After the Al-Aqsa flood, conversations and calls multiplied, especially American, European, and international, about a “two-state solution.” Do these movements have a seriousness that makes them different from previous initiatives and efforts? Since the signing of the Oslo Accords, there has been talk about a “two-state solution,” as included in the international road map that was proposed. In 2003, there was a clause about the Palestinian state, in a vague, optional, transitional form. Then the administration of George W. Bush adopted the “two-state solution,” as did the administration of Barack Obama, and even Donald Trump’s deal included a Palestinian state on less than 30% of its supposed territory. That is, out of the total 22% that constitute the area of ​​the West Bank and Gaza Strip out of the total area of ​​Palestine, provided that it is without the elements of states, and within a deal aimed at liquidating the Palestinian issue in all its dimensions, so the Palestinians of all directions rejected it.

Since the arrival of President Joe Biden, he has been repeating his talk about the “two-state solution,” but before October 7, he was repeating that it is an unattainable solution, because governments have come to power in Israel that reject in principle even the idea of ​​establishing a Palestinian state, on the basis that all of Palestine is part of “ “The Promised Land,” and it is not possible to establish a Palestinian state between the river and the sea, even if it was within the territory occupied in 1967. He was adapting to the Israeli reality, supporting it, and asking the Palestinian Authority to coexist with him (and he had what he wanted) until God decreed something that had been effected. .

After the Al-Aqsa flood, Biden and members of his administration repeated the issue of the “two-state solution,” to the point that the president and leaders of the Israeli government and the opposition asked him to stop doing so, so as not to raise the ceiling of Palestinian and Arab expectations.

In recent days, in the call that took place between Netanyahu and Biden, the latter announced that it is not impossible to establish a Palestinian state under the Netanyahu government, and this seemed strange and surprising. Because Netanyahu repeatedly announced that he prevented the establishment of a Palestinian state, and that he is the guarantee that it will not be established in the future, and that any leader in Israel must be able to say no to the United States, or as he said to friends of Israel.

In order not to lose the support of his far-right base, which concerns him more than anything else and rejects the establishment of a Palestinian state in form and substance, Netanyahu was quick to clarify that he is still against the Palestinian state, but because he is known to be a big liar, there is more to the story, and the master of the White House cannot announce it. About Netanyahu’s approval without having heard from him anything that suggests this.

Upon research and investigation, it turned out that Netanyahu, who had previously verbally supported the establishment of a state in his speech at Bar-Ilan University in 2009 to please Obama and completely retracted that, said to Biden after reminding him of his historical position of rejecting a Palestinian state, and his insistence on the Israeli occupying forces remaining on the borders of the Jordan River. And security remains in the hands of Israel in the West Bank and Gaza, and this contradicts the Palestinian state, so that what happened on October 7 will not be repeated. “You must not understand from my words a complete rejection of a Palestinian state.” Which means that he could be open to establishing a state that does not have the components of a state, and from which large areas are cut off, including in Jerusalem, and whose situation is not much different from that of the authority in the West Bank, whose lands and powers are completely expropriated, and it will not pose a major problem for Netanyahu if it names itself.” A Palestinian state. In this case, he could find in this an opportunity for his political survival. In this case, it would be a “state” like Trump’s “state.” This means that Biden, instead of pressuring Netanyahu to change his position or seek to overthrow his government, decided to concede to him. The auction was opened to search for different formulas for the future state, not fundamentally different from the “state” proposed by Trump.

There is no other explanation for what I presented above, the contradiction of talk about rejecting and accepting a Palestinian state from Netanyahu at the same time. All that currently matters to him is his political survival, so the continuation of the war has become the goal to avoid accountability and block the way to holding early elections. The chances of him and his ruling coalition winning them so far are non-existent. .

He will not go along with Biden much, even if his talk about the state is not serious, because of Netanyahu’s concern for his right-wing base, even though the goal of the master of the White House is to convince the Arabs to integrate Israel into the region, in exchange for giving them a “political horizon” that no one knows when it will end with a state, so The Arabs must not fall, consciously or unconsciously, into the trap that is being prepared for them, and carry out normalization first with a promise to establish a state later. If this happens, this represents a reproduction of what was proposed before October 7th. Where Saudi-Israeli normalization was just around the corner, in exchange for improving the conditions of Palestinian life and starting a political path that would end with the establishment of a Palestinian state. Therefore, the state must be the beginning, and normalization is the end if necessary. If Israel takes what it wants in advance, it will not be interested in paying anything later.

Biden is deceitful and just wants Netanyahu to go along

The experience with Biden before he was president, when he was vice president, and after he became president, specifically since the Al-Aqsa flood, shows that he actually seemed to do as he said, that he is a Zionist, and his country is not only supportive of Israel as before, but during his reign it has become a full partner in the war, which is still… He repeats that he is against stopping it, and in favor of achieving its goals, while disagreeing on a number of tactical issues about how and in what form it will be conducted, and the necessity of determining the plan for the next day, and giving priority to the release of prisoners, through truces and prisoner exchanges, and reducing the number of civilian casualties.

All Biden wants from Netanyahu is to go along with him in talking about the Palestinian state or the so-called “two-state solution,” in order to convince the Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia, to proceed with integrating Israel into the region and normalizing relations with it. However, the Al-Aqsa flood battle dealt that a major blow. Or at least freeze it until further notice.

Why doesn’t Biden present a plan to establish a Palestinian state?

What prevents Biden from presenting a serious plan or vision about establishing a Palestinian state, in addition to his convictions and Zionism, the American-Israeli strategic organic relationship, and common interests and goals, is the proximity of the elections, and his unwillingness to lose supporters of Israel and the Zionist movement, especially in light of the differences over the issue. Within his party, and even within his presidential team and in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and his fear of Donald Trump, who is the candidate candidate to run against him in the elections, and is significantly ahead of him, as polls indicate, and he has a trump card to win over the supporters of Israel, the neo-conservatives, and the Christian Zionists, and it is his ill-fated deal that gave Israel all Nothing is left for the Palestinians but crumbs, acceptance of a Palestinian state that is not a state, and promises of major economic and other projects for which there are no real guarantees for their implementation. This is with the knowledge that Netanyahu is evading and buying time until the date of the US presidential elections, as he prefers Trump to win over Biden. Indeed, Trump’s victory will make matters worse, and will prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.

It also prevents Biden from being serious about the establishment of a Palestinian state or a serious path to its establishment. Because this will be interpreted as a victory for Iran, Turkey, Russia, and China, and a reward for the Palestinian resistance. What encourages her and encourages others to follow suit.

Therefore, I am inclined to believe that Biden, who believes that there is no Israeli partner for the “two-state solution,” will hold the Palestinians responsible for not achieving their state, and this appears by encouraging the perpetuation of division, demanding the creation of a new Palestinian authority, preparing it to return to the Gaza Strip, and the necessity of carrying out “reforms.” “If you fulfill it, it will practically transform from a weak authority that cooperates with the occupation on security matters into a puppet authority.

What is required of Washington to implement the two-state solution?

If Washington is serious about implementing the two-state solution, it must:

First: Pressure on the Netanyahu government to stop the war immediately, reach a comprehensive deal to release the prisoners on an all-in basis, and launch a political initiative in partnership with the permanent members of the Security Council and the relevant regional and Arab countries (this is unlikely in light of the increasing intensity of competition, the collapse of the international system, and solutions of a kind of chaos instead until a new order crystallizes). The reference for this initiative will be international law and United Nations resolutions, so that negotiations will be to implement them and not against them, and within a short timetable and a binding mechanism, and that this will be within the framework of the United Nations, and through an ongoing international conference with full powers, and that Washington and European capitals will begin to recognize the Palestinian state on the basis of 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital.

Second: Not using a veto in the Security Council from Washington or others when considering converting the membership of the observer state of Palestine into a full-fledged state, and giving the green light to the Palestinian leadership to achieve unity.

All of the above is out of reach, and we need to continue the struggle in all forms to change the balance of power in a way that makes Washington lose from its refusal to establish a Palestinian state, and make the embodiment of the independence of the State of Palestine a very realistic goal, and this requires one legitimate, effective Palestinian leadership, based on national consensus until elections are held. And to one vision and position, and to form a government of national reconciliation, which will undertake reconstruction, end division, and address the effects of aggression, as well as unify the Palestinian institution within the framework of the Liberation Organization, with the participation of various factions, groupings, and groups. This leadership will be a lever for the Arab and international position aimed at ending the occupation and achieving independence for the State of Palestine.

Factors pushing towards the state

Despite the above, there are factors pushing towards the state, the most important of which are:

First: The humanitarian catastrophe that led to genocide put Israel in the dock, and this opens the door for it to be held accountable and held accountable by countries individually, all the way to being held accountable internationally, especially if the Hague Court takes South Africa’s case and acknowledges the suspicion of committing genocide, and the consequences that result from that. Initial decisions, the most important of which is the demand to stop the crime of genocide.

This disaster brought the Palestinian issue back to the forefront of events. Which led to a global popular uprising, especially in Western countries. The world, for practical and moral reasons and under the pressure of global public opinion, no longer accepted, as before, neglecting the Palestinian issue and not working to find a just, even relative, solution to it.

Second: It is likely that after the historic failure on October 7 and beyond, the Netanyahu government will fall and a less extremist Israeli government will be formed, and this will mean a major blow to the religious and nationalist parties and the most extremist elements. It is true that the new government is against and will not easily accept the establishment of a Palestinian state, but it will be more flexible than the current one, and more vulnerable to external pressures.

Third: Whatever may be said or said about the Al-Aqsa flood, it proved that Israel is capable of defeat, and that relying on force, denying the existence of the Palestinian people and their rights, and not being prepared to end the occupation and achieve independence, did not and will not lead to providing security for Israel. The Palestinian people have proven that they are the people of the mighty, and that they He is steadfast and ready to continue his steadfastness and struggle until he achieves his goals, no matter how heavy the sacrifices are and how long it takes, especially after the Israeli forces were unable to achieve their goals from the war, including the mass displacement of Palestinians, even though the danger of individual displacement is present, especially if it does not inspire hope for a promising future, in addition to The occupation forces have suffered and may suffer human, economic and other losses after 108 days of war.

Failure to resolve the Palestinian issue not only threatens the peoples and countries of the region, but also threatens global security and stability, as the specter of regional war and, behind it, global war hovers in the air.

Finally, the goal of ending the occupation and embodying independence must be presented as a goal for this war: First, because the size of the huge sacrifices makes this goal the least we must work to achieve, as it is not enough to release prisoners or rebuild and build on the importance of that. Secondly, the conflict currently taking place politically and on the ground is over the fate of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and those involved in the issue must not lose sight of the battle in politics and the field, nor from any research into the future of the Palestinian issue to block all hostile scenarios, even if the hope of achieving independence now is not It is likely, although it is closer to being achieved than at any previous period, otherwise we will end up with a state in Gaza with or without West Bank buffers.