“Two years on from the October 7th Attacks, foreign intervention has made a long-lasting impact on resolving the war between Israel and Palestine.”

The most recently signed peace deal does not mark a resolution to the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Not now, when Israel appears to have already broken it. Rather, such agreements serve as a temporary pause to a cycle of violence that has defined the past two years, offering at best a tentative roadmap toward broader regional peace. 

Conflicts as deep-rooted rarely resolve on their own. In an ideal world, lasting peace would take the form of a two-state solution - with Israel and Palestine mutually recognising their sovereignty. But the question remains: who will take the first step? Palestinians continue to see their sovereignty eroded by an Israel determined to consolidate territorial control in the West Bank. Since the October 7th Attacks and the subsequent escalation of the conflict, the vision for a resolution has felt increasingly distant.

Still, diplomacy, however flawed, is the only path towards peace. US President Trump’s 20-point peace plan reignited cautious optimism for a resolution. The plan was far from flawless: the timing and extent of Israeli troops’ withdrawal was ambiguous, as was the process for dismantling Hamas’ political influence.

Even so, it represented a fragile prospect of dialogue and resolution: something rare in a conflict defined by deep-rooted mistrust. 

Peace cannot be brokered by one side, nor dictated through diplomacy in this conflict. Just two weeks ago, Prime Minister Netanyahu, in meetings at the UN, doubled down Israel’s maximalist rhetoric, dismissing a UN report accusing Israel of genocide and saying they had to “finish the job” in the West Bank. This is the same leader who called a two-state solution “sheer madness” and responded to international recognition of Palestinian statehood with new offensives and further annexation plans earlier in the year. 

Netanhayu’s initial acceptance of the deal followed a series of meetings with Trump during and after the UN General Assembly, where pressures were applied to secure the signing of the deal. This came at a time of international isolation for Israel. Since the October 7 attacks, Israel has increasingly alienated itself from the international community, dismissing external counsel. Over the past year it has attacked five neighbouring countries, rejected multiple ceasefire proposals, and deepened the already dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza. In this sense, the influence of foreign intervention may appear limited. International organisations such as the UN have limited authority over sovereign states, restricting their role mainly to reporting, issuing condemnations, and providing forums for discussion. Yet, while many have grown disillusioned with the inefficiency of international politics, the international community has nonetheless shaped the conflict’s narrative.  

The role of the media is impossible to overlook: continuous coverage of the war - whether one-sided or not - galvanised solidarity movements across social and cultural spheres. Many have compared the “Free Palestine” movement to the anti-Apartheid boycotts of the 1950s and 1990s, where international campaigns in sports, culture, and business isolated the Apartheid regime, making it a liability and driving the institution of the transitional government of the 1990s. 

In today’s globalised world, the “Free Palestine” movement similarly transcended borders, finding visibility in global culture and sports. International pressures have led to Israel’s exclusion from cultural events - such as the 2025 Eurovision Contest - and have fuelled calls within European football federations to boycott Israeli teams under the “GameOverIsrael” campaign. In Hollywood, more than 4,500 actors and filmmakers have signed a “pledge to end complicity,” vowing to withdraw from screenings or collaborations linked to Israeli film institutions. 

The recognition of a Palestinian state - particularly by major powers such as Britain, France, and Canada most notably - have further legitimised the sovereignty of Palestine. Although big powers as such initially supported Israel’s right to self-defense, the escalation of attacks throughout 2024 and 2025 increasingly blurred that justification. By mid-2025, most of Israel’s former allies - including key EU members and the US - had shifted their stance, reframing the conflict as one requiring urgent de-escalation. 

The continuation of an increasingly condemned and morally indefensible war is becoming untenable.

For its strongest ally, too, maintaining unconditional support for a government accused of genocide and war crimes whilst holding an increasingly maximalist rhetoric, is becoming hard to sustain politically.  “The symbolic has more leverage than the bolts and numbers,” said Ilan Baruch, Israel’s former ambassador to South Africa. Indeed, solidarity movements often achieve what diplomacy cannot: create moral common grounds in a global order where political consensus is difficult to achieve. While global leaders struggle to unite around issues like climate change, grassroots solidarity for Palestinian lives reveals how moral pressure can reshape foreign policy and political narratives. International influence has extended the conflict’s reach beyond the Middle East, deepening Israel’s global isolation with ceasing to recognise the conflict as war, but an unjustifiable humanitarian crisis.

Foreign intervention is key to mediate the transition toward peace. The deep mistrust between Israel and Palestine demands international guarantees of security: for Israel, this means the dismantlement of Hamas; for Palestine, it requires Israel’s respect of territorial borders and sovereignty. As long as Hamas maintains political presence, Israel will continue to justify its offensives under claims of self-defense. And as long as Israeli troops remain in the West Bank, Palestinian sovereignty will remain out of reach.

Because the conflicting interests of both sides remain irreconcilable, foreign mediation is necessary to enforce commitments from both parties. Whether through UN peacekeeping forces or the participation of international diplomats, politicians and Palestinian technocrats in the formation of new governance structures, external involvement must play a central role in this reconciliatory phase. This may sound overly-optimistic, but recent developments in peace-brokering suggest this optimism may not be misplaced. If anything, Israel’s volatile foreign policy continues to prove how external forces are needed to encourage diplomacy and monitor peace agreements.

Foreign intervention throughout the two years of the conflict may have fallen short, but it has undeniably shaped the conditions that make us consider peace efforts (potentially) possible. Remove these external forces - the “FreePalestine” movement, UN investigative committees, European and Gulf leaders, and ultimately, US negotiators - and the prospect of an Israeli-Palestine-devised resolution is distant, if not impossible. 

In today’s interconnected world, peace can no longer be seen as the outcome of isolated diplomacy efforts, but of collective pressures and international initiatives for cooperation. The response to continuous Israeli aggression should be more, nor less, foreign intervention. A final resolution may not be yet secured, but it may soon feel within reach.

By Francesca Arrus

Image: Alex Wong/Getty Images