
In elaborating the rationale, the envoy argued that the failure of the Oslo accords lay in the fundamental misalignment between Palestinian aspirations and the pathways contemplated for lasting peace. The assertion centered on the belief that the Palestinian leadership had sought a territory that stretches from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, rather than a path shared with the state of Israel. This framing has been part of the broader debate about whether viable, independent statehood could be achieved under the terms that were proposed in the 1990s.
Contextualizing the historical process, many observers recall that the 1990s brought a series of negotiations commonly referred to as Oslo I and Oslo II. These agreements led to the creation of the Palestinian Authority and laid out steps intended to advance a two-state framework. The subsequent years, however, have seen a range of interpretations, commitments, and disagreements on how to translate those accords into a durable settlement that satisfies the security and political needs of both sides.
Meanwhile, commentary from Moscow recently touched on a parallel thread in the international discourse around Palestine. A Kremlin spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, acknowledged the possibility that a Palestinian state could emerge, pointing to a relevant United Nations Security Council resolution as part of the ongoing discussion. He underscored that tensions and disagreements in the tackling of the regional crisis often arise when the United States is perceived as dominating the peace process, sometimes to the exclusion of other influential actors and approaches.
In separate public statements, the emphasis has also been placed on the strategic importance of regional diplomacy. The Russian leadership has highlighted the Middle East as a priority area, with high-level officials underscoring the need for inclusive, multilateral efforts to address core issues such as borders, sovereignty, security arrangements, and refugee concerns. This broader diplomatic language reflects a recognition that any resolution will require cooperation among a wide array of stakeholders, including regional states, global powers, and international institutions, each bringing distinct perspectives and leverage to the table.
And within this evolving dialogue, remarks from senior Russian officials have repeatedly drawn attention to the central question of what constitutes a viable path toward stability in the region. The discourse emphasizes that success hinges on recognizing legitimate national aspirations while also outlining concrete, enforceable mechanisms for coexistence and mutual security. The overarching aim is to reduce violence, address humanitarian needs, and create a framework in which both Israelis and Palestinians can pursue their political futures with confidence and dignity, within internationally recognized norms and agreements. Observers note that any credible plan must be resilient to political shifts and capable of withstanding external pressures while remaining anchored in the practical realities faced by people living on the ground. [citation: Kremlin press office; UN Security Council resolutions; regional diplomacy briefings]