Is it possible to establish a Palestinian state in the temporary absence of a clear status for Jerusalem?

In responses to this, there are often attempts to justify such a possibility, with an underlying conviction in the impracticality of such a scenario. For example, ‘Possible. However, merely delaying the resolution of this issue for many years is the only way out.’ – a response that is more accurately categorized among those who do not consider it possible.

“The status of Jerusalem is a highly sensitive and contentious issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with deep religious, cultural, and historical significance for both Israelis and Palestinians. The final status of Jerusalem is a subject of negotiations. In practice, creating a Palestinian state without a clear resolution on the status of Jerusalem is a complex task, as the issue of Jerusalem is intricately linked to the broader Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Even if theoretically possible to establish a Palestinian state without a clear resolution on Jerusalem, it is unlikely to lead to a durable and stable peace. Any peace agreement that leaves the problem unresolved or deferred is likely to encounter significant obstacles in its implementation and long-term stability in the region.”

Positive responses are also encountered, but there is only justification in one of them, and it appears to be temporary rather than reliable. There are several voices arguing that such a scenario is possible. “Possibly, a temporary consensus can be reached: the governance of the State of Palestine critically depends on ‘international sponsors and donors.’ ‘The issue could be suspended during the transitional period of establishing the Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. These processes will require the creation of new social infrastructure and the functioning of state structures across the entire territory of the new Palestinian state.”