Awni Al-Mashni: The "Two States in One Homeland" vision represents a fundamental shift in approaching the conflict based on relative justice, not a balance of power.

Dr. Jamal Harfoush: The "Two States in One Homeland" vision could be used as a pretext to justify the de facto annexation of the West Bank under a new name, thus undermining the two-state solution.

Suleiman Basharat: Israel thwarted the two-state solution after the Oslo Accords and will not accept the principle of partnership or peaceful coexistence.

Nizar Nazzal: The political visions put forward since the Madrid Conference in 1991 have not been implemented due to Israel's denial of the rights of the Palestinian people.

Dr. Aqel Salah: Israel views Palestine, from the sea to the river, as the "Jewish state," and is even seeking to expand its borders, making any political solution unlikely.

Hani Abu Al-Sabaa: Israel did not seriously engage with any of the political initiatives put forward, most notably the Arab Peace Initiative at the Beirut Summit.

The "Two States in One Homeland" vision, proposed by writer and political analyst Awni Al-Mashni and published by Al-Quds newspaper, offers a possible approach to resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It shifts the concept of peace from temporary agreements based on the balance of power to a permanent formula based on relative justice. However, the new vision clashes with a complex reality dominated by Israeli brutality.

Al-Mashni presents his vision, titled "Two States in One Homeland," as a political solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It is based on strengthening common ground and respecting the uniqueness of each people. Jerusalem should remain united under joint security authority, with open borders that allow for freedom of movement and residence with full civil rights. It also removes obstacles such as the refugee issue and settlements, allowing for dual citizenship and gradual solutions.

In separate interviews with Al-Quds, writers, political analysts, specialists, and university professors believe that true peace requires achieving the minimum national aspirations of the weaker party and achieving a permanent settlement, free from the illusion of resolving the conflict. However, this vision faces significant challenges, most notably the internal Israeli reality, which is dominated by the extreme right, and which reinforces a culture of superiority and hatred. This makes any political settlement nearly impossible in the absence of effective left-wing forces capable of offering serious alternatives.

Writers, analysts, and university professors point out that, in light of the ongoing genocide and war, stopping the violence becomes a humanitarian and moral priority, requiring international pressure and serious intellectual debate between Palestinian and Israeli societies to explore the potential of this vision as a comprehensive solution that balances rights and reality.

The vision provides a realistic possibility for a permanent solution.

Writer and political analyst Awni Al-Mashni says that the vision he proposes for resolving the conflict based on "two states in one homeland" represents a fundamental shift in the approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, shifting the concept of peace from a temporary agreement based on a balance of power to a permanent formula based on "relative justice."

Al-Mashni points out that historical experience demonstrates the fragility of solutions based solely on the balance of power, as they collapse immediately upon a shift in these balances, as occurred after World War II when agreements collapsed with the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Al-Mashni asserts that lasting peace cannot be achieved unless the weaker party—in this case, the Palestinians—feels that it has achieved the minimum of its national aspirations without threatening the existence or interests of the other party. He explains that this vision offers a realistic possibility for a permanent solution, rather than chasing the illusion of a "conflict resolution" promoted by right-wing Israeli forces.

Al-Mashni explains that one of the most significant challenges facing this solution lies within Israel's internal reality. He notes that Israeli society has been hijacked for more than two decades by the extreme Zionist right, which has reshaped its consciousness around the illusion of absolute victory and total control.

Israeli society is burdened with hatred and racism.

Al-Mashni asserts that the convergence of this material power with biblical myths has produced a "delusional megalomania," which has made Israel a society burdened with hatred, racism, and obsessed with superiority, constituting the most significant obstacle to any political settlement.

Al-Mashni criticizes the absence of effective Israeli left-wing forces possessing the courage and initiative to fight for peace. He believes these forces are suffering from erosion and fear, and lack the strength necessary to present serious political alternatives to the hegemony of the right.

Al-Mashni believes that the failure of conflict management policies, along with the failure to "resolve" it through military force, especially in light of the ongoing genocide, is leading Israel, as a society, and its political and intellectual elites, to a moment of real confrontation with reality, namely that wars do not end the conflict with an entire people.

Al-Mashni asserts that the Palestinians, despite attempts to weaken them, possess a permanent capacity to reorganize and resurge, which means that the notion of "resolving the conflict" is nothing more than another illusion. He emphasizes that there is no eternal conflict, and that the Israeli right may succeed in postponing a solution, but it will not be able to prevent it forever.

Any discussion must follow the cessation of the war of extermination.

Al-Mashni emphasizes that any discussion of this vision must come after the ongoing war has ceased and the genocide has been ended, because this priority is no longer solely Palestinian, but has become a humanitarian, moral, and global one. The international community, and peace advocates within Israel, bear the responsibility of pressuring Israel to halt these crimes first.

Al-Mashni explains that it is then necessary to open a serious intellectual debate within both Palestinian and Israeli societies about the vision of "two states in one homeland," because it is not a partial or selective vision, but rather a "comprehensive package" that carries a delicate balance between rights and reality. It cannot be treated as a list of options, choosing what suits and discarding what neither side likes.

Al-Mashni emphasizes that this vision is not a set of ideas or experimental initiatives, but rather the culmination of a century of conflict and failed initiatives. It is a serious attempt to reshape reality and transform challenges into opportunities.

Al-Mashni asserts that the future itself, with all its variables, will impose this vision on the ground, because it stems from reality, not ideology. He says, "This is not a missionary call, but rather an objective reading of the course of history, and the logic of reality is what will make it achievable."

A bold attempt to break the historical deadlock

For his part, Professor Jamal Harfoush, Professor of Scientific Research Methods and Political Studies at the University of Brazil's Academic Research Center, asserts that unconventional political proposals, such as the "Two States in One Homeland" idea proposed by writer and political analyst Awni Al-Mashni, represent a bold attempt to break the historical deadlock in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

However, Harfoush emphasizes that assessing this vision faces multidimensional challenges that take into account local, regional, and international contexts, as well as deconstructing its legal, sovereign, and identity components, while taking into account factional, official, popular, Arab, and international positions.

Harfoush explains that the opportunities available to this approach lie in its ability to break the zero-sum equations that have dominated the conflict, which are based on exclusion.

Harfoush points out that this vision opens up prospects for coexistence within a geographic unit, with a separate identity and sovereignty, which could unblock the existing political stalemate. It also benefits from regional and international shifts, as international support for the traditional two-state solution declines, making this proposal an attempt to adapt to an international reality that prioritizes stability.

A joint security approach to Jerusalem

Harfoush believes that a joint security approach to Jerusalem, as proposed by the proposal, could be welcomed by the European Union and the United Nations, as it reduces the likelihood of escalation in the holy city.

Harfoush points out that the collapse of hope for establishing an independent Palestinian state could create a psychological environment, particularly among younger generations, that makes them more willing to accept alternative solutions that achieve civil rights and ensure survival on the land.

However, Harfoush warns of the major challenges facing this proposal, most notably that it clashes with legitimate national visions and the historical rights of the Palestinian people. The vision could be viewed as a concession of national principles, such as the right to self-determination, the establishment of a sovereign state, and the return of refugees in accordance with UN Resolution 194.

Harfoush points out that this proposal will face categorical rejection from the majority of Palestinian factions, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front.

Institutional Israeli rejection poses a challenge

In contrast, Harfoush points out that institutional Israeli rejection poses another challenge, as even the center-right in Israel rejects the idea of equality or political partnership, considering the entire land to belong to the Jews, while Israeli security rejects any notion of "shared security" in Jerusalem.

Harfoush points out that Mashni's vision could be used as a pretext to justify the de facto annexation of the West Bank under a new name, undermining the internationally recognized two-state solution and creating a new reality that serves the occupation.

Harfoush asserts that historical mistrust, fueled by hatred and destruction, especially with the ongoing genocide in Gaza, renders talk of a geographic partnership disconnected from reality.

Regarding the repercussions, Harfoush points out that these proposals could deepen the Palestinian national divide, as nationalist and Islamic factions would view them as a stab in the back of the liberation struggle, while some liberal or authoritarian elites might support them as a means of preserving political privileges.

Harfoush explains that the Arab scene is divided, with Arabs preoccupied with their internal issues, and some inclined to accept distorted solutions due to normalization. However, countries like Jordan and Egypt will refuse to cancel the two-state solution for fear of jeopardizing their national security.

A "smart map" to freeze the conflict

Internationally, Harfoush notes that the vision may be viewed as a "smart map" for freezing the conflict, but it will not gain legal recognition unless it is based on UN resolutions. It also redefines the concepts of "liberation," "return," and "sovereignty," opening philosophical and legal debates, but it will not be popularly accepted without the end of the occupation.

Harfoush asserts that any future peaceful solution will not be the result of theoretical ideas, but will be based on major transformations on the ground, such as the collapse of the occupation system or a change in the regional balance of deterrence.

Harfoush emphasizes that true peace requires absolute justice and explicit recognition of the rights of the Palestinian people, along with international legal guarantees that deter the occupation from continuing its settlement and racist policies.

Harfoush asserts that the vision of "two states in one homeland" will remain a mere theoretical idea unless it is based on a just legal basis and genuine political will, noting that it will be put to trial before the conscience of the Palestinian people, who reject any compromise on their national rights.

An approach that ignores the essence of the problem

For his part, writer and political analyst Suleiman Bisharat asserts that the idea of "two states in one homeland" proposed by writer Awni al-Mashni as a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict ignores the core of the problem, which is the nature of the Israeli occupation as a colonial, settler-colonial project based on the negation of the other.

Basharat explains that this approach legitimizes Israel's presence on Palestinian land, ignoring historical facts and international law, which affirm that Palestinian territories, at least since the June 4, 1967, borders, are occupied territories.

Basharat points out that the conflict is not between two peoples coexisting on the same land under a normal system, but rather between an ideological, religious occupation project that seeks to eliminate the Palestinians as owners of the land and historical presence, and a Palestinian people defending their rights.

Basharat asserts that international law, including UN resolutions and the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, clearly establishes that Israel is an occupying power, and that the Palestinian territories are not in dispute but occupied territory whose occupation must end.

Basharat cites the experience of the 1948 Palestinians as evidence of Israel's impossibility of accepting genuine political or civil participation. He explains that despite their adherence to the Israeli legal system since the Nakba, Israel has not granted them full civil and political rights, negating any hope of accepting the "two states in one homeland" concept, which requires equality between Palestinians and Israelis.

Israel's ideological vision of replacement.

Basharat asserts that the practical reality shows that Israel is transforming the West Bank into an uninhabitable area through settlement expansion and systematic violence, with the goal of expelling Palestinians, which aligns with Israel's ideological vision of replacement.

Basharat asserts that implementing this proposal will face fundamental obstacles, including the concept of the right to exist, the political system, and full civil rights.

Basharat points out that the behavior of settlers and the occupation in the West Bank reveals plans to expel Palestinians, not to coexist with them.

Basharat believes this approach ignores attacks on holy sites, such as Al-Aqsa Mosque, which the Israeli religious mindset seeks to demolish in order to build a Jewish temple, thus blocking any real partnership.

Basharat warns that this vision will be little more than an unworkable theoretical proposition, noting that Israel, which thwarted the two-state solution after the Oslo Accords, will not accept the principle of partnership or peaceful coexistence.

Basharat asserts that Israel's expansionist ambitions in the Middle East, extending beyond the Palestinian territories to geopolitical hegemony, make it unwilling to abandon its illusions or accept a solution that guarantees equal rights for all.

Basharat believes that Israel will categorically reject this proposal, just as it rejected the Arab Peace Initiative at the Beirut Summit in 2002, when then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon described it as "not worth the paper it was written with."

Basharat points out that continued American support enhances Israel's ability to impose its expansionist vision, which ignores interim solutions and seeks a "decisive plan" to ensure complete control.

Basharat asserts that these proposals for a peaceful settlement will remain confined to the pages, folded due to Israeli rejection before any other party, and will find no place except in the annals of history.

The conflict has become more complex and intricate.

For his part, Nizar Nazzal, a researcher specializing in Israeli affairs and conflict issues, asserts that political visions aimed at finding peaceful solutions to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will fall on deaf ears, pointing out that such initiatives are doomed to failure under the current circumstances.

Nazzal explains that the conflict has become more complex and intricate due to the absence of a unified Palestinian decision, the extremism of the Israeli government, unlimited American support for Israel, along with Arab impotence and Western complicity.

Nazzal points to the Palestinian division as a major factor impeding any political progress. Hamas controls the Gaza Strip, while Fatah controls the West Bank. The Palestinian political system remains flabby and unable to engage with initiatives due to the lack of a unified leadership.

Nazzal emphasizes that the geographical separation between Gaza and the West Bank further complicates the situation, making the formulation of a unified Palestinian discourse unlikely.

Nazzal asserts that the current far-right Israeli government refuses to recognize the Palestinian people and views them as mere individuals without national rights.

Absence of realistic Israeli leadership

Nazzal explains that this government, led by extremist clerics and rabbis, embraces an extremist religious and nationalist Zionist vision, clings to the issue of Jerusalem as the eternal capital of Israel, and rejects any concessions that would undermine this position.

Nazzal points out that the Israeli street has veered toward religious Zionism, with the political left and center fading away, which means the absence of a realistic Israeli leadership capable of dealing with political solutions.

Meanwhile, Nazzal explains that the new vision proposed by writer and political analyst Awni Al-Mashni addresses sensitive issues such as the return of refugees, which is at the core of the Palestinian cause.

Nazzal points out that any hint of conceding refugee rights will be met with widespread Palestinian rejection, especially among Palestinians in the diaspora, who will consider themselves permanently excluded from any settlement.

Nazzal asserts that the issue of Jerusalem will not be accepted by Palestinians, or even by some Arabs and Muslims, which reduces the chances of any initiative's success.

Regional war by next October

Nazzal warns that the region is heading towards a dangerous escalation, predicting a regional war by next October involving Israel and the United States on one side, and Iran, Iraq, Yemen, and Syria on the other.

Nazzal points out that the current Israeli government is an ideological and extremist "war government," which does not believe in peace and has committed acts of ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Palestinians, making the Palestinian people unwilling to tolerate or accept a settlement without Israel being held accountable.

Nazzal explains that Israel acts as a state above the law, supported by continued American cover that focuses on war rather than political solutions.

Nazzal asserts that the political visions proposed since the Madrid Conference in 1991 have not been implemented due to Israel's denial of the rights of the Palestinian people.

Nazzal asserts that the current Israeli government, with its extremist ideological nature, makes any hope of achieving a political solution impossible in the foreseeable future, especially in light of unconditional American support and continued Arab impotence.

The chances for this proposal are zero.

Palestinian writer and political researcher Dr. Aqel Salah expresses extreme pessimism about the feasibility of implementing the proposal presented by writer Awni Al-Mashni for a solution to the conflict, which resembles a watered-down two-state solution. He believes the chances of this proposal being implemented are slim in light of Israel's extremist policies and the absolute American support for them.

Salah asserts that Israel views the conflict with the Palestinians from a religious and Talmudic ideological perspective, viewing Palestine from the sea to the river as the "Jewish state." Israel even seeks to expand its borders, making any political solution that guarantees Palestinian rights unlikely.

Salah points out that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has led opposition to the Oslo Accords since 1996, will not accept a proposal like Mashni's, or any other proposals based on a simplified two-state solution.

Salah explains that Israel is moving toward further extremism, refusing to recognize any Palestinian rights, even at the level of limited self-rule.

Salah believes that Israeli policy aims to eliminate the Palestinian entity by targeting the Palestinian Authority in its current form, making the implementation of any peaceful proposal nearly impossible.

Peace proposals face major obstacles

Salah asserts that peace proposals face significant obstacles under an extreme right-wing Israeli government, backed by American support that has continued to support Israel's sovereignty since the 1991 Madrid Conference.

Salah explains that the United States shares Israel's political vision, clearly favors Israeli interests, and provides them with protection by all means, thus strengthening their complete control over the Palestinian territories.

Salah points to the decline in the Arab role in supporting the Palestinian cause, which has become a secondary issue for many Arab countries.

Salah points out that some of these countries have normalized their relations with Israel without reaching a just solution to the issue, weakening the Palestinian position. Furthermore, the Palestinian leadership has abandoned the legitimacy of resistance in favor of a peaceful solution, which has achieved little progress, as Israel refuses to recognize this option.

Salah warns that any future peace solutions may be less fair than the Oslo Accords and will serve Israeli interests more effectively, given all these factors.

Administrative and economic arrangements only

Salah expects the US administration, led by President Donald Trump, to impose a coercive political solution limited to administrative and economic arrangements, while maintaining Israeli control over the Palestinian territories.

Salah points out that this solution might include annexing the major settlement blocs in the West Bank, while allowing for some formal Palestinian representation to manage population density.

Salah asserts that any vision that ignores the refugee issue or accepts continued settlement activity would be "nationally deficient" and would not be accepted by the Palestinian people.

Salah emphasizes that the presence of massive settlement blocs in the West Bank negates any possibility of establishing a sovereign Palestinian state, even if it is only formal.

Salah points out that factors such as Israeli extremism, American and Western support, the declining Arab role, and Palestinian division will continue to pose real challenges to any peace initiative, warning that these proposals may remain confined to theories with no hope of implementation.

Field facts thwart the possibility of achieving a settlement

For his part, writer and political analyst Hani Abu Al-Sabaa says that Israel has historically proven, over the decades, that it has not demonstrated a genuine commitment to any of the political initiatives proposed to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He points out that the reality on the ground clearly indicates a persistent effort by its successive governments, particularly the right-wing ones, to impose facts on the ground that would thwart any possibility of achieving a just political settlement.

Abu Al-Sabaa explains that the first international steps to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict came after the 1967 setback, when the UN Security Council passed Resolution 242, which called for Israel's withdrawal from the territories it occupied in exchange for Arab recognition of the State of Israel. This effectively meant accepting the principle of a "two-state solution" on the June 4, 1967, borders. However, Israel ignored the resolution and went even further, annexing East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights between 1980 and 1981, and continuing its attacks by invading southern Lebanon until its army, led by Ariel Sharon, reached the outskirts of Beirut.

Abu Al-Sabaa asserts that Israel has not seriously addressed any of the political initiatives put forward, despite the fact that Arab states have presented several initiatives guaranteeing peace and recognition, most notably the Arab Peace Initiative at the Beirut Summit in 2002.

Political solutions are an opportunity to procrastinate and buy time.

Abu Al-Saba' points out that the Oslo Accords signed in 1993 between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel represented a glimmer of hope at the time, but Israel quickly began besieging the Palestinian Authority and escalating its settlement policies and land confiscation.

Abu al-Sabaa believes that subsequent developments proved that Israel was planning to undermine any prospect of a solution through repeated incursions into Al-Aqsa Mosque and the digging of tunnels beneath it. This led to widespread popular confrontations, which were met with Israeli military incursions into the West Bank, shattering the fragile trust generated by the Oslo Accords.

Abu Al-Sabaa points out that the current Israeli government, with its extreme right-wing leanings, views political solutions as nothing more than an opportunity to stall and buy time, amid European silence and American support that Israel interprets as tacit approval of aggressive practices against the Palestinians.

Abu Al-Sabaa says, "With US President Donald Trump's visit to the region approaching, calls for a solution and an end to the war may once again be heard. However, the reality on the ground confirms that Israel is moving in a completely different direction: imposing hegemony and igniting conflicts on multiple fronts, far from any real intention of achieving a political settlement."