The U.S. administration, through President Biden and Secretary of State, is intensively advocating for a two-state solution. They are not limited to mere statements but have also discussed this with the Palestinian and Egyptian presidents, the Jordanian king, the Qatari emir, and with Europeans who are beginning to lean in that direction as well. The U.S. administration seems to have a vision for this that it has not publicly shared, which is understandable as it is still in the phase of gathering support. It is clear so far that the primary goal of the idea and its plans is to avoid the international conference supported by the Chinese and the Russians, which Israel and the United States reject.
Some suggest that there are other reasons behind this trend, such as the American presidential elections that are beginning to ramp up, where President Biden is a candidate, and within the Democratic Party, there is a growing support for the Palestinians, including some American Jewish circles that want to end wars in Israel and on it. Reasons also include American attempts to appease their Arab allies in the region, who are currently very angry over what appears to be American inability to halt the devastating war on Gaza.
Some Arabs believe that if the United States is serious about reaching a two-state solution, and the Palestinian president and the Arabs support it, it should be able to convince the Israeli partner of two things: to stop the war, and to proceed with the two-state solution. An Arab research center director mentioned to me that, in his opinion, the U.S. has not yet spoken seriously with the Israelis regarding these two matters. They still hope that the Israeli war administration will approve humanitarian ceasefires. The Israelis, apparently convinced, believe that through the fierce war on Khan Younis, they can kill Hamas leaders and release hostages from the tunnels.
Strangely enough, it seems that the American administration is somehow convinced of this or is showing a conviction, giving Israel weeks to achieve its alleged goals. The problem is that no one believes these objectives can be achieved, and both global and particularly American public opinion cannot tolerate the Israeli violence in the sector and the prevention of aid for the coming weeks. Furthermore, America’s allies in the region and the world are very embarrassed, as was evident at the Gulf Cooperation Council meeting in Doha on November 5, 2023, and the high-profile Qatari statements following the meeting.
The world wants the U.S. to address two points: stop the war and implement a two-state solution. Undoubtedly, the path to a two-state solution is more complicated as it requires long negotiations and strategic Israeli decisions that the current far-right government in Israel cannot or will not accept. Thus, a "stop to the war" becomes a test of the U.S.'s capabilities to influence; if the cessation occurs at the decision of Israel’s war government, it would serve as evidence of the U.S.’s strategic capacities toward Israel, which it has supported in every possible way over the past two months, through military equipment, finances, and political protection.
It was believed that Israel did not need weaponry, but the U.S. embraced it at all levels for control and influence over outcomes. Some commentators, including Thomas Friedman, argue that the U.S. can stop the war but believes the time is not yet right because Hamas is still alive and strong, and its military leadership is commanding and controlling the situation. Thus, even if the war stops, it will not be possible to advance a negotiated solution from either the Israeli government or Hamas. Therefore, developments towards a negotiated solution require a change in the current Israeli government and a significant weakening of Hamas so that it cannot obstruct a peaceful or negotiated resolution, which the current settler government and Hamas leadership do not consider just or fair to both parties!
The Americans thus wish to convince awaiting Arabs and others that waiting in tension is not in vain, even though it is mixed with much bloodshed. However, Europeans (Spaniards, French, and Belgians) are telling them that at the very least, during the blazing fires, civilians must be protected, aid must be allowed in without condition, and killing in the West Bank and Jerusalem must cease. These are objections and grievances that the Americans have been unable to answer, and humanitarian organizations, including Doctors Without Borders, have begun to raise their complaints to the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, having lost hope in the UN commissions and the United States and major European countries!
Amid these challenging conditions and conflicting precedents, the initial belief during the early days of war that the immediate two-state solution is an alternative to the war that could end with its arrival is waning. If the war were to stop, for example, the situation would revert to what it was after the previous four wars between Hamas and Israel, with the difference that this war has been much longer, and the human and material losses are tenfold or more than before. Thomas Friedman in the New York Times proposes that the Israeli war leadership should stop the fighting immediately and demand that Hamas release Israeli prisoners without trading them for Palestinian prisoners. If the Hamas leadership refuses, the whole world will stand against it; if the Israeli army continues to fight, it will become clear to everyone that it cannot achieve its two self-imposed objectives: releasing hostages and ending Hamas or its control over Gaza!
Some wish to resurrect Kissinger, who passed away recently at a hundred years old. Had he been alive and in a significant role, he might not have stopped the current war, but after a ceasefire, he would have prepared a detailed negotiation plan and gained preliminary approval from all influential parties. What would be his view on Hamas and its fate? Most likely, he would ignore it and allow the Israeli army to besiege it while politicians from all sides rush to meet in Qatar, Madrid, or Oslo, seeking to revive the Oslo Accords or a new agreement like that proposed by President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi: an international approach to recognize the Palestinian state, followed by addressing other issues of the final solution such as Gaza, Jerusalem, refugees, borders, and, before and after that, security. However, all these issues have been revisited hundreds of times, and since the latter half of the 1990s, there has been no will to resolve them due to Hamas and the rise of Israeli right-wing politics that has not stopped until today. As the influence of Palestinian radicals has increased, especially with their recent takeover of Gaza, the influence of Israeli radicals has consistently risen, culminating in the current situation.
How did things reach this level of deterioration? Everyone's conviction in temporary solutions which the Israelis and Americans believed would ultimately benefit Israel. Even Hamas stated they were prepared for a long truce with the occupation; now they claim they were preparing while the Israelis were oblivious. The outcome of these two tactics or strategies is the ongoing massacre that is widening in scale and losses, making the possibility of living side by side between the two peoples even more arduous and difficult.
Is the two-state solution project a substitute for war and future wars? This is what everyone hopes, but the outlook is not promising!
