The Two-State Solution Conference: Engineering the Palestinian Landscape Under Fire

While the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip continues to rage since October 2023, international and regional efforts are intensifying to formulate what has become known as the "day after" the aggression. In this context, talk of the "two-state solution" has returned, not as a just settlement to the historical conflict, but rather as a comprehensive engineering framework for reshaping Palestinian reality in all its components. This return is not innocent, nor does it come in the context of an international response to the rights of an occupied people. Rather, it is being used as a tool to control the Palestinians politically, security-wise, economically, and perhaps culturally, according to a vision formulated outside the national will.

What is being presented today within the framework of the "Two-State Solution" conference is not based on international legitimacy resolutions or inalienable historical rights. Rather, it is based on a restricted and conditional vision that links recognition of the establishment of a Palestinian state to profound internal transformations in the behavior and discourse of the Palestinian government. Here, statehood is not granted as an entitlement, but rather as a conditional reward provided the Palestinians adhere to the new rules of the game: recognition of Israel, renunciation of resistance, and restructuring of their political system under a framework of international controls.

The United States, despite its promotion of the "two-state solution," is not exerting any real pressure on Israel to halt settlement activity or recognize the borders of a Palestinian state. Washington views the re-empowerment of the Palestinian Authority as an administrative means to "fill the vacuum" in Gaza, provided that this authority is reshaped to suit Israel's security perspective first and foremost. Israel, ruled by an extreme right-wing government led by Benjamin Netanyahu, fundamentally rejects the idea of a Palestinian state and insists on maintaining security control from the Jordan River to the sea. All it is proposing is an economic peace conditional on the disarmament of the resistance, without offering any political or sovereign guarantees to the Palestinians.

In this context, the conference being promoted appears to be a complex engineering process targeting Palestinians as a subject of control, not as a partner in the settlement. What is required, first, is the re-establishment of the Palestinian Authority as an administrative entity stripped of its national significance, one that condemns armed struggle even in the context of resisting the occupation, and excludes political forces that reject the Oslo process. Second, security matters in Gaza must be handed over to a "neutral" entity acceptable to Israel, ensuring the "unification of legitimate weapons" and criminalizing resistance as terrorism. Third, reconstruction in the Gaza Strip must be linked to the extent of Palestinian compliance with political and security conditions, thus transforming reconstruction from a human right into a tool for political blackmail. Fourth, a new narrative must be imposed that erases the essence of the Palestinian struggle, beginning with labeling the October 7 operation a "massacre," and extending to amending Palestinian curricula, abolishing rewards for prisoners and martyrs, and imposing a new vision of the "acceptable" Palestinian: obedient, non-resisting, and internationally disciplined.

The danger here lies not only in diminishing the concept of the state and transforming it into an entity with limited sovereignty, subject to strict security and financial dictates, but also in obscuring the vision of liberation and replacing it with a "developmental" vision that deludes Palestinians into believing that economic progress can compensate for the absence of freedom. Worse still, the conference project completely ignores Israel's escalating ambitions in the West Bank, where the occupying authorities are racing against time to expand settlements, Judaize Jerusalem, and impose demographic and geographic realities that undermine any possibility of establishing a contiguous and sovereign Palestinian state. This is taking place amidst the dominance of extremist religious and nationalist forces that explicitly call for the annexation of the West Bank, the displacement of Palestinians, and the end of any form of self-rule.

What is being proposed now is not a settlement to the conflict, but rather an attempt to impose a new reality through military force, politics, and international support. Talk of a "Palestinian state" in this context is merely a cover for a comprehensive control project aimed at dismantling the Palestinian national identity, neutralizing collective consciousness, and creating a new generation of Palestinians divorced from their historical and struggle narrative. This project does not recognize the resistance forces as part of the political fabric, nor the PLO as a comprehensive representative framework. Rather, it promotes a fragile political structure that aligns with donor conditions rather than the aspirations of the people.

Faced with this scenario, it seems urgent to rebuild the Palestinian national project on democratic and inclusive foundations, based on the reactivation of the PLO, overcoming divisions, and a comprehensive critical review of the Oslo process, which has only yielded further political constraint and exposure. There is no path to liberation that can be built on the voluntary relinquishment of the right to defeat the occupation, and no solution can endure without recognizing sovereignty as a right, not as a conditional grant. Statehood is not granted after passing the tests of obedience, but rather is won on the basis of steadfastness and national consensus.

What is being promoted at the two-state solution conference is essentially a process of redefining the Palestinian—not their history and demands, but their identity and the nature of their existence. It is a project of external control over the Palestinians' present and future, imposed by the force of the fait accompli and sponsored by major powers seeking permanent calm, not absent justice. In this context, it becomes imperative that this conference not be viewed as a political opportunity, but rather as a strategic warning calling for the development of a unified Palestinian position that rejects solutions capped by the occupation's conditions and restores consideration for national constants and dignity.