The two-state solution and alternatives to war

The American administration, through the words of President Biden and his Secretary of State, is excessive in calling for a two-state solution. It is not satisfied with statements, but has discussed this with the Palestinian and Egyptian presidents, the Jordanian king, the Qatari prince, and with the Europeans, who have begun to lean toward that as well. The American administration has a perception or perceptions of this that it did not display publicly, and this is understandable. Because it is still in the support gathering stage. What is clear so far is that the first goal of the idea and its plans is to avoid the international conference that the Chinese and Russians support, and which neither Israel nor the United States wants. There are those who say that there are other reasons for this tendency, namely the US presidential elections, which are beginning to be campaigned, and President Biden is a candidate in them, and there is growing support for the Palestinians in the Democratic Party, as well as among American Jewish circles that want to end the wars in and against Israel. One of the reasons is the Americans’ attempts to please their Arab allies in the region, and they are now very angry at the apparent American inability to stop the horrific war on Gaza.

The Arabs, or some of them, believe that if the United States is serious about reaching a two-state solution, and the Palestinian President and the Arabs support that; It must be able to convince the Israeli partner of two things: to stop the war, and to pursue the two-state solution. The director of an Arab research center told me that, according to his belief, the United States has not yet spoken seriously with the Israelis about the two matters. They are still hoping that the war administration in Israel will approve humanitarian truces. The Israelis are apparently convinced that with a fierce war on Khan Yunis, they can kill Hamas leaders and release the hostages from the tunnels. What is strange is that it is as if the American administration is convinced of this or shows conviction and gives Israel a few weeks of opportunity to achieve its alleged goals. The problem is that no one believes that both goals can be achieved, and global public opinion, and American in particular, cannot tolerate the Israeli violence in the Gaza Strip and the prevention of aid for weeks to come, in addition to the fact that the United States’ allies in the region and the world are very embarrassed, as appeared at the Gulf Cooperation Council meeting in Doha on Tuesday in 11/5/2023, and the high-frequency Qatari statements following the meeting.

The world wants two things from the United States: to stop the war and a two-state solution. There is no doubt that the two-state solution path is more difficult because it requires long negotiations and requires strategic Israeli decisions that the extreme right-wing government in Israel cannot or will not accept. Thus, “stopping the war” becomes a test of the United States’ ability to influence, even if the stop occurred by a decision of the war government in Israel. This is evidence of the strategic capabilities of the United States towards Israel, which it has supported in every way during the past two months, with equipment, money, and political protection. It was thought that Israel did not need weapons, but the United States embraced them in every way in order to control and influence outcomes. There are commentators, including Thomas Friedman, who say that the United States can stop the war, but believes that the time has not yet come. Because “Hamas” is still alive and strong and its senior military leadership is commanding and in control, even if the war stops, a negotiated solution will not be possible, neither on the part of the Israeli government, nor on the part of “Hamas.” Thus, developments for a negotiated solution require changing the current Israeli government, and the extreme weakness of “Hamas” such that it is unable and unable to object to the peaceful or negotiated solution, which is a solution that neither the current settler government nor the Sinwari “Hamas” authority consider fair or equitable on both sides!

The Americans therefore want to convince the waiting Arabs and others that the tense wait is not in vain, even if it is mixed with a lot of blood. But the Europeans (the Spanish, the French, and the Belgians) tell them: But at least while the fire is raging, civilians must be protected, aid must be brought in without restrictions or conditions, and the killing in the West Bank and Jerusalem must be stopped. These are objections and grievances that the Americans were unable to answer, and humanitarian organizations, including Doctors Without Borders, began submitting their complaints to the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation after they despaired of the UN commissions, the United States, and the major European countries!

Amidst these circumstances, the confronting precedents, and the conditions, the belief in the first days of the war is declining that the immediately present two-state solution is an alternative to the war that can be stopped upon its arrival. If the war stops now, for example; The situation will return to what it was after the four previous wars between Hamas and Israel, with the difference that the war was much longer than previous wars, and that the losses in people and buildings are ten times more than before. Thomas Friedman in the New York Times suggests that the Israeli war leadership stop the fighting immediately and demand that Hamas release Israeli prisoners without exchange deals for Palestinian prisoners. If the leadership of “Hamas” refuses, the whole world will become against it, but if the Israeli army continues to fight, it will become clear to everyone that it is unable to achieve the two goals it set for itself: releasing the prisoners, and ending “Hamas” or ending its control over the Gaza Strip!

There are those who want to revive Kissinger, who died 100 years ago. If he were alive and an influential official, he might not have stopped the war now, but after stopping, he would have prepared a detailed plan for negotiation and obtained initial approval for it from all the influential parties. How would he view Hamas and its fate? Most likely, he will ignore it and leave the Israeli army to besiege it, while politicians from all parties rush to meet in Qatar, Madrid, or Oslo in an effort to revive “Oslo” or for a new agreement like the one proposed by President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi: the international demand to recognize the Palestinian state, and then move towards solving the rest of the issues. Problems of the final solution, such as Gaza, Jerusalem, refugees, borders, and before and after that, security. But all of these issues have been reviewed hundreds of times, and since the second half of the 1990s there has been no resolve to resolve them because of “Hamas” and because of the rise of the Israeli right, which has not stopped to this day. With the rise in the shares of Palestinian radicals and the recent takeover of Gaza, the shares of Israeli radicals always rose until they ended up where they are today.

How did things get to this level of deterioration? Everyone was convinced of temporary solutions, which the Israelis and Americans believed would benefit Israel in the end. Even Hamas said about the long truce with the occupation. They are now saying that they were preparing, but the Israelis were unaware. The result of the two tactics or strategies is this ongoing massacre, the extent of which and its losses are increasing, and it makes the possibility of the two peoples living side by side more difficult and difficult.

Will the two-state solution project be an alternative to war and future wars? This is what everyone hopes, but the horizon is not promising!