Last updated: February 13, 2024 – 9:55 AM

Written by: Awni Al-Qalamji

The American administration, without warning, invoked the “two-state solution” project, eighty-seven years after its shameful birth, and considered it “the only way to end the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and that it is a necessary need for the period after the cessation of the war in Gaza, and its readiness to officially recognize a Palestinian state on Specific lands to be agreed upon between the two parties.” In an attempt to convince the Palestinian resistance of this lie, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken emphasized it during his recent visit to the Zionist entity, with a statement in which he said that the solution, “two states for two peoples again, is the only way to guarantee permanent security for Israel and the only way to ensure the fulfillment of Israel’s aspirations.” legitimate Palestinians to a state of their own.” US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby paved the way for this project in a press conference, saying, “Eliminating Hamas as an idea has become unlikely, and it is not just a group of terrorists to be eliminated militarily.” While the Israeli Channel 13 intensified its talk about it, saying, “The United States is pressing to obtain Netanyahu’s approval for a ceasefire for more than four months, including a two-stage prisoner exchange with Hamas.” The New York Times concluded by saying, “US intelligence officials informed members of Congress during a military briefing presented to them this week that Israel did not come close to eliminating Hamas, but it succeeded in weakening the movement’s combat capabilities, given that Hamas operates as a force in a guerrilla war. It hides in a network of tunnels that are difficult to penetrate.” NBC News interpreted these statements by saying, “When the American administration presents this solution, before any comprehensive and final agreement between the two parties, it wants to understand the clear shifts in Washington’s position towards the Palestinian issue.”

These miserable attempts, which involve deception and misinformation, would not have been resorted to by the United States, with all its arrogance, had it not been for the Al-Aqsa Flood operation and the victories it achieved on the one hand, and on the other hand the inability of the Zionist entity to eliminate the resistance, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promised during A week or two at most, so that he can recover from the destruction of Gaza and its infrastructure, and the martyrdom of tens of thousands of innocent people. In other words, what America did was not out of mercy for the people of Gaza, or awakening conscience, or in response to the demand to stop the war, but in order to save the Zionist entity from a terrible defeat, as a result of its army’s involvement in the Gaza mud, or at least to restore its ugly image before the free countries and the peoples of the earth. All, as a result of the growing anger of world public opinion at the genocidal crimes committed by the Zionist army every day. But Biden forgot, due to his advanced age, that this solution had lost its effectiveness and had become useless, and that the Palestinian resistance had only gained from it a fragile Palestinian authority, managed from Tel Aviv, which forced its president, Mahmoud Abbas, to announce from time to time the abandonment of all agreements. With the entity and with America” to absorb Palestinian popular anger. Only the Arab rulers of apostasy support the “two-state solution” and promote it, as an attempt to cover their shame.

The history of the two-state solution does not go back, as some believe, to the political thinker and linguist Noam Chomsky, who introduced it after the defeat of the 1967 war, its adoption by the United Nations, and the issuance of Resolution 242 regarding it. Rather, it was preceded by several international bodies decades before this date, specifically From the year 1937. Britain, occupying the land of Palestine, formed the Palestinian Royal Commission, known simply as the Peel Commission, after Earl Peel, Secretary of State for India and member of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom. I talked about dividing the historic Palestinian territories into two states. In 1938, Britain formed the “Woodhead” Committee of 1938, after the Zionists rejected the Peel Commission’s proposal, with the aim of convincing both parties to accept partition. The committee worked to re-correct the recommendations of the previous “Peel” Commission and rely on them to propose another partition process.

In the year 1947, the United Nations General Assembly issued Resolution No. 181, specifically on the twenty-ninth of January 1947, dividing the historic Palestinian territories into three sections, in what was known as the Palestine Partition Resolution. It is the first UN resolution to address the issue of the two-state solution, albeit almost implicitly, after the end of the British mandate for Palestine. The resolution adopted a plan to divide Palestine into three entities, including two states and an international region. Then came the proposal of Count Bernadotte, the United Nations mediator, on September 9, 1948, which included four points: the establishment of one state for Palestine and the other for the Zionist entity, linking them to an economic unity, Arab recognition of the Zionist entity, placing Jerusalem under international supervision, and the immediate return of Palestinian refugees to their villages and lands. The project fell due to its rejection by the entity, and Bernadotte fell with it through an assassination operation, carried out by Zionist gangs, one week later in the same year in the city of Jerusalem.

As for Resolution 242, which was issued by the United Nations after the 1967 war, the Arab rulers accepted it, despite the ambiguity that surrounded it, especially in its first paragraph. It is the paragraph related to the withdrawal of the Zionist occupation army from the occupied Palestinian territories, which prompted a number of delegates of countries supporting the entity to declare before the vote that the resolution was understood as Israel’s withdrawal from all the lands it occupied after the 1967 war, so it was amended by deleting the definition, to become withdrawal from lands, instead of withdrawing from all lands. Then it was followed by many Arab initiatives, which ultimately led to the notorious 1993 Oslo Accords. As it resulted in a fragile Palestinian Authority, on a land whose actual area is 12% of the land of Palestine, and not 22% as stipulated in the agreement. However, the alleged state, which was supposed to be announced no later than the year 1999, was not achieved. It reached a dead end from that date until the present day. Rather, the status of the Palestinian Authority has declined and it now exercises only limited control over some sections of the occupied West Bank, while settlement construction has expanded exponentially.

In light of the above, it is unlikely that the Palestinian resistance in Gaza will be deceived by the American offer of the “two-state solution” project. Despite its shortcomings, it completely contradicts the reality of the American position, which is completely biased towards the Zionist entity, and which is represented by America’s participation with all its weight, from the first hours of the start of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, militarily, economically, politically and medially, to enable the Zionist entity to take revenge on the resistance, defeat it, and force it to surrender. Not reconciling with it, and giving it a state that lives next to the entity and poses a threat to it. America did not content itself with moving its fleets to the region and building an air bridge to transport weapons, equipment, and money to support the entity’s war effort. Rather, it sent military forces trained in urban warfare to fight side by side with the Zionist forces.

The reasons that drive America to desperately defend the Zionist entity are not limited, as is commonly said among politicians or those concerned with this matter, to securing its interests in the region and controlling its wealth, especially energy sources such as oil, gas, minerals, etc., but rather go much beyond that. Maintaining the security of the entity, its continued existence, and protecting it from every danger that threatens it is considered the important link in building the global American empire, at whose gates history ends, as the American thinker of Japanese origin, Francis Fukayama, spoke about in his book “The End of History and the Last Man.” “. Therefore, the defeat of the entity, or even its failure to achieve an overwhelming victory against the resistance, is a defeat for this project, for which America entered many wars, occupied countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, and incurred great material and human losses. In a clearer sense, if Britain had created the Zionist entity through the infamous Balfour Declaration in 1917 to secure its interests in the region, then America’s adoption of this entity goes beyond interests, despite their importance, to be an essential party in building the global American empire.

Linking the defeat of the entity to America’s global project is not an illusion or fantasy that involves extreme exaggeration. Rather, it is a fact that clearly emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the decline of British influence in the world, the interest of the European Union countries in developing their economies and industries, and China’s contentment with its great achievements. The foundations of this project were laid by former US President George H.W. Bush, and he announced it in a speech on February 7, 1992 in which he said, “The twenty-first century will be America’s century.” Then his successors adopted it, regardless of whether it was The caliph is from the Republican or Democratic Party. If Bush Sr. had sought to achieve this project, through peaceful means, through economic and financial agreements, the World Bank, the Monetary Fund, international treaties, and the United Nations, then Bush Jr., who ruled America from 2000 to 2008, sought to achieve it through wars, and to destroy everyone who stood in the way. The American global project. He wrapped this aggressive policy with slogans that implied an absurd disdain for the countries of the world and their people, and by that we mean those slogans that he put forward, as a justification for launching his military aggression against any country he chose, and granting himself the right, and no one else, to be the opponent and the ruler at the same time. Among the most important of these slogans were: the slogan of whoever is not with us is against us, pre-emptive strikes, preventive war, abandoning most international treaties, including the Quito Treaty to protect the environment, and giving America free rein to wage war against any country without referring to the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations. .

Aside from the position that the Palestinian resistance will take in Gaza, or the way of dealing with it, or accepting or rejecting it, it will never lose sight of the goal of reviving this proposal by America, and supporting it by its allies, especially Britain, which is intended to bring the resistance once again into the vortex of this. The solution is poorly mentioned. Indeed, the Palestinian resistance in general, and the resistance in Gaza in particular, remembers well how the two-state solution project turned into a formula of land for peace, then land for safety, then negotiations for peace, then activating the negotiations, then working to break the stalemate and restore negotiations, and so on. This deliberate procrastination was expressed by Henry Kissinger, the architect of American foreign policy for a long period of time, by changing the slogan of land for peace to the principle of land for time. That is, the exhaustion of the Palestinians and the Arab rulers over time. However, despite all the humiliating and disgraceful concessions made by the Arab apostate rulers, in order to accept a little, the Zionist entity rejected them all.

Let us leave aside these conclusions that some may consider to be a figment of the imagination. We resort to a simple calculation, or as they say, “the Arab calculation.” How can America’s peaceful project, which is the establishment of two neighboring states, be reconciled, while at the same time encouraging the Zionist entity and providing it with full support in continuing the aggressive war to eliminate the resistance, and covering up the crime of genocide committed by the Zionist army around the clock? Doesn’t peace require an immediate cessation of the war and the withdrawal of Zionist forces to the borders before the start of the war? Didn’t America reject all calls to stop the fighting or hold a temporary humanitarian truce, under the pretext of the entity’s right to self-defense, while it considers the resistance in Gaza, with all its factions, to be terrorist groups that must be eliminated and eradicated? Didn’t America itself obstruct the “Palestinian state” from obtaining full membership, instead of its current status as an observer member in the United Nations, despite the approval of 139 countries?

A questioner may ask: Will the resistance in Gaza, after all these enormous sacrifices, bite from the same hole twice, be deceived by the promises of the Americans or other colonial countries, and sacrifice all this blood that spilled on the land of Gaza? Or will you continue to fight to liberate Palestine from the abomination of the Zionist occupation, and to build an independent, sovereign state over the entire Palestinian territory, no matter how long it takes and how many sacrifices there are? The architects of the flood are not negligent people and are only suitable for engineering victory, and achieving the full right without any loss, and the guarantee of that is what you paid. Gaza suffers a painful price. No one dares to raise the flag of surrender with him.