The return of the ‘two-state solution’
Does anyone really understand it?
With the advent of the Biden administration in the US, the phrase “two-state solution” appears to have returned to the forefront in the new US administration’s “reset” of its policy priorities regarding the Palestinian– Israeli dispute.
The question arises whether the massive, liberal, effusive and generally off-the-cuff usage of the term “twostate solution” by all and sundry has any relation to its historic and substantive context in the Israeli-Palestinian realities, and whether it takes into account the complex and practical aspects of its realization.
The term “two-state solution” has become a useful slogan and political declaration by leaders in the international community, often the result of political correctness and lip-service to a growing international trend.
In addition to some former Israeli leaders, the phrase is being repeated daily by White House and State Department spokespersons and other administration officials, as well as by international leaders and organizations, as it was during the Obama and previous administrations.
As most recently reported by The Jerusalem Post, the April 18-19 J Street annual conference, presently being held virtually, the “two-state” mantra is figuring high among the stated priorities of the participants.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, invited by J Street to participate as a keynote speaker at its conference, affirmed the belief by the PA in “the two-state solution based on pre-June 1967 borders based on international law” with “east Jerusalem as its capital.” Former prime minister Ehud Olmert expressed his own firm belief in the importance of a two-state resolution to the conflict.
Similar calls supporting the twostate solution were expressed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as well as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer
However, as in the past, the phrase is again being bandied-about as a form of collective and generalized wishful thinking, as the only panacea to the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, but without full awareness of its history, its practical implications and the feasibility of its implementation in light of the realities of the dispute.
IT IS BEING repeated despite the fact that a two-state solution has, in fact, never been accepted and agreed-to by
the parties to the dispute, and despite the fact that the permanent status of the territories, as agreