Dr. Hassan Ayoub: Trump is no longer hiding behind the slogan of the two-state solution that previous US administrations adopted in an oblique manner

Nizar Nazzal: Trump will exert great pressure on the Authority to push it to accept arrangements that serve Israeli interests

Dr. Jamal Harfoush: Despite internal divisions, the national consensus on the need to establish an independent state remains strong

Dr. Walaa Qadeem: Trump’s statements indicate the decline of America’s role in the region and its inability to impose a two-state solution

Adnan Al-Sabah: America and Israel are working to impose an alternative vision to the two-state solution that seeks to establish a fragmented self-rule into separate ghettos

US President-elect Donald Trump’s statements about the existence of alternatives to the “two-state solution” show a new vision that goes beyond the political solutions adopted by previous US administrations, moving towards public support that undermines the “two-state solution” and Israel’s dominance over Palestinian territories through policies that ignore the Palestinians’ right to establish a sovereign state.

In separate interviews with “I,” writers, political analysts, specialists, and university professors believe that the American vision, according to Trump, is to support arrangements that reduce Palestinian rights and seek to impose “solutions” that reshape the relationship between Palestinians and Israelis in the context of regional and international political changes that strengthen Israel’s position, making the idea of an independent Palestinian state almost impossible under the current circumstances.

They believe that the Palestinians are suffering from the absence of a unified political leadership capable of providing alternative strategies to confront these policies, amid warnings that the next Trump administration will exert pressure on the Palestinian Authority. All of this reflects an urgent need to reorganize the Palestinian house and unify ranks to confront the existential challenges that threaten the Palestinian cause.

A new vision eliminates the possibility of establishing a sovereign Palestinian state

Writer, political analyst and specialist in American affairs, Dr. Hassan Ayoub, believes that the concept of the two-state solution, as proposed in Donald Trump’s first presidential term, brings to mind British policies during its mandate over Palestine in the 1940s.

Ayoub explains that Britain at the time proposed a plan that discussed the future of a Palestinian state with unclear geographical or sovereign features over a period of ten years, an approach that was repeated in Trump’s policies, but in a manner that was more clearly in favor of the Israeli project.

According to Ayoub, the US administration under Trump proceeded from the assumption that Israel was now in a strong position to impose its conditions on its opponents.

He stresses that Trump is no longer hiding behind the slogan of the two-state solution that previous US administrations adopted in an oblique manner. Trump’s statements, in light of regional and international changes, along with his previous statements about the annexation of the Golan Heights and his recognition of Israeli sovereignty over them, mean that the time has come to adopt a new vision that eliminates the possibility of establishing a truly sovereign Palestinian state.

Ayoub points out that the US administration no longer sees the idea of a Palestinian state as a viable solution, but rather adopts the idea of a distorted form of state represented by the establishment of small Palestinian enclaves in the Gaza Strip connected to their counterparts in the West Bank, subject to administration similar to municipalities. These enclaves will be nothing more than gatherings that serve Israeli control and are imposed on the Palestinians as part of the so-called “two-state solution.”

Ayoub explains that one of the most prominent features of the vision of the US administration led by Trump is its acceptance of the Israeli annexation plan, which grants Israel sovereignty over areas classified as “C” in the West Bank under the Oslo Accords.

Ayoub stresses that this plan includes getting rid of a large part of the population of these areas by deporting them or forcing them to migrate to the Palestinian cities classified as “A” in the West Bank, which creates a new reality in which the Palestinians are confined to specific communities.

Ayoub believes that the US administration supports this vision as part of a long-term strategy that seeks to re-divide the West Bank and Gaza Strip in a manner similar to the division of Palestine in the mid-twentieth century.

He stresses that this is procrastination by the United States of America, by not supporting any realistic political solution, which allows Israel to implement its settlement plans and consolidate its presence on the ground.

Ayoub points out that the biggest problem facing the Palestinians today is the absence of a unified political leadership capable of providing alternatives to confront these plans.

Ayoub says: “The Palestinian leadership is still clinging to the concept of the two-state solution, despite its practical expiration, as Israel no longer recognizes it, and the US administration has clearly bypassed it.”

Ayoub asked: "If there is no recognition of the two-state solution by the other party and the sponsor of the peace process, what are the alternatives available to the Palestinian leadership? What options does it have to confront this reality?"

Ayoub stresses that the Palestinian leadership’s continued work within traditional frameworks reflects a weakness in vision and strategy, especially in light of the absence of unifying the Palestinian ranks and involving all national forces and factions, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, under the umbrella of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Ayoub stresses that this unification has become an inevitable necessity in light of the existential challenges facing the Palestinian cause.

Ayoub points out that the Palestinian leadership is still acting as if it is living in the pre-October 7, 2023 era, without any awareness of the radical changes that have occurred in the political and regional reality.

In a related context, Ayoub confirms that the Palestinian Authority is facing clear marginalization by the United States, as American officials who visit the region no longer meet with Authority officials in Ramallah, which reflects a reduction in its role and a clear disregard for its demands.

Ayoub warns that the continuation of the internal Palestinian division and the absence of a unified political leadership could lead to disastrous consequences for the future of the Palestinian cause.

Ayoub stresses that reorganizing the Palestinian house is the first step to confronting the current challenges, stressing the need to develop a comprehensive national program that confronts the Israeli-American plans and restores momentum to the Palestinian cause on the international scene.

Trump, the narcissist and arrogant, acts in a way that serves his personal goals.

Nizar Nazzal, a researcher specializing in Israeli affairs and conflict issues, expresses his skepticism about US President-elect Donald Trump having a specific vision for resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, stressing that Trump’s narcissistic and arrogant personality makes him view world leaders, including the Israeli political class, from a perspective that serves his personal goals, rather than through a comprehensive strategic vision.

Nazzal explains that Trump's statements in his interview with the American Times magazine, about his desire to avoid wars, contradict his positions in support of Israel, as he expressed his support for Jerusalem as the unified capital of Israel and the legalization of settlements in the West Bank.

Nazzal says: “When Trump talks about a solution to the Palestinian issue, what solution is he talking about? It is clear that he does not believe in the two-state solution that international legitimacy has adopted for decades and has not been implemented, and he does not seek to impose any pressure on Israel to implement such a solution. Rather, he only wants to pressure the Palestinians.”

Nazzal points out that Trump may seek arrangements aimed at reducing military escalation without offering a comprehensive political solution.

"Trump could resort to cooling the fronts, especially in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and he might work to reduce the repeated killings by the Israeli military machine, but it is unlikely that this will lead to a political solution that the Palestinians will accept," Nazzal said.

Nazzal believes that Trump may move towards a solution that restructures the role of the Palestinian Authority in a way that reduces its powers, or brings in third parties such as Jordan to take over some tasks. According to Nazzal, “One of the proposed scenarios is to transform the Palestinian Authority into a mere large municipal administration, which means restricting it to the level of local government without any sovereign powers. These ideas are in line with an Israeli vision supported by the Trump administration to impose a solution by force on the Palestinians, without any commitment from the Israeli side.”

Nazzal confirms that there are plans that may include forming local leaderships within Palestinian population centers or even introducing Jordan as an administrative partner in some areas, within the framework of a limited self-rule model, but Nazzal stresses that these proposals will not be acceptable to the Palestinians.

Nazzal says: "The Palestinian people will not accept anything less than the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, and any solutions below this ceiling will face widespread popular rejection."

Nazzal believes that the Palestinians have already made major concessions, as they agreed to establish their state on only 22% of historical Palestine, which makes any new proposals that detract from this goal completely unacceptable.

Nazzal asserts that the US administration, under Trump's leadership, will exert great pressure on the Palestinian Authority to push it to accept arrangements that serve Israeli interests.

Nazzal says: “The Authority will face unprecedented pressures in light of the clear inability of the Arab world, which is going through a state of weakness and disintegration, as there is currently no Arab depth capable of supporting the Palestinian cause or pressuring Israel.”

Nazzal points out that this situation could lead to dangerous scenarios, including an attempt to impose new Palestinian leaderships that agree to solutions less than the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

Nazzal says: "There are real fears that the scenario of removing the late President Yasser Arafat from the scene and replacing him with Palestinian elites who agree to settlements that do not meet the aspirations of the Palestinian people will be repeated."

Nazzal stresses that any solution imposed by force outside the framework of the two-state solution will not be acceptable on the Palestinian street.

"The Palestinian people cannot accept anything less than a fully sovereign, independent state, and will not accept any arrangements that violate their right to freedom and justice," Nazzal said.

Nazzal stresses, "Trump is not seeking a just solution, but rather implementing a purely Israeli agenda, based on reducing Palestinian rights and increasing Israeli hegemony, while any political arrangements that are not based on international legitimacy will not achieve the desired peace."

A retreat from the traditional position of America and many countries

Professor Dr. Jamal Harfoush, Professor of Scientific Research Methods and Political Studies at the University of the Academic Research Center in Brazil, confirms that the statements of US President-elect Donald Trump about the existence of “something else” other than the two-state solution reflect a retreat from the traditional position of the United States and many countries in the international community, which called for the two-state solution as the basis for a settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Harfoush explains that this statement may mean that Trump supports alternative solutions, such as solutions based on a “one-state” or “self-rule” for the Palestinians within the Israeli state, or even a type of federation or confederation between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Harfoush believes that legally, if the intent of this statement is to find solutions that do not grant the Palestinians full sovereignty or independence, this may contradict the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination stipulated in international law.

Harfoush stresses that the Palestinian people have the right to establish their independent state in accordance with international resolutions, such as UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (which stipulates the partition of Palestine) and UN Security Council Resolution 242, which stresses Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied territories, including the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Harfoush asserts that any “other solution” that ignores this right could be considered a violation of international law, and raises controversy about the legitimacy of any attempt to diminish the rights of Palestinians to establish their independent state.

“If the two-state solution is not implemented, the remaining scenarios include several legally complex options, including a one-state solution (a binational state), which could involve merging Palestinians and Israelis into one state, which could raise legal issues related to equality and civil rights. If Palestinians are merged into one state without being granted equal rights, this could be considered a violation of human rights. In addition, the right to self-determination could be threatened, as Palestinians could be denied the right to establish an independent, sovereign state,” Harfoush says.

Harfoush points out that what is expected may be expanded autonomy. If the Palestinians are granted some form of autonomy without full sovereignty, this may contradict the principle of self-determination, which guarantees every people the right to establish their independent state. Autonomy may mean continued occupation or Israeli control over foreign and security policies, which constitutes a restriction on the sovereign rights of the Palestinians.

According to Harfoush, there may be another option to expand the occupation and settlement. If the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories continues, this means continuing to violate human rights, and settlement in the occupied territories is considered a violation of international law (the Geneva Conventions).

Harfoush stresses that the continuation of the occupation without a political solution threatens security and stability in the region and may lead to an escalation of tensions.

Meanwhile, Harfoush points out that there may be an option through an imposed international solution, where a solution may be imposed through decisions from the UN Security Council or the United Nations, but this requires the approval of all concerned parties.

Harfoush stresses that imposing a solution without consensus may lead to strong resistance from the affected parties and constitute a violation of national sovereignty.

Meanwhile, Harfoush asserts that the majority of the Palestinian people reject any solution beyond the two-state solution, and consider it unacceptable for legal and humanitarian reasons.

Harfoush points out that the Palestinians consider the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the 1967 borders to be their legitimate right recognized by international law, and any solution that does not achieve this right is considered a violation of their rights to self-determination.

Harfoush stresses that the Palestinian people reject any solution that might lead to reducing their sovereignty or merging them into one state in which they do not enjoy equal rights, especially under the Israeli occupation.

Harfoush says: “East Jerusalem is considered the capital of the Palestinian state according to international resolutions, and any solution that proposes changing the status of the city or recognizes it as the capital of Israel only is considered unacceptable to the Palestinians.”

He points out that the Palestinians reject the continuation of the occupation or any kind of solution that means the continuation of Israeli control over their lands, as solutions such as self-rule or a single state may be considered a continuation of the status quo in which they face racial discrimination and restrictions on their freedoms.

Harfoush believes that despite the internal divisions between Palestinian factions (such as Hamas and Fatah), the national consensus on the necessity of establishing an independent Palestinian state remains strong, and any solution that does not include establishing an independent Palestinian state may be considered unacceptable by most Palestinians.

According to Harfoush, Trump's statements about "something else" other than the two-state solution may mean promoting alternative solutions such as one state or self-rule, but they may conflict with the legal rights of the Palestinians.

Harfoush stresses that the remaining scenarios include several complex options, but they remain legally imperfect if they do not guarantee the Palestinians’ rights to sovereignty. For the Palestinian people, any solution that ignores their right to establish an independent state is considered unacceptable and a violation of their legitimate rights to self-determination and freedom.

Great American bias in favor of the occupying state

Commenting on the statements of US President-elect Donald Trump regarding the existence of “other options” besides the two-state solution between the Palestinians and the Israelis, writer and political researcher Dr. Walaa Qaddimat believes that these statements clearly reflect a major American bias in favor of the Israeli occupation state, and also indicate a decline in American hegemony in the international arena, as the United States is no longer the only power capable of determining the future of the region and resolving its conflicts.

Qadeem believes that this American decline in its ability to influence the settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been reflected in particular on the two-state solution option, which was considered the basis for any peaceful settlement in the region.

Qadeemat asserts that despite the broad international support for the two-state solution, Trump’s statements represent an abandonment of this solution, opening the door to other proposals, such as the solutions supported by Israel, such as a single state or Palestinian self-rule within the framework of the occupying state.

While Qadeem believes that these statements confirm the decline of the American role in the international arena, she points out that the most prominent question that imposes itself now is: Is the United States really capable of imposing a two-state solution?

Dr. Qaddimat answers this question by pointing to the dominance of the Zionist lobby over American policy, especially at the White House level, which makes achieving this solution more difficult. The United States itself is no longer able to impose its own vision of peace due to the changes taking place in the region and the competition of other major powers, such as China and Russia, for influence in the Middle East.

Qadeemat confirms that American hegemony over the region is facing real challenges, reflecting a decline in its ability to impose the policies it previously pursued.

This decline, according to Qadeem, has weakened the United States’ ability to impose a two-state solution or even establish peace that guarantees Palestinian rights.

“While the United States was the main player in peace negotiations, today the situation has become more complicated with increasing unconditional American support for Israel, making it difficult to achieve a just settlement,” Qadeem says.

Qadimat stresses that the United States is no longer able to impose solutions under the current circumstances, as changes in the region, especially in light of political fluctuations and competition between major powers, have made it difficult for the current US administration to continue imposing its vision for a solution.

On the other hand, Qadeemat confirms that the Trump administration is following the same path that he started during his first presidential term through the Deal of the Century, and through successive statements that do not recognize the two-state solution, but rather support Israel’s expansionist positions.

Dr. Qaddimat does not rule out that Israel will continue to exploit the opportunity of events in the Middle East and the arrival of Trump to achieve its expansionist and settlement ambitions.

Qadeemat stresses that the "American proposals" will not be acceptable to the Palestinian people under any circumstances, at all levels, whether from the leadership or the Palestinian people.

Despite this widespread rejection, Qadimat asserts that the current stage and the challenges facing the region require the Palestinians to unite and cohese around their national project, which strengthens their position in the face of external pressures.

Regarding the ongoing Israeli escalation, Qaddimat stresses the importance of the Palestinians adhering to their right to establish their independent state on the 1967 borders, considering that any solution that does not include this right is unacceptable.

As for the role of the United States, Qaddimat points out that the Trump administration has weakened its ability to implement a real settlement in the region, because Israel no longer feels the need to settle with the Palestinians as long as American support continues to provide facilities and aid.

She points out that Israel is not alone in the international arena, and that there are other international powers, such as Russia and China, that can contribute to changing the balance of power in the region.

Qaddimat points out that the international system itself is witnessing changes that may lead to a reduction in American hegemony over the Middle East region, and therefore, the near future may bring rapid changes, including strengthening the Palestinian role in the international arena, and changing the balances that manage the conflict in the region.

Qadeemat asserts that the United States, despite its military and economic power, will not be able to support Israel forever in light of the geopolitical changes the world is witnessing.

The two-state solution has become unrealistic and even impossible to implement

Writer and political analyst Adnan Al-Sabah believes that the two-state solution has become unrealistic and illogical, and even impossible to implement in any case.

Al-Sabah explains that the United States and Israel are working to impose an alternative vision for the two-state solution that seeks to establish Palestinian self-rule fragmented into geographically separate ghettos, without any continuity between the areas of the West Bank or even continuous within the Gaza Strip.

He stresses that this proposal reinforces the reality of complete Israeli control over the West Bank, with the annexation of settlements and the application of Israeli law to them, which reflects the occupation’s efforts to consider the West Bank an integral part of its state.

Al-Sabah points out that the scenario proposed by the United States of America may include establishing limited self-rule for the Palestinians within the densely populated areas of the West Bank, while Israel tightens its control over the rest of the territories. As for the Gaza Strip, the plan may include transforming what remains of the Strip into isolated, geographically unconnected ghettos, and granting them self-rule, with the possibility of implementing this after eliminating the Palestinian resistance there.

On the US side, Al-Sabah confirms that it has its own ambitions in Gaza, as it seeks to control the northern part of the Strip to ensure the protection of the Ben Gurion Canal, which the occupation is planning to build, in addition to acquiring the gas fields in the region. These ambitions may also include establishing an American military base in northern Gaza to enhance American and Israeli influence in the region.

Regarding the Palestinian options, Al-Sabah stresses that the Palestinian people cannot accept any solution that detracts from their right to complete freedom on all their lands.

Al-Sabah explains that the Palestinians, as a result of political circumstances, showed a willingness to accept the establishment of a state on the 1967 borders, but this option was practically destroyed after the Oslo Accords and the subsequent settlement expansion and Judaization of the lands.

Al-Sabah expresses his conviction that the only possible solution to the Palestinian issue lies in establishing a unified democratic state on all historical Palestinian lands, within the framework of a democratic system based on equality.

Al-Sabah believes that all other solutions will remain temporary and will fail, stressing that any partial settlement will lead to repeated explosions until this radical solution is achieved.