Is a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine possible? | Start Here

let's talk about the two

state

solution

Israel living next to the new

state

of Palestine has long been considered the answer but remains elusive with the war in Gaza back in the headlines the only real

solution

is a two state solution that is lasting over time The end of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict can only come through a two-state solution, a future in which two states live side by side in peace and security. What do people really mean when they talk about a two-state solution? How long has the idea been around? and why some people think it has become more of an avoidance strategy that lets politicians off the hook.

They use this as a tool to absolve themselves of responsibility. It's a form of escapism. The two-state solution is about deciding what this land will be like. divided who lives t

here

and who controls it now you might think it's about getting Israelis and Palestinians to agree on a simple division, but t

here

is nothing simple about it, just look at the map to

start

, this is Israel and then there are the Palestinian territories that are under Israeli military occupation and isolated from each other here in Gaza, Israel's war has left the strip in ruins and the West Bank looks more like a mosaic of Palestinian land because of all the settlements Israel has built over the years, these are illegal under international law there.

There are now 700,000 Israeli settlers living on Palestinian lands and that makes the path to a Palestinian state much more complicated if it were a question of two states and if it were a matter of drawing a border, believe me, a border would have been drawn a long time ago. time. A long time ago, the problem is that this has never been about a line, it is about the rights of individuals, it is about history, the region of Palestine has been disputed for thousands of years and controlled by different ancient kingdoms and empires In more modern times, that's how it was. part of the Ottoman Empire, but the British took control there during World War I and it later became known as Palestine under British Mandate.

The population was 78% Muslim, 11% Jewish and 10% Christian, according to a 1922 census, even before they took control. The British supported the idea of ​​establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine, as stated in a letter known as the Balor Declaration, and the Jews were promised a national home in Palestine, which was the goal of a movement called Zionism that encouraged the Jews to come under the British mandate. Palestine and in the 1920s and 1930s increasingly many fled persecution in Europe, but the growing Jewish population caused tensions with the local Arab population, the Palestinians, Jewish and Arab armed groups emerged and there was violence in response, a British commission suggested partition. the land but there was no support for the idea the plan to divide the country between Arabs and Jews has pleased no one in Palestine an agitation has championed discontent to the point of provoking terrorism in the 1940s the question of what should happen in Palestine became more urgent so they pushed to establish a Jewish homeland, especially after World War II and the Holocaust in 1947.

The British asked the United Nations to make recommendations on the future government of Palestine and this is what they came up with. With another partition plan that allocated 56% of the land to a Jewish state and left 43% to an Arab state, the remaining land, including Jerusalem with all its holy sites, would be under international control. The UN General Assembly voted to adopt the plan the Jewish leaders accepted it but the Arab leaders rejected it, they saw it as deeply unfair, especially since the Arab population was the majority the following year, Israel went ahead and declared itself a state and five Arab nations went to war with Israel .

Israel calls it its war of independence. The Palestinians call it neba, which means catastrophe because in that fight. More than 700,000 Palestinians fled or were forced to abandon their homes, many ending up in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. By the way, it is important to know because when people talk about a future Palestinian state, one of the big questions is whether all those Palestinians and their descendants will be able to return. What is now called the right of return after the 1948 war, Israel ended up with 78% of the land, that is, more than the UN partition plan that left 22% for the Palestinians to live divided between West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Jordan controlled and Egyptian controlled Gaza those borders became known as the Green Line, they are still Israel's internationally recognized borders and it is more or less the division that many people have in mind when they talk about a two state solution, but then in 1967 there was another war, Israel expelled Jordan and Egypt took control of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza and imposed a military occupation. Many, many countries then began to pressure the Palestinians to say: "You must recognize the existence of Israel, you must recognize that Israel took over 78% of its historic Homeland and instead let's try to take back that remaining 22% on the side." Palestinian.

The idea of ​​territorial partition was very, very difficult, but in the 1970s there were some who pushed saying, you know, look, we're never going to get all of historic Palestine, we can build a state in one part. of liberated Palestine and in 1988 there was an official change, at that time the PLO the Palestine Liberation Organization had become the main group representing the Palestinians and their cause its president Yasser Arat declared the independence of Palestine and. Although the Declaration was primarily symbolic, it was important because Arafat also made clear that he accepted the principle of partition and the existence of Israel that helped pave the way for the Oslo Accords, a pair of agreements that are considered the beginning of the process of Peace began with secret talks in the capital of Norway, where the name comes from, and led to this moment when Israeli and Palestinian leaders shook hands on the White House lawn, after decades of fighting, declared their commitment with peaceful coexistence.

