[SS from essay by Omar M. Dajani, Carol Olson Professor of International Law at McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific. From 1999 to 2001, he served as legal adviser to the Palestinian negotiating team in peace talks with Israel from 1999 to 2001; and Limor Yehuda, Senior Research Fellow and leader of the Partnership-Based Israeli-Palestinian Peace project at the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute, a Lecturer at the Hebrew University Faculty of Law, and the author of [*Collective Equality: Democracy and Human Rights in Ethno-National Conflicts*](https://www.amazon.com/Collective-Equality-Democracy-Ethno-National-Conflicts/dp/131651482X).]
In July, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss the war in Gaza and the future of the Middle East. Afterward, Harris stressed her commitment to a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians—in her words, “the only path that ensures Israel remains a secure Jewish and democratic state, and one that ensures Palestinians can finally realize the freedom, security, and prosperity that they rightly deserve.” She is hardly alone in this sentiment. Across the world, leaders continue to pledge support for a two-state solution, arguing that it provides direction and momentum to efforts to end the war and eventually rebuild Gaza. In a long-awaited cease-fire resolution, passed in June, the UN Security Council again committed itself to “the vision of the two-State solution where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders.”
For anyone paying attention to what is happening on the ground, however, these statements feel detached from reality. Netanyahu and his far-right coalition partners have pledged not to allow the creation of a Palestinian state. Even Netanyahu’s leading opponents are wary of the idea, aware of polls that show Israelis are overwhelmingly opposed. Israel does not want to give up control over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and it is not willing to relocate hundreds of thousands of settlers or erect a physical border dividing Jerusalem. Perhaps that is why, in private conversations, almost no one we talk to—not other analysts, diplomats, or policymakers—actually believes that the long-imagined two-state solution is attainable. As Harris herself acknowledged after her meeting in July, “Right now, it is hard to conceive of that prospect.”
aWhiteWildLion on
It should be called a Two-State Delusion at this point
thatgeekinit on
Most Two State solutions going back to 1937 at least envisioned an economic union & free trade with each other, which is a type of confederation. Basically you can work or do business anywhere but you have to go home to your side of the line to sleep.
It doesn’t solve the problem of what the Palestinians have done to themselves in terms of radicalization and their internal politics of self-destruction.
3 Comments
[SS from essay by Omar M. Dajani, Carol Olson Professor of International Law at McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific. From 1999 to 2001, he served as legal adviser to the Palestinian negotiating team in peace talks with Israel from 1999 to 2001; and Limor Yehuda, Senior Research Fellow and leader of the Partnership-Based Israeli-Palestinian Peace project at the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute, a Lecturer at the Hebrew University Faculty of Law, and the author of [*Collective Equality: Democracy and Human Rights in Ethno-National Conflicts*](https://www.amazon.com/Collective-Equality-Democracy-Ethno-National-Conflicts/dp/131651482X).]
In July, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss the war in Gaza and the future of the Middle East. Afterward, Harris stressed her commitment to a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians—in her words, “the only path that ensures Israel remains a secure Jewish and democratic state, and one that ensures Palestinians can finally realize the freedom, security, and prosperity that they rightly deserve.” She is hardly alone in this sentiment. Across the world, leaders continue to pledge support for a two-state solution, arguing that it provides direction and momentum to efforts to end the war and eventually rebuild Gaza. In a long-awaited cease-fire resolution, passed in June, the UN Security Council again committed itself to “the vision of the two-State solution where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders.”
For anyone paying attention to what is happening on the ground, however, these statements feel detached from reality. Netanyahu and his far-right coalition partners have pledged not to allow the creation of a Palestinian state. Even Netanyahu’s leading opponents are wary of the idea, aware of polls that show Israelis are overwhelmingly opposed. Israel does not want to give up control over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and it is not willing to relocate hundreds of thousands of settlers or erect a physical border dividing Jerusalem. Perhaps that is why, in private conversations, almost no one we talk to—not other analysts, diplomats, or policymakers—actually believes that the long-imagined two-state solution is attainable. As Harris herself acknowledged after her meeting in July, “Right now, it is hard to conceive of that prospect.”
It should be called a Two-State Delusion at this point
Most Two State solutions going back to 1937 at least envisioned an economic union & free trade with each other, which is a type of confederation. Basically you can work or do business anywhere but you have to go home to your side of the line to sleep.
It doesn’t solve the problem of what the Palestinians have done to themselves in terms of radicalization and their internal politics of self-destruction.