SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
peace process
Achieving the Two-State Solution in the Wake of Gaza War
Peace can come through the immediate implementation of the two-state solution, making the admission of Palestine to the United Nations the starting point, not the ending point.
Mar 05, 2024
The two-state solution is enshrined in international law and is the only viable path to a long-lasting peace. All other solutions—a continuation of Israel’s apartheid regime, one bi-national state, or one unitary state—would guarantee a continuation of war by one side or the other or both. Yet the two-state solution seems irretrievably blocked. It is not. Here is a pathway.
The Israeli government strongly opposes a two-state solution, as does a significant proportion of the Israeli population, some on religious grounds (“God gave us the land”) and some on security grounds (“We can never be safe with a State of Palestine”). A significant proportion of Palestinians regard Israel as an illegitimate settler-colonial entity, and in any event distrust any peace process.
How then to proceed?
The usual recommendation is the following six-step sequence of events: (1) ceasefire; (2) release of hostages; (3) humanitarian assistance; (4) reconstruction; (5) peace conference for negotiations between Israel and Palestine; and finally (6) establishment of two states on agreed boundaries. This path is impossible. There is a perpetual deadlock on steps 5 and 6, and this sequence has failed for 57 years since the 1967 war.
Two sovereign states, on the boundaries of June 4, 1967, protected initially by UN-backed peacekeepers and other guarantees, will be the starting point for a comprehensive and just peace...
The failure of Oslo is the paradigmatic case in point. There are irreconcilable differences, such as the status of East Jerusalem. Israeli zealots would force from power any Israeli politician who dares to give up East Jerusalem to Palestinian sovereignty and Palestinian zealots would do the same with any Palestinian leader who gave up sovereignty over East Jerusalem. We should relinquish the continuing illusion that Israel will ever reach agreement, or that Palestine would ever have the negotiating power to engage meaningfully with Israel, especially when the Palestinian Authority is highly dependent on the US and other funders.
The correct approach is therefore the opposite, starting with the establishment of two states on globally agreed boundaries, notably the boundaries of June 4, 1967 as enshrined in UN Security Council and UN General Assembly resolutions. The UN member states will have to impose the two-state solution, instead of waiting for yet another Palestinian-Israeli failed negotiation.
Thus, the settlement should follow this order: (1) establishment of Palestine as 194th member state within two-state solution framework on June 4, 1967 borders; (2) immediate ceasefire; (3) release of hostages; (4) humanitarian assistance; (5) peacekeepers, disarmament and mutual security; and (6) negotiation on modalities (settlements, return of refugees, mutually agreed land-swaps, and others; but not boundaries).
In 2011, the State of Palestine (now recognized by 140 UN member states but not yet as a UN member state itself) applied for full UN member status. The UN Security Council Committee on New Members (constituted by the UN Security Council) recognized the legitimacy of Palestine’s application, but as is utterly typical in the “peace process,” the US government prevailed on the Palestinian Authority to accept “observer status,” promising that full UN membership would soon follow. Of course, it did not.
The Security Council, backed by the UN General Assembly, has the power under the UN Charter to impose the two-state settlement. It can do so as a matter of international law, following decades of relevant resolutions. It can then enforce the solution through a combination of carrots (economic inducements, reconstruction funding, UNSC-backed peacekeepers, disarmament, border security, etc.) and sticks (sanctions for violations by either party).
The only conceivable border for creating the two-state solution is that of June 4, 1967. Starting from that border, the two sides might indeed negotiate a mutually agreed swap of land for mutual benefit, but they would do so knowing that the “best alternative to a negotiated agreement” (BATNA) is the June 4, 1967 border.
It is quite possible, indeed likely, that the US would initially veto the proposed pathway. After all, the US has already used its veto multiple times to block merely a ceasefire. Yet, the process of eliciting the US veto and then securing a large majority vote in the UN General Assembly will be salutary for three reasons.
First, US politics is shifting rapidly against Israeli policies given the US public’s growing understanding of Israel’s war crimes and Israel’s political extremism. This shift in public opinion makes it far more likely that the US leaders will sooner rather than later accept the basic approach outlined here because of US domestic political dynamics. Second, the increasing US isolation in the UN Security Council and UN General Assembly is also weighing heavily on US leaders, and forcing the US leadership to reconsider its policy positions in view of geopolitical considerations. Third, a strong vote in the UNSC and UNGA for the two-state solution on June 4, 1967 borders will help to strengthen international law and the terms of the eventual settlement as soon as the US veto is lifted.
For these reasons, there is a realistic prospect that the UN will finally exercise its international legal and political authority to create the conditions for peace.
Twenty-two years ago, Arab and Islamic leaders affirmed in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative that that the only pathway to peace is through the two-state solution. On February 7, 2024, the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs reasserted that a comprehensive peace will only be achieved by recognizing an independent Palestinian state on the 1967 borders and East Jerusalem as the capital. The Arab states and the world community generally shouldn’t buy into another vague peace process that is likely doomed to fail, especially given the urgency caused by the ongoing genocide in Gaza and the bad-will accumulated over the past 57 years of a fruitless “Peace Process.”
