[COLUMNIST] Putting the two-state solution back on track

SOME have speculated that the October 7 attack by Hamas was aimed at bringing the Palestinian issue back on track.

Indeed, this was the avowed intention of the leading mastermind and architect of what had been known as the “Big Project” (by insiders), i.e., the late venerable Yahya Sinwar who was the de facto head of Gaza and martyred in a last stand on October 16, 2024.

The Palestinian issue is wide enough to accommodate both the two-state as well as the one state solution of which Yahya Sinwar was a proponent (“Sinwar’s vision for a one-state solution: The Palestine Liberation Commission”, Alain Alameddine, Middle East Monitor, November 16, 2024).

Regardless, and despite denials by critics, Yahya Sinwar did succeed in refocusing the Palestinian issue which is typically associated with the two-state solution back on the agenda in the region and (at least, in effect, as synchronised with) the wider global community (as embodied by the United Nations/UN).

That is, effecting the shift in status quo away from Zionist occupation of Palestine – ranging from the situation of Al-Aqsa (as exemplified during the holy month of Ramadan) through to the brutal and horrific treatment of Palestinians, including dispossession, and the degradation of resistance and civilian infrastructure and ultimately, slow genocide and displacement.

And ensuring the shift in attention back to the issue of its definitive resolution and final settlement – which can no longer be postponed indefinitely.

That is, the two-state solution as expressing the will of the international community in the form of the successive UN General Assembly (GA) and UN Security Council (SC) resolutions and to which Israel is legally (unconditionally) obligated to fulfil as a member thereof.

Israel’s legal obligations also include the interim provisions and the pathway towards the two-state solution as enshrined in the Oslo Accords (Oslo I of 1993 and Oslo II of 1995).

The latest UNGA Resolution (Item 35, A/79/L.23) – “Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine” – reaffirms “… the permanent responsibility of the [UN] with regard to the question of Palestine until it is resolved in all its aspects in accordance with international law and relevant resolutions”.

The Resolution also reminded the UNSC (even if ever so implicitly) that the two-state solution entails the State of Palestine (currently on an observer status) becoming a full member of the UN.

It also recalled the Arab Peace Initiative (API) as adopted by the Arab League in 2002 which aims to bring about a just, comprehensive and lasting solution to the Palestinian issue without delay.

The two-state solution agenda had been in danger of being derailed ever since Israel – with the usual backing of the US – enthusiastically pushed for normalisation with Saudi Arabia as a follow-up to the success of the Abraham Accords (with the four Arab countries i.e., United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and the Sudan). The timing also coincided with the Ramadan rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran as mediated and brokered by China in March 2023.

Under what’s a generous (understatement) principle of “land for peace”, the API seeks to:

• Underscore the need for Israel to revert to the pre-1967 borders (“Green Line”) in line with UNGA and UNSC resolutions. This means full and complete withdrawal from the Palestinian Territories of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem – designated as the capital of the State of Palestine; and

• Assure Israel, in return, that the Arab countries will normalise relations.

Here in black and white is the “security guarantee” given to Israel by the Arab League. This includes especially the Arab countries yet to normalise relations with Israel.

Any delay or postponement or even outright (i.e., unambiguous and open) rejection of the two-state solution by Israel and, by extension, the US is both indefensible and inexcusable.

The US has been complicit in the derailing of the two-state solution from the Bush Jr administration onwards. Recall that the Bush Jr administration was characterised by the neocon vision to reshape the Middle East order – with the 9/11 terrorist attack on American soil serving as a pretext (“casus belli” – provocation/justification for war).

The neocon vision is eminently aligned with Netanyahu’s own messianic worldview to change the “balance of power” and geopolitical calculus in the Middle East to be increasingly in favour of Israel.

As EMIR Research has argued in “Time to UN-seat US on the UN Security Council” (February 13, 2025), the time has come for the US (under Trump 2.0) to either withdraw or be removed/ejected from the UNSC since the world’s self-avowed hegemon has consistently sided with Israel unconditionally in the latter’s asymmetrical and disproportionate aggression alongside genocide in Gaza.

This makes the US utterly unfit to continue as an impartial member of the UNSC set up to enforce the will of the international community.

The burden, initiative and momentum for the two-state solution must wrested from the US and (re)imposed on Israel by the international community.

Indeed, the UNGA’s Tenth Emergency Special Session’s Resolution (Agenda Item 5) on 17 September, 2024 in relation to the “Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory” has called on Israel to completely withdraw within the next 12 months.

The US has lost all credibility and legitimacy and is no longer a reliable partner in this regard (and in fact on other issues too, to say the least).

In the final analysis, an independent, sovereign and free State of Palestine is a buffer against Zionist expansionism and the Greater Israel project instead of the way around.

The two-state solution is not only the solution to the Palestinian question.

It’s also the lynchpin to regional stability and order – directly and indirectly (as confirmed and affirmed in the UNGA and UNSC resolutions and the API).

Last but not least, there could well be a possible integration of the Yair Lapid Plan – dubbed “The Egyptian Solution” – announced at a forum organised by the FDD (Foundation for the Defense of Democracies) on February 26 this year which broadly resembles EMIR Research’s much earlier calls for a Multinational Islamic Defence Force to occupy Gaza (and the West Bank).

The Plan calls for Israeli disengagement to be substituted with Egyptian security presence in Gaza as part of the rehabilitation process. Egypt would simultaneously have control and management of Gaza. The whole process is envisaged to last for 8 years – with an option to extend to 15 years. In return, Egypt’s foreign debt will be written off or settled by the international community.

However, Egypt has swiftly rejected the proposal as inconsistent with the longstanding stance of the country and of the wider Arab world.

Instead, Egypt should take over the external security of the Gaza Strip from Israel – which means also control of the crossings in the north and of the coastal zone (i.e., the water limits, perhaps up until the access restricted area/ARA). Domestically, Hamas would continue as the interim administrator of Gaza until such time as elections can be held and negotiations are made to transition to “demilitarisation” of its own accord.

The two-state solution can’t be pushed aside for much longer.

The world awaits with bated breath the alternative plan to be put forward by Egypt and the Arab League in response to Trump’s Riviera of the Middle East for Gaza at the emergency meeting that’s scheduled to take place on February 28 but has been now postponed to March 4.

Hopefully, the Egyptian and Arab League plan (with the API as the foundation) would play a part in compelling Israel and the US to finally “realise” that there’s no alternative to the two-state solution.

---

Jason Loh Seong Wei is Head of Social, Law & Human Rights at EMIR Research, an independent think tank focused on strategic policy recommendations based on rigorous research.

** The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of Astro AWANI.

Dapatkan berita terkini di sini