The following three opinion pieces by a Palestinian writer and politicians, an Egyptian writer and Academic, and a Palestinian-Israel politician, discussing how the issue is not only a must sought result of the Israeli genocide war in Gaza, but also the only way to end the deadly Israeli/ Palestinian historical conflict.
The two-state solution: between propaganda and seriousness
Maamoun Fendi is A former professor of political science at Georgetown University, he is now director of the London Institute for Strategic Studies. He has written in several newspapers, including The Washington Post, The New York Times, the Financial Times, the Guardian, and regularly in Christian Science Monitor, and the Middle East. He has several books in English and Arabic, the latest of which is the book “Arbism and Politics: A Theory in the Interpretation of Underdevelopment 2022”.
What should US Secretary of State Tony Blinken know from the Arab side other than the vision of Thomas Friedman put forward in his article in the New York Times last week, which I classify here in the framework of propaganda rather than seriousness, despite my friendship with Friedman. The topic of a two-state solution boils down to three specific scenarios: the first scenario if we are serious about looking for a real solution with regional stability. The second scenario is the propaganda scenario or the search for a sign that says we have reached the solution, that is, a solution. As for the third scenario, it is older than the establishment of the State of Israel itself or the one that produced the State of Israel during the era of the British Empire, which is known as the “dismantling the colonies” (in the Palestinian case, dismantling the settlements and the dismantling of the occupation), which is known in English as the “decolonisation process”, and this has multiple experiences from withdrawing from India, to withdrawing from Suez and between them, which is a scenario that supports the first scenario.
First, the issue of the two-state solution is not a new innovation, and if Arab diplomacy wants to talk to Blinken or with the Israelis about the solution, there are old references known on the basis of international law and framework agreements such as the Geneva Agreement or the Taba talks, and what was known as the “Moratinos Paper”, the European paper prepared by the European Union Special Representative for the Middle East Peace Process, Ambassador Moratinos, and his team after consultations with the Israeli and Palestinian sides in Taba in January 2001.
It is a paper that represents a fair description of the outcome of negotiations on land issues, sanctities and settlements, and the geographical interdependence of the two states in a way that makes a Palestinian state viable. This is an article not about Moratinos’ paper that diplomats know well, but about a set of serious scenarios for a two-state solution.
The idea here is that the beginning is from where the others ended up, because those who did this work were professional diplomats, and the dusting of the results of the old and serious negotiations requires hard work from us; diplomatic, security, legal and political. This makes us immerse ourselves in more than twenty-year-old papers that talk about the core issues of the conflict, first of which is Jerusalem, the return of refugees, and the end of Israeli settlements on the June 4, 1967 borders.
This scenario does not require a single session with the US Secretary of State, but rather requires us specialised working teams, which arrange these papers in their security, political, cultural and legal contexts, and we have many specialists in these fields, which we must select them according to strict criteria so that things do not escape the scenario, and the whole subject turns into propaganda and advertisements; in order to cover a regional deficit shown by the war of the genocide in Gaza.
I am fully aware that the advertising group does not like to roll up our sleeves and sink for a long time to study the above and build on it, this is exhausting for these minds looking for the shot, the picture and the “handcheck”. But this is what my conscience dictates as a message to whom it may concern.
The second scenario, as I mentioned, is that of Friedman and what he called the Biden doctrine, an attempt to reach an agreement before the end of the first Biden administration or the end of its term, as the results of the nearby U.S. presidential election. The essence of this doctrine is to reach an agreement that the price of a Palestinian state is normalization with Israel with some talk about “de escalation” or easing regional tension with Iran, something the Kingdom did without the need for American mediation or an American role in it. The Biden deal is normalization versus a Palestinian state, like the previous concept of “oil for food.”
The problem in this proposal is its naivety regarding the history of Saudi diplomacy and its handling of serious regional files, the first of which is the Palestinian issue, and Friedman and the propaganda group forget that the Saudi state is not just the memory of the historical institutions of the state, the last of which is the period of Prince Saud Al-Faisal, may God have mercy on him, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the management of the files with great professionalism, but we are also in front of a new and serious Saudi leadership that sees itself as a peer, and has a sense and understanding of the capabilities and requirements of the state, and it is not a leadership that is invoked by the methods of propaganda.
In order for the dialogue with the American minister not to slip into the world of propaganda, we must remind the American official of three things; the first is that the two-state solution is not the brainchild of President Biden, but there is a long history in detailed talks about the nature of this country, about sovereignty, its legitimacy and its ability to defend itself, and about refugees and their return to their homes, and compensate those who do not want to return. This is the first thing. The second thing is that Israel is not the first country that occupied the lands of others and left them to its people. The history of dismantling colonies, which has become expensive for empires hundreds of times larger than Israel; As a result of the liberation movements that prevailed in the colony countries in the 1940s, 1950s until the 1960s, models of it can be used for the method of dismantling Israeli settlements. The third thing is the reality of the war in Gaza, as Israel cannot claim, in any way, that it won in this war, as normalization with Israel, the illusion before October 7, has a different price from normalization with Israel after October 7.
This is where we begin the serious conversation.
I am aware of the conversations of some Arab foreign affairs and their priorities regarding the reform of the Palestinian Authority and the qualitative and quantitative improvement of the situation in Gaza. He is also aware of the demands of “the need for a new non-partisan or factional and professional government with full powers and without interventions from the West Bank,” in order to revive the West Bank and benefit from its after it to put more pressure to put more pressure on the ceasefire in Gaza, and to support the position of Saudi Arabia to reach a two-state solution, which I imagine that the Kingdom is able to impose the establishment of a Palestinian state on the international community and on Israel at the same time.
What is important at the end of this article, I say that this is my personal vision and it is a message to those who may concern in order to save a people who have long suffered under occupation and under bombardment, and for comprehensive regional stability. This is what we Arabs must reflect on. As for Secretary Blinken, he must abandon Friedman’s propaganda and the Biden doctrine, and replace with them a new concept of regional security that considers Arab national security and the requirements of the Kingdom’s security, and then we talk about Israel’s security within this new concept.
Does the formula of the “two-state solution” work… And how?
Dr. Asaad Abdulrahman is a Palestinian writer and researcher, and a political analyst specializing in Palestinian issues and the affairs of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He has several books and posts in various publications, which we find on the publications page.
Jordan is one of the first countries and entities to talk about the need to impose a two-state solution… Internationally, on the basis that as long as the Israeli right continues in power and as long as the whole Zionist entity is shifted towards the right to a large extent not only in government but in the political street; this right will not self-accept this “solution”, and therefore it must be imposed, especially under an Israeli prime minister who declared that he is “proud of his historical efforts to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state,” no, but considers: “the Palestinian state poses an existential threat to Israel.”
The Madrid conference was recalled by many politicians and observers, and how the then-Israeli prime minister (Isaac Shamir) was forced to go to the Spanish capital and participate in the conference. But it later turned out that the Zionist state made the Madrid conference a trap, whose goal gave the Zionist entity more time to expand colonization / “settlement” and achieve more penetration of the Arab arenas in the name of peace, as successive Israeli governments turned on their pledges and agreements with the Palestinian National Authority, which has no real or real authority left, and here is “Israel” today continuing with the ongoing war of genocide against the Palestinian Arab people in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank as well.
Who, then, can impose a two-state solution? Or let’s say: Who rejects the two-state solution except for the Zionist entity?! The United States of America expected that the entity would provide it with a thread party that would allow Washington to push its political vision, including the two-state solution, but it seems so far that Washington believes that the current government of Israel is staling, and therefore Washington continues to express its frustration, while US President (Joe Biden) continues to show diverse support for Israel in the war on the Gaza Strip, and refuses to respond to the calls of democratic legislators in Congress to require the continuation of this support with the approval of the Israeli Prime Minister (Benjamin Netanyahu) on an exit plan to end the war and discuss the future of the Gaza Strip under the plan proposed by Biden for the entire Middle East, focusing his belief that the way to normalise relations between the Zionist entity and Arab countries It comes through a two-state solution that also guarantees the security of the Zionist entity, considering that Biden faces fears that he will not be able to deliver achievements in his foreign policy ahead of the US presidential and congressional elections, next November.
Now, international pressure is mounting on the Zionist entity to work towards a political solution that the world believes is only a two-state solution. The idea of two states for “two peoples” has widespread support in the international community, including the United States and the United Nations, as expressed by the EU Representative for Foreign Affairs (Maghere!!!) “The war waged by Israel plants hatred, I think we should stop talking about the peace process and start talking more concretely about the two-state solution process,” he said.
Surely there is no solution now except by imposing a “two-state solution” from the outside, if we assume that American intentions are sound, and that they are truly seeking a solution, and therefore, this direction must be pushed. Today, as we notice the sustainable “inability” of the United States to fulfil the promise of returning the US Consulate to Jerusalem and opening an office of the Liberation Organization in Washington; we do not see any hope for a “Palestinian state” except an international solution through a conference like the Madrid conference supported by the countries of the Security Council. Otherwise, let’s forget that there is a political horizon, and then it becomes the only solution to establish a Palestinian state through various types of resistance, including armed ones.
Ahmad Tibi. advocates for the two-state solution and Arab rights in Israel Arab-Israeli Knesset member Ahmad Tibi. Tibi told Newsweek that Israeli society has descended into “war psychosis” since the Hamas attack on October 7.Tibi leads the Ta’al party, which advocates for the two-state solution and the rights of Arabs living in Israel. He has been branded a “terrorist” by nationalist colleagues for his support of Palestinian resistance groups. In 2021, he prompted fury among colleagues by describing three West Bank militants killed by Israeli security forces as “martyrs.”
“I think that Biden and the U.S. administration can stop the war. They can, because they directed the situation from the very beginning.” Ahmad Tibi told Newsweek.
In an exclusive Newsweekinterview, veteran Arab Israeli member of the Knesset and a political adviser to late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat—Ahmad Tibi—says the White House’s inability to reign in Israel’s war is “embarrassing.” Tibi, heading the Ta’al party, advocates for the two-state solution and Arab rights in Israel. He has been branded a “terrorist” by nationalist peers due to supporting Palestinian resistance groups.Why it matters: Tibi highlighted Israel’s descent into a “war psychosis,” citing calls for Gaza’s eradication, atomic bomb threats, and proclamations that no innocents reside in Gaza. He emphasized a disturbing perception of unequal value for Palestinian lives, contrasting the Biden administration’s concerns over casualties while acknowledging a persistent gap in Palestinian and Israeli death tolls.
What happens now? Actions such as imposing recent sanctions on settlers may not convince Tibi and other Palestinians of U.S. neutrality or effectiveness. Tibi urges President Biden to do more to end the war and foster new opportunities. In Gaza, Tibi said only democratic elections can chart a path forward. When asked about Hamas’s role in future contests, Tibi advocates for unity under the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), led by Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas.