op-ed: Despicable and dreamy alternatives to the death of the two-state solution

There is much talk in the Palestinian and regional literature about Israel's destruction of the two-state solution, as a result of the policies and practices of the occupying power on the ground, especially the flooding of the occupied West Bank with settlements and settlers. What is meant by the two-state solution, before falling into any ambiguity, is the choice of the Palestinian state as an embodiment of the Palestinian national program, which is confirmed by international legitimacy resolutions, Palestinian representative institutions, and Arab summits, with the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital on the territories occupied in 1967. This must be clarified because there are those who claim that the two-state solution can be embodied by a state in the Gaza Strip alongside Israel after its annexation of most of the West Bank. Even Netanyahu said sarcastically about the dismembered lands left to the Palestinians according to the deal of the century, "If they want to call it a state, let them call it that." There are ministers in the Israeli government who claim that there are two states for the Palestinians, Jordan and Gaza.

The decline in the chances of a two-state solution is also linked to Israel's tightening of the occupied Palestinian territories and their populations to the wheel of the Israeli economy by destroying the foundations of the Palestinian economy and taking full control of the crossings, resources and airspace. This control now includes all aspects of Palestinian life, including electricity, water, communications, transportation, population and land records, the use of the Israeli currency, and the dependence of the Palestinian Authority budget on the Israeli decision to transfer clearance funds (it is noteworthy that the Oslo Agreement and the Paris Protocol did not guarantee any international mechanism to compel Israel to transfer these funds, and they remained subject to the Israeli decision and its arbitrary deductions) and even individual and personal freedoms such as the right to travel, change the place of residence, civil status transactions and the issuance of documents remained subject to the approval of the Israeli occupation.

This trend of the domination of the occupation and the subordination of the Palestinians to its authorities began to strengthen instead of diminishing after the Oslo Accords, specifically in the last two decades, despite the appearances and ceremonies enjoyed by the Palestinians, including authority, security agencies, ministries, agencies, passports, foreign diplomatic representation, and the presence of foreign representations. This annexation and its repercussions are not limited to the diaries of our lives and the Israeli harassment and violations that do not stop. Rather, the most dangerous thing is that it has moved to political approaches to the settlement, such as the realistic dealing with the Palestinian issue as if it is an internal Israeli affair, and the American and most European dealings with the Palestinians as part of their relations with Israel. Even the foreign representations in Palestine, most of them follow the embassies of their countries in Tel Aviv, to accept the Israeli exclusivity of the Palestinians under the pretext that any problem must be resolved through negotiations, leading to international and regional shaking hands from the two-state solution as if it has become impossible.

Linked to this fallacy of the practical retreat from the option of the two-state solution, and to keep it in theory, is the call on the Palestinians to accept what is available and possible, as if the two-state solution has become outside the realm of possibility. This option is being covered up with floating talk about "adhering to the two-state solution" or preserving this solution, and as a result, economic temptations are being hinted at, and Israel is being asked to provide serious facilities. Even this last offer was mentioned in leaks of American offers to Saudi Arabia in exchange for normalization with Israel. . Unfortunately, it is possible to find in some Palestinian discourse such ambiguous positions, which express their willingness to deal with these concessions.

In the vicinity of this bazaar, there are many voices promoting the death of the two-state solution, some of which stem from a Palestinian national ground, or at least from a position of sympathy with the people for the Palestinians and their just cause. Indeed, a political movement was formed for this purpose and its alternative proposition is based on the call for "one state with equal rights." This movement includes Palestinian and Israeli anti-occupation activists, and has some support in local and international academic circles.

And with the necessity of distinguishing between the liquidation approach carried by the Israeli projects, with which the Western circles, especially the American administration, are colluding, and between the Palestinian jurisprudences that bear more than one face, some of which tend to compromise and accept what is offered to it, and others of a diligent nature that sees the depth of the impasse in which our case was stuck after Oslo agreement.

No one has the right to prohibit jurisprudence and thinking on others, if the matter is related to political and intellectual jurisprudence that presents militant alternatives to the program of the independent state, but the adoption of an alternative national program for the Palestinian people should come from its inclusive legitimate institutions, and not from the jurisprudence of this leader or thinker or that. And before that, the legitimacy of these legitimate and representative institutions should be renewed through comprehensive elections in which all the Palestinian people's gatherings participate.

These propositions impose more questions than the answers presented, and among these questions:

- Do we have to accept that the Israeli measures, including Judaization, annexation, settlement, and the material facts imposed by Israel during the past decades, are final and irreversible, and we only have to accept them?

Is it possible for any political program concerning a people and a liberation movement to suffice with presenting distant goals as utopian and dreamy desires, without detailed programs and plans that explain ways to achieve these goals and the proposed forms of struggle, and how to mobilize the masses of the people and their energies to contribute to this program, as long as the aforementioned goals will not be presented to us on a silver platter?

- What about the position on the continued settlement, do we have to accept it because it will be part of the one-state solution, and what is the fate of the wide international recognition of the Palestinian state?

- Is it wise and realistic to accept defeat before it occurs, or is it more appropriate to review our programs, tools of struggle, conditions of our institutions, and ways of managing national affairs?

Relying on the traditional answers that our children memorize by heart does not help us in addressing these questions and challenges, nor in dealing with transformations and conspiracies aimed at undermining our inalienable and legitimate rights, just as theoretical and academic answers are not sufficient to guide the struggle towards freedom and independence, and what is needed is answers that turn into programs and daily action plans, instead of waiting for what fates will do to us.