Table of Contents
Framing Ongoing Conflict Scenarios
When thinking about the future of the Israel Palestine conflict, it is tempting to focus only on formal political solutions such as two state, one state, or confederation models. However, it is also possible that no negotiated settlement takes hold in the foreseeable future. In that case, the region could experience different types of continued conflict that fall short of a stable peace. This chapter explores these ongoing conflict scenarios, not as predictions, but as structured ways to think about what a prolonged, unresolved conflict might look like and what conditions could sustain each pattern.
The aim is not to cover the entire political debate about the future, which is addressed elsewhere, but to focus on how conflict itself might evolve if no agreed solution is implemented.
Scenario 1: Managed Conflict Without Resolution
One major scenario is a long term situation in which the conflict is not solved, yet is kept at a level that states and powerful actors regard as “manageable.” In this pattern, there may be periodic escalations, military operations, and political crises, but these are followed by returns to a familiar, unequal status quo rather than structural change.
In such a scenario, Israeli governments might continue to prioritize security control, deterrence, and separate management of Gaza and the West Bank, while avoiding final status agreements. Palestinian political actors, fragmented between different factions and geographies, might oscillate between limited diplomacy, constrained local governance, and periodic armed resistance. International involvement would likely remain focused on crisis management, humanitarian aid, and short term ceasefire arrangements rather than imposing or enabling a comprehensive settlement.
This type of ongoing conflict depends on several conditions. First, the balance of power remains such that one side can enforce an order that it finds tolerable, even if others experience it as intolerable. Second, regional and global actors are either unwilling or unable to exert enough pressure to force a different course. Third, internal political systems reward risk avoidance more than bold compromise. In such a climate, officials, militaries, and security agencies become experts at managing recurring cycles of tension rather than ending them.
For people living in the region, a managed conflict scenario typically feels neither like war nor like peace. There may be periods of relative quiet, but the underlying structures of occupation, blockade, insecurity, and displacement remain. New generations grow up with recurring confrontations, and trauma accumulates even as outside observers talk about “stability.”
Scenario 2: Periodic Large Scale Escalations
A second possible trajectory is one in which the conflict regularly erupts into large scale violence at roughly predictable intervals, followed by ceasefires or pauses that never reach a permanent settlement. In this sense, the conflict resembles a recurring “war system,” where phases of intense fighting and major casualties are interwoven with phases of reconstruction and rearming.
The triggers for such escalations can include specific attacks, political crises, provocative actions in sensitive places, or changes in regional alliances. Because the underlying disputes about territory, rights, and sovereignty remain unresolved, each incident has the potential to ignite broader confrontation. Technological developments such as long range rockets, drones, and cyber capabilities can intensify the scale and reach of each round of violence, even if front lines do not fundamentally shift.
Over time, repeated large scale escalations can change political calculations. On one hand, they may increase hatred, fear, and distrust, making compromise seem even harder. On the other hand, the high human and economic costs may eventually create constituencies that demand a different path. Which effect dominates is not predetermined and can vary from one society, or one generation, to another.
Internationally, periodic wars often produce a familiar pattern. Emergency diplomacy seeks ceasefires. Humanitarian agencies struggle to respond to displacement and destruction. Governments issue statements of concern and then resume business as usual once fighting subsides. If this pattern continues, outside actors can become habituated to crisis, responding with established scripts rather than new strategies aimed at transforming the situation.
Scenario 3: Deepening Fragmentation and Internal Crises
Another ongoing conflict scenario focuses less on direct confrontation between Israelis and Palestinians and more on internal fragmentation within each society. In this view, the unresolved conflict, combined with demographic, economic, and political pressures, can generate parallel internal crises.
On the Palestinian side, prolonged occupation, blockade, and lack of a final status agreement can reinforce political division between Gaza, the West Bank, and the wider diaspora. Weak or contested institutions, dependency on external funding, and widespread frustration can all feed cycles of internal rivalry, protests, and legitimacy crises. Armed groups may compete for influence, and civilians may be caught between different authorities and security forces.
On the Israeli side, debates over the territories, settlements, religion and state relations, democracy, and minority rights can sharpen. As the occupation and conflict shape internal politics, rifts may grow between different ideological, religious, and ethnic groups. Disagreements over the judiciary, the role of the military, or the treatment of Palestinians can become intertwined with broader struggles over the character of the state itself. In an ongoing conflict scenario, these debates may become more polarized and harder to contain within established political frameworks.
In this fragmented landscape, the conflict is not simply “between two sides” but layered within each society. This can make diplomacy more complex, because no single leadership may be able to credibly represent or control all relevant actors. Attempts at de escalation may founder on internal opposition, spoilers, or competing centers of power. At the same time, fragmentation can also bring new grassroots initiatives and local experiments in coexistence or resistance, though these may remain fragile without wider political backing.
Scenario 4: Incremental Annexation and Entrenched Inequalities
A further scenario focuses on gradual, one sided changes on the ground that move toward de facto annexation or irreversible control without a negotiated agreement. In this pattern, one actor extends its legal, administrative, or demographic presence into contested areas over time, while the other lacks the power or international support to prevent it.
In the context of this conflict, such a scenario often centers on the expansion of Israeli settlements, changes in legal regimes across the territory, and shifts in physical infrastructure that place more land, resources, and movement under long term Israeli control. This may occur through laws, court decisions, road networks, security zones, and other processes that cumulatively reshape the map.
If these processes continue, the result can be a single effective territorial system with sharply unequal rights and statuses for the people who live within it. Some analysts describe this in terms of entrenched structural inequality, with different populations subject to different legal frameworks and degrees of political representation. Others contest that framing, but the key point for this scenario is that the conflict remains unresolved as a matter of mutual consent, while the balance of power allows one side to solidify its position.
For Palestinians, such a trajectory can mean shrinking prospects for sovereignty, increasing restrictions, and deeper dependency. For Israelis, it can mean heightened criticism abroad, legal and diplomatic challenges, and internal debates about identity, democracy, and long term security. International reactions might fluctuate between condemnation, adaptation to “facts on the ground,” and attempts to incentivize changes in policy, but without a decisive shift that reverses entrenched patterns.
Scenario 5: Chronic Low Intensity Violence and Everyday Insecurity
Another version of ongoing conflict features chronic low intensity violence rather than frequent large scale wars. Here, there may be relatively few full scale military confrontations, but there is constant friction in the form of localized attacks, raids, shootings, rockets, incursions, and confrontations at checkpoints or demonstrations.
In such an environment, fear and uncertainty become part of everyday life. People may adapt to the presence of soldiers, armed groups, and frequent alerts, but the psychological toll is significant. Children grow up with intermittent sirens, raids, or clashes as background noise. Civilians can be directly targeted or caught in crossfire, and even when casualty numbers are comparatively low, the sense of insecurity remains high.
Low intensity violence can be self perpetuating. Cycles of revenge, collective punishment, or retaliatory measures can sustain a steady rhythm of incidents that never reach the threshold of a major war yet never truly stop. Political leaders might find it easier to live with this level of violence than to risk the political costs of a historic compromise. Security agencies may focus on short term tactical responses rather than addressing root causes.
This scenario also shapes how the conflict is perceived abroad. Without dramatic images of all out war, international attention may fade, and the situation can be framed as “calm” or “quiet” even while affected communities experience ongoing trauma and loss. Over time, chronic low intensity violence can normalize deep inequalities and make them harder to challenge.
Scenario 6: Regionalization and Proxy Conflict
The conflict also has the potential to remain unresolved while becoming more tightly embedded in broader regional power struggles. In this scenario, neighboring states and non state actors increase their involvement, not only as mediators, but also as suppliers of money, weapons, training, and political backing to different local factions. The Israel Palestine conflict then becomes one theater in a wider pattern of rivalry.
Regional powers may see the conflict as a card to play in negotiations over unrelated issues such as sanctions relief, security guarantees, or access to energy markets. Non state actors may view it as a way to build legitimacy, recruit supporters, or challenge rival regimes. International powers may treat it as part of wider strategic competition, for example within tensions between major global blocs.
When the conflict is heavily regionalized, local actors can gain external support that prolongs their capacity to fight, while losing some freedom to make independent compromises. Ceasefires and understandings may require the consent of multiple outside patrons, which can slow or block progress. At the same time, changes in regional alliances or normalization processes can shift incentives, either escalating or damping the level of confrontation.
In this scenario, even if formal peace between Israel and some Arab states progresses, the specific Israeli Palestinian arena may remain entrenched, with different regional actors supporting different outcomes. The result can be a long term hybrid of local grievances and external competition, where the conflict does not end but changes form as alliances evolve.
Scenario 7: Environmental and Economic Stress as Conflict Multipliers
A less discussed but significant set of ongoing conflict scenarios involves the interaction between the political dispute and broader environmental and economic pressures. Even without a political settlement, life in the region must contend with water scarcity, climate change, demographic growth, and economic inequality. These pressures can either intensify violence or push actors toward pragmatic cooperation.
In a negative version of this scenario, worsening resource scarcity, rising temperatures, and economic crises interact with existing grievances. Competition over water, land, and infrastructure becomes more acute in a context of territorial control and unequal access. Economic shocks can heighten unemployment and despair, especially among young people, which can in turn increase recruitment to armed groups or make violent outbursts more likely.
In a more mixed version, these same pressures may create narrow spaces for functional cooperation without a full political deal. For example, joint projects on water, energy, or public health could emerge out of necessity, even while the larger conflict remains unresolved. Such arrangements can either build thin layers of trust or become technical workarounds that stabilize inequality.
In both versions, environmental and economic factors act as multipliers rather than primary causes. They do not replace the core political issues, but they shape how severe and urgent those issues feel, and how much room there is for compromise or escalation. As time passes, the costs of inaction can rise in ways that are not purely military or diplomatic.
Scenario 8: Extended Limbo with Growing International Fatigue
It is also possible that the conflict drifts into a prolonged limbo in which no decisive change occurs, yet the issue gradually loses prominence on the international agenda. Other crises, wars, and global challenges compete for attention, while the Israel Palestine conflict is seen as “too difficult,” “too entrenched,” or “too familiar” to resolve.
In such a scenario, international organizations may maintain existing programs and statements, but there is little new diplomatic energy or creative initiative. Donor fatigue can undermine humanitarian and development efforts. Legal and political debates continue in courts, parliaments, and universities, but have limited impact on the ground. Media coverage may spike during dramatic events, then quickly fade.
For people living the conflict, this can feel like abandonment. At the same time, some local actors may adapt to this reality, building systems of survival, informal economies, and local authority structures that do not depend on the hope of a near term political breakthrough. Over years or decades, the conflict remains present, but the belief that it can be fundamentally transformed may weaken across generations.
Paradoxically, extended limbo can be unstable beneath the surface. Resentments, inequalities, and unaddressed trauma accumulate quietly. When a trigger eventually appears, the eruption can be more intense because few meaningful channels for peaceful change exist. Thus, a long period of apparent stasis may simply be an extended prelude to one of the other, more violent scenarios.
Factors That Push Between Scenarios
The scenarios above are not mutually exclusive. The conflict can move from one pattern to another, or combine elements of several at the same time in different places. For example, there can be chronic low intensity violence in one area, incremental annexation in another, and regional proxy involvement in the background.
Several factors influence which scenario is more likely at any given time. Internal political shifts, including elections, leadership changes, popular protests, or internal crises, can change the incentives for confrontation or compromise. Demographic trends, such as the growth of younger populations, can alter the social and political balance between more radical and more moderate currents.
External factors also matter. Changes in regional alliances, global power structures, and international legal norms can reshape what is considered acceptable or sustainable. Economic transformations, such as technological growth or financial crises, may alter the resources available for conflict or for reconstruction. Major shocks, including large escalations, high profile attacks, or symbolic events, can rapidly change public opinion and political calculations.
Because these influences are complex and interdependent, any attempt to predict the future of the conflict with certainty is unreliable. Instead, thinking in terms of scenarios highlights plausible pathways and helps clarify which developments might move the situation toward or away from prolonged, unresolved conflict.
Living With Uncertainty and Open Ended Futures
Thinking about ongoing conflict scenarios is not an exercise in pessimism, but a recognition that the future of the Israel Palestine conflict is open and contingent. Outcomes are shaped by choices, structures, and chance events, as well as by the actions of individuals and communities who may not hold formal power but still matter.
For learners and observers, understanding these possible trajectories can foster a more realistic sense of what is at stake when people talk about “no solution yet” or “managing the conflict.” Each scenario has specific human, political, and moral implications that go beyond abstract geopolitical analysis.
As you move through the broader discussions of possible futures, it is useful to keep these ongoing conflict patterns in mind. They serve as a reminder that in this context, doing nothing or maintaining the status quo does not mean standing still. It means moving along one of several possible paths in which conflict, in different forms, continues to shape lives, institutions, and landscapes for years to come.