Civil Society’s Cry for Urgency in Paris Forum

The Paris Peace Forum I attended last weekend was not another diplomatic formality. It was a rare, emotionally charged gathering where Israeli and Palestinian civil society leaders, policy thinkers, and international partners confronted one another—and the world—with the raw realities of war, loss, and the vanishing prospect of two states. If the international community is searching for moral clarity and political urgency, the Forum delivered both in abundance.

Hundreds of  participants from Israeli and Palestinian civil society, the broader region, and international institutions convened at the French Economic, Social and Environmental Council. The aim was not to manage the conflict, but to demand and carve a path out—one rooted in mutual recognition, security, and dignity for both peoples.

The Paris Call for the Two-State Solution, presented at the close of the event, was not just a document but a collective appeal. It called for immediate recognition of the State of Palestine, a permanent ceasefire, the unconditional release of all hostages, and unimpeded humanitarian access to Gaza. The message was clear: the time for statements has passed; the time for action is now.

The debates at the Forum laid bare the differences and the shared frustrations among civil society actors. For some, the two-state solution remains the only viable path, but as one Israeli policy veteran observed, “If you asked young people in Ramallah or East Jerusalem about two states, they’d look at you like you’re from another planet.” The fatigue is palpable. Many younger Israelis and Palestinians see the two-state solution as an empty slogan, worn out by decades of failed negotiations and shifting realities on the ground.

Yet, others insisted on the urgency of keeping the vision alive. “Preserving the idea of a two-state solution is no longer enough,” argued one Israeli activist. “We must move to implementation. Every new settlement, every act of annexation, is a nail in the coffin of this possibility. The international community must stop condemning and start acting.”

Palestinian civil society leaders, meanwhile, stressed that the demand for statehood is not a bargaining chip but a matter of survival. “We are not asking for a reward; we are claiming our right,” said a West Bank activist. “Occupation is not a status quo to be managed. It is a daily reality of violence, dispossession, and despair. The war in Gaza has made survival the immediate priority, but statehood remains non-negotiable.”

A striking feature of the Forum was the prominence of women and youth. Over 60% of the civil society organizations represented were led by women. Their message was unequivocal: “We understand the needs of the grassroots. Peace cannot be built without us.” Women activists spoke of the double burden they face—navigating patriarchal societies and the risks of being branded as traitors for engaging in dialogue. Yet, they are undeterred, demanding not just a seat at the table, but a new political architecture where civil society is a partner, not a spectator.

Youth voices, too, challenged the old paradigms. “We must break the cycle of repeating failed experiments,” said a Palestinian academic. “The two-state solution has been on the table for decades, but nothing has changed. We need new models—confederation, shared institutions, open borders. We need to show people what a different reality could look like, not just talk about it.”

The Forum did not shy away from the thorniest issues. Israeli experts warned that the current government’s strategy is to make a two-state solution impossible through relentless settlement expansion and legal annexation. “In the last five months alone, 20,000 new housing units have been advanced in settlements—an unprecedented pace,” one peace monitor reported. “This is not just policy; it is a deliberate effort to foreclose the option of partition.”

Jerusalem, too, loomed large. “We are witnessing the denationalization of Palestinians in East Jerusalem and the marginalization of Christians,” said a Jerusalem specialist. “If these trends continue, we will not only lose two states, but plant the seeds of the next war.” The call was for an international campaign to “secure the character of Jerusalem” and prevent further displacement and erasure.

President Macron’s intervention was the moment many had anticipated. He reaffirmed France’s “absolute and sovereign” determination to recognize the State of Palestine, insisting that France’s commitment to a two-state solution would not be swayed by external pressure. Yet, Macron’s conditions were explicit: a long-term ceasefire, the release of all hostages, a massive humanitarian influx into Gaza, and the establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state with a civilian administration that excludes Hamas and recognizes Israel’s existence and security. Recognition, he insisted, must be part of a broader international process, with regional and global support, and must proceed step by step, in tandem with these political and security guarantees.

This calibrated stance drew mixed reactions. Some civil society leaders, particularly on the Palestinian side, argued that incrementalism has failed. “We need recognition now,” urged one participant. Others acknowledged the complexity of Macron’s position, but insisted that the time for half-measures has passed.

The Paris Call for the Two-State Solution was a direct plea:

“These are beyond a political problem to be managed. They are a moral wound on the conscience of the world… In pursuit of a future for our children, we call on you to champion these actions, not as items on an agenda, but as moral imperatives: End the war… Recognize Palestinian statehood… Protect civil society… Invest in a new narrative and rising generations.”

The Paris Peace Forum was a moment of reckoning. The voices of activists, women, and youth cut through the fog of diplomacy, demanding that the world choose between incrementalism and action, between managing conflict and ending it. “Our histories are filled with pain, but our future is still unwritten—and you now hold the pen,” the Paris Call concluded.

If the two-state solution is to survive, it will be because civil society refused to let it die. The world is watching. History will judge not by rhetoric, but by the courage to act—now, before it is too late.