So what were the details of Oslo? Well, in the First Agreement of 1993, the two sides formally recognized each other, which was a big deal, they set a timetable for Israel to begin withdrawing from parts of the occupied territories and for the Palestinians to gain more autonomy, which led a to the creation of the Palestinian Authority or PA, although its power was and remains limited, it is more like a local council than a government and the PA only operates in parts of the Palestinian territories because in the second fraudulent agreement the West Bank was left divided into three administrative areas, what the peace process was about was not about Israel accepting 78% and letting the Palestinians live freely in the remaining 22%, but what it was about was Israel taking 78% % will put it in his pocket and then negotiate on the rest. 22% now the Alo Accords were provisional agreements, they were only supposed to last 5 years and in that time the two sides had to negotiate the really difficult things, what are called permanent status issues, so things like how to share Jerusalem, the city ​​that has enormous religious importance to both sides and both see as their capital the issue of Palestinian refugees and whether they obtain the right of return, we mentioned earlier what to do with all the security arrangements of the Israeli settlements and where those final borders are drawn, as well Oslo was seen as heading in the direction of a two-state solution, but in reality it was not clear, it is sometimes remembered that the Osa Accords promised a two-state solution, which is absolutely and completely false, it is a very, very carefully worded work in To avoid mentioning anything about the Palestinian state, the two sides continued talking to each other.

There was a lot of diplomacy and a lot of people were optimistic about it. There were many peace conferences at all kinds of levels. Grassroots politicians, journalists, artists. there was hope in the air but there was also opposition to the peace process on both sides in Israel there were large protests against Oslo about half of society who said we do not agree with this process talking to terrorists this is going to uh it meant withdrawal Israeli from a territory that is an essential part of the land of Israel in 1995, a Jewish nationalist who rejected the peace process assassinated Prime Minister Yak Rabim, so very soon one of the main architects of the Bear Accords disappeared, There was also opposition on the Palestinian side for many reasons.

There are many sick Palestinians and so were those in the late 90s who did not agree with President Arafat, that is, that the Palestinians should recognize the state of Israel. There are many Palestinians who believe that all of Palestine belongs. Israel took it away from the Palestinian people in 1948 and they feel that there is no room for a compromise; that was the position of some armed groups such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad that carried out attacks against Israel. There were also Palestinians who opposed Oslo because of their frustration with how little Israel was delivering. Israel never fully withdrew from the territory it promised and continued building settlements.

We'll come back to that in a minute. At least a portion of the Palestinians feel they've been cheated because this was a form of effective Israeli annexation. just a complete disillusionment with diplomacy a complete disillusionment with the negotiations with the Oslo process and so on at the end of the 1990s the five-year Oslo period was over and the peace process was basically on life support there was a push to save him at Camp David, the country of the US president. Retreat, how is it going, Mr. President, how long is it going to take, Mr. President, we promised each other that we would not answer questions or offer comments, but the summit ended without an agreement and, if anything, there was more distrust as both sides blamed each other for the failure shortly after frustration and anger boiled over over the trigger.

Was this visit by a senior Israeli politician to the Alaxa Moss compound in East Jerusalem a super incendiary move? Watch our episode on aloa si Do you want to understand why there were riots and this led to an uprising known as the second inata? Palestinians staged large protests, some carried out attacks against Israel, and Israel used heavy military force against the Palestinians. There were more than 4 years of intense conflict and all peace. The efforts simply burned in the fire of the Intifa, but were not completely extinguished. There were many more attempts over the years to get the peace process back on track and the two-state solution became the stated goal of all the diplomacy they began.

To say that maybe one of the problems with Oslo is that it didn't detail any ending, so let's describe something, let's give something to the Palestinians. And this is when you

start

to have open statements from the United States that there should be an entity. In the end Palestine came calling, but while the international community seemed to be doubling down on the two-state idea, there were other developments that pushed the momentum in the opposite direction. Let's review three of the main ones, starting with the settlements that Israel continued to expand even during the height of the crisis.

During the peace process it was as if the Oslo accords had given Israel the green light to build and expand settlements with the thought that they had to take every Hilltop and then we can negotiate down and that is why between the years of Since 1993 to the year 2000, that is why we saw practically a doubling in the number of settlers, from 200,000 to almost 400,000. Once you are not willing to freeze the settlements, you send the message that you do not agree with a Palestinian state because if you have an intention to continue building on Palestinian land, then you certainly have no intention of evacuating it, then there is a way As politics on both sides have developed since the early 2000s, on the Israeli side there has been a strong shift to the right and fewer politicians supporting the idea of ​​two states, an ultra-nationalist ideology once considered extreme , has now become part of the mainstream.

The settlers who openly call for the complete annexation of all Palestinian territory are government ministers and in his speech at the UN, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argued By creating a map of Israel that covered all the territory on the Palestinian side, the challenge is more Well, who really speaks on behalf of the Palestinian people, because it is not so clear that the PLO is there, which still represents the Palestinians at the international level. Arafat was the president, but he died in suspected poisoning in 2004 and was replaced by Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas is also the president of the Palestinian Authority, but the Palestinian Authority no longer operates in Gaza because after the 2006 elections Hamas ended up controlling it. there, so the palestinian leadership is already divided and then there are bigger questions around legitimacy there have been no elections since that vote in 2006 these days abas is quite unpopular, he is consideredold and out of touch and the Palestinian Authority is accused of being corrupt and working too closely with the Israeli authority not only does it not have any um uh credibility and no longer has any capacity, it is practically disintegrating in the West Bank, on the other hand, polls show That Hamas and its Isma leader Han are more popular than Mahmoud Abbas, but several countries classify Hamas as a terrorist organization and refuse to recognize it as a representative of the Palestinians, so where has all this left the dead peace process?

Basically, the last time there were direct negotiations on a two-state solution was in 2014 during the Obama administration, so a decade ago you need credible leaders in Israel and Palestine, which we don't have, they need serious mediation from the outside, something we don't have, and they need a mobilized regional and global public opinion to support the two negotiating parties, but it is nowhere on the horizon at the moment, this is where the United States also comes under a lot of criticism because, while has always had an important role as a mediator, it is also Israel's biggest actor.

The allies and protectors of the Americans have so much influence over Israel, that Israel is politically, economically, diplomatically internationally and, obviously, militarily, totally dependent on the United States. Joined. They never really took steps to put pressure on Israel, they just, you know, condemned Israel by talking, they get nothing and then there is everything that has happened since October 7, 2023, about 100 people died in the attacks of Hamas against Israel, according to Israeli authorities, in response Israel promised to eliminate Hamas, its war in Gaza has killed more than 31,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children the UN's highest court said there is a plausible risk of genocide and in that horrifying context conversations about the two-state solution have returned, once again a series of world leaders and organizations present it as the only option for lasting peace. still believes that the best viable path, in fact the only path, is through a two-state solution, what is the Palestinian position?

Well, the two-state solution remains the stated goal of the PLO. Hamas's position is less clear in 2017, they published a document that they did accept. The formation of a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders was interpreted by some to mean that Hamas was open to diplomacy, but Hamas has never explicitly recognized Israel and maintains its right to use violence against the occupation regarding the position. of Israel, as well as officials of the Prime Minister. They have repeatedly rejected the idea of ​​a two-state solution. Is there still a possibility for a two-state solution? I think it's time for the world to realize that the bear paradigm failed on October 7th and that we need to build a new one.

And to build a new one, does that new one include Palestinians living in a state of their own? Which includes the most important question is what kind of Palestinians are on the other side. This is what Israel realized. The answer is absolutely not. It is not that the two-state solution is absolutely im

possible

forever; It is simply politically very, very unlikely and would require such a coincidence of interests and political determination that its probability is extremely small, so there is a lot of skepticism and then there is an accusation that all the talk of a two-state solution is actually part of the problem those words have become the fig leaf has become a way of making the Palestinians believe that it is very convenient to believe that there is a solution somewhere on the shelf and that one day we will take it and use it but now does not exist, some people argue that a more drastic change of mentality is necessary towards one that is more realistic about the current situation in which we have a State, the State of Israel, that has almost total control over Palestinian life and enforces a system of discrimination that human rights groups describe as apartheid, the argument is: why not focus on solving it with a one-state solution, so that instead of dividing the land you focus on how to govern it and ensure that everyone's rights are protected regardless of their religion or ethnicity we have a single state, we do not have to create it, we have to create a new regime just to convert it from a separate system to a democracy.

I don't want to simplify it too much, right now it seems unthinkable, it isn't. Like we'll do some magic and this will work, but at least I can see a path somewhere. A lot of times people talk in terms of escapism oh, this will be undone by a one-state solution or it will be undone by a two-state solution, but what we really need to focus on is ending the violence. Do the Palestinians want to have their own separate entity, their own separate state? Certainly some want it, but the vast majority does not seek to have a State, the vast majority seeks to have their rights consecrated. and protected and that has to be the starting point.

We have done many other explanations related to Israel and Palestine. Here's one we filmed in East Jerusalem. This is about the relationship between the United States and Israel.