Blogger Najm Al-Din warns that Western and Gulf leaders currently trumpeting the two-state solution are seeking to launder their role in enabling genocide while simultaneously trying to build a lucrative trade corridor on the back of dead Palestinians.
Across London, Paris and Toronto, Israel’s usually reliable unconscionable apologists recently issued joint statements denouncing its Gaza offensive, warning of “concrete actions” if current hostilities continue.
One of the measures proposed by these states for an amicable agreement was a two-state solution, which will be the subject of an upcoming UN conference in New York, co-chaired by Saudi Arabia and France, much to the chagrin of Benjamin Netanyahu.
So, what is a two-state solution, why has it failed, and should Muslims be optimistic about this volte-face on Israel?
Two state solution
For decades, a two-state solution was treated as the cornerstone for stability in the Middle East. The proposal was endorsed by the UN in 1947 after a vote to partition Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states.
At that time Arab leaders rejected the plan as it allocated more than half of Palestine to a Jewish state, amounting to the dispossession of the indigenous majority in favour of a Jewish minority which comprised only a third of the population.
Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest news and updates from around the Muslim world!
This sparked the first Arab-Israeli war, resulting in the displacement of more than 700,000 Palestinians from the newly-formed Israeli state.
In the decades that followed, vague political roadmaps such as the U.S.-brokered Oslo Accords failed to deliver on a two-state solution. Meanwhile successive Zionist administrations prevented Palestinian self-determination and rejected demands for the phased withdrawal of forces from occupied territories.
Impediments
Perhaps the greatest obstacle to a peace agreement is PM Benjamin Netanyahu.
Having conditioned Palestinian statehood on demilitarisation, Netanyahu has insisted that Palestinian authorities relinquish control over military and air space and outsource security of all territories west of the Jordan river to Israel, in addition to several draconian demands which would reduce any independent Palestine to permanent vassalage.
Another impediment to a two-state solution is the unresolved issue of borders.
After the 1967 war, Israel annexed Gaza, the West Bank East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
This rendered huge numbers of Palestinians stateless, denying the right of return to refugees and forcing many into a militarised state.
Since then, Israel has conducted illegal military operations on territories under the administration of the Palestinian Authority.
Israel has multiplied its settlements with the aim of forcing demographic changes in the region.
In addition to legitimising the theft of territories that were annexed from Palestinians during the 1948 war, this proposal presents further complications.
Those supporting a return to pre-1967 borders — with Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank transferred to a Palestinian leadership — must also contend with hundreds of thousands of Israelis who have settled in these regions
This settlement is the result of decades of illegal expansion and it makes the designation of any territory as “Palestinian” a very complex undertaking.
Jerusalem
An additional point of contention on final-status negotiations is the polarising subject of Jerusalem.
For Muslims, Masjid Al Aqsa is the third holiest sanctuary in Islam, from where Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) ascended to heaven.
Meanwhile, The Western Wall and Temple Mount are central to the Jewish faith, with some ultra-Zionists seeking the destruction of Al Aqsa Mosque to facilitate the building of a Third Temple.
Finally, Christians revere the ancient city as it marks the site of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection.
Proponents of a two-state solution envisage an internationalised Jerusalem under the aegis of a UN Trusteeship Council to ensure its neutrality, where East Jerusalem is recognised as the Palestinian capital and the western part of the city for Israelis.
India-Middle East-Europe-Economic Corridor
With over two million Gazans at risk of famine and Israel reaffirming its intention to cleanse the region, western nations are resurrecting the idea of a two-state solution to launder their role in enabling the genocide, hoping to avoid reputational damage and any legal reckoning.
However, turning their heels on Netanyahu does not mean abandoning the strategic relationship with Tel Aviv, which becomes more important considering Israel’s recent air strikes on Iranian nuclear sites.
Let’s not forget that those championing calls for a Palestinian state are not only keen on disarming the Palestinian resistance but also altering the trajectory of geopolitical power by building alternate trade corridors via Israel.
The NATO powers and allies finalising a consensus on post-war Gaza recognise that in a rapidly evolving global trade landscape, Israel and the Gulf Sheikhdoms sit at a critical intersection of a new trading axis which can connect Asia to Europe, known as the India-Middle East-Europe-Economic Corridor (IMEC).
Envisioned as a multimodal transcontinental economic corridor linking India to the Arabian Gulf and the Middle East to Europe, IMEC is a joint enterprise between India, KSA, UAE, US and the European Union.
It seeks to enhance trade efficiency and energy security between participating nations.
It represents a challenge to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) by reducing dependence on Chinese infrastructure while lessening reliance on routes under Iranian control.
Its northern corridor connects the Arabian Peninsula to Europe through railway networks linking the Gulf and the Mediterranean via Israel.
Israel is poised to become a crucial node in the “New Middle East,” an emerging power bloc where Tel Aviv, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi become a Eurasian economic bridge.
If IMEC materialises as planned, Israel could become the nexus of a new global value chain and a major exporter of EU energy.
Meanwhile, Palestine risks becoming another asset in the portfolio of neoliberal shock therapists.
Trump has earmarked Gaza as a luxury real estate project. Israel threatens to appropriate its maritime offshore gas reserves once the Gazans have been relocated.
Therefore, even if Netanyahu becomes persona non grata, renewing calls for a two-state solution is unlikely to bring real change.
A semi-autonomous Palestine under the administration of Gulf States and a western-backed Palestinian Authority is nothing but an instrument of surrender and capitulation. This plan would incorporate Gaza and eventually the Levant Basin into IMEC.
It is not merely a face-saving compromise to appease the groundswell of anger over western and Arab support of Israel. It is also a smokescreen to buy time before imposing new realities on the ground.
These include the demilitarisation of resistance factions and the radical makeover of an entire conflict zone. This process culminates in an unhealthy concentration of wealth and power among regional stakeholders.
These stakeholders aspire to build a Eurasian trade corridor on the rubble of dead Palestinians.