Peace can come through the immediate implementation of the two-state solution, making the admission of Palestine to the UN the starting point, not the ending point. Two sovereign states, on the boundaries of June 4, 1967, protected initially by UN-backed peacekeepers and other guarantees, will be the starting point for a comprehensive and just peace not only between Israel and Palestine—and also a regional peace that would secure diplomatic relations across the Middle East and end this conflict that has burdened the inhabitants, the region, and the world, for more than a century.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Explosion of Israel's Formaldehyde Strategy in Gaza
There can be no peace in Palestine without justice, which means Israel's 20-year policy of disengagement, brutal apartheid, and occupation must end.
Oct 19, 2023
Israel had the perfect plan for Gaza - in fact, for all Palestinians, when it decided to redeploy its forces around the Occupied Gaza Strip in 2005.
Despite statements made, back then, by Israeli officials that the 'disengagement' plan aimed at severing Israel's legal and other responsibilities from its role as an Occupier, the actual story was different.
Dov Weisglass, a top adviser to the late Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, conveyed the real reasons behind the redeployment.
Weisglass knew exactly what he was saying; after all, he was one of the architects of the plan.
But how much of the Israeli plan, as described by Weisglass, was, in fact, implemented? And did the current war in the Strip change those outcomes, as pronounced nearly two decades ago?
"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process," Weisglass told Haaretz in 2004.
That part has, indeed, been achieved in full. Not only was the so-called peace process frozen, but Israel has, since then, carried out numerous steps to make sure that there is nothing worth negotiating over.
The exponential growth of illegal Jewish settlements, the killing of Palestinians, the desecration of holy sites and the annexation plans made it unrealistic to even suggest that a two state solution is still practically possible.
But why was Israel keen on freezing a 'process' that was futile to begin with?
It was not the peace process that mattered to Israel, but the fact that, so long as such political conversations were still taking place, the Palestinian political agenda remained relevant.
This logic, long argued by Palestinians, was supported by Weisglass himself, when he said that "When you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem.”
“Effectively,” he added, “this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a (US) presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."
This explains much of what has happened since the senior Israeli officials made those revelations and predictions.
First, is that all Israeli governments, regardless of their ideological or political orientations, remained faithful to the plan, and never engaged in any genuine political conversations on the future of a Palestinian State, the rights of the Palestinians, let alone a just peace.
This indicates that Israel's intentions were not open for debate within the country's political establishment. For Tel Aviv, it was the end of peace efforts, and the start of a new phase, that of entrenching the Occupation.
Second, every US administration since then has either invested in the overall Israeli agenda or disowned the very 'peace process' that the Americans had, themselves, invented and sustained.
This, too, did not happen by chance. Israel had invested much lobbying efforts and diplomacy in dissuading the Americans from continuing to pursue their own agenda.
Not only did the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu get what he wanted, he even managed to convince the Trump Administration in 2017 to follow Israel's own agenda on Jerusalem, on the refugees, on settlements and even on annexation.
The Biden administration did not alter that new grim political reality established by President Donald Trump, even if some of its language appeared to suggest otherwise.
Third, although unwittingly, Weisglass indicated that Israel does not see Palestinians and their struggle as fragments, but as a unified whole. By blocking one aspect of that struggle, the political process, all others are meant to fall apart like pieces of dominos.
The division of Palestinians, along with the ability of Mahmoud Abbas to sustain his Palestinian Authority for all these years despite its failure to achieve anything of substance, allowed Israel to advance its original plan unhindered.
Frustrated by the insistence of many countries, including the US, that Israel must engage in a political process, Israel, instead, decided to ‘disengage’ from Gaza.
"The disengagement is actually formaldehyde," Weisglass said. "It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians."
The Israeli plan, however, was not a complete success. Palestinians continued to lead a massive campaign of resistance, involving all aspects of society in Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem.
And, as was always the case, Israel responded with a massive show of force whenever Palestinians seemed ready to challenge their Israeli jailors.
From the frequent raids on Jenin, Nablus, Jericho to the massive and deadly wars on Gaza, Israel has done everything in its power, not only to crush Palestinians but also to send them a message: no resistance of any kind will be tolerated, and no form of resistance will ever be enough to place Palestine back on Israel’s political agenda, or those of its allies.
A feeling of ‘we won, and you lost’ has pervaded official Israeli institutions and society. Israeli election campaigns seemed entirely disinterested in even discussing the settlements, a Palestinian State, the status of Jerusalem and so on.
Palestinians were still useful, however. The PA served as a line of defense for the ever-growing settlements. And every Palestinian attack against Israeli targets was utilized as further proof that Israel has no peace partner, thus solidifying the anti-peace position of every Israeli government.
The discussion in the media following the Hamas attack on southern Israel on October 7 focused on the attack itself, on Hamas as a group and, later, although selectively, on the bloodbath created by Israel in Gaza.
But that date was not the start of the war; it is a horrific episode of a war that has already started and is sustained by a very violent Israeli military Occupation and apartheid.
Equally important, regardless of Israeli propaganda and distorted western media coverage, there is no question that Israel has failed.
That failure was initiated by Sharon’s wishful thinking in 2005, and maintained through the illusions and arrogance of every Israeli government ever since.
The truth is that Netanyahu is only a cog in a massive Israeli political machine which aims at dismissing the Palestinian cause, forever.
Even those who insist on supporting Israel at any cost, cannot now genuinely pretend that Palestine is not back on the agenda as the Middle East’s most vital issue. Without a free Palestine, there can never be true peace, security or stability.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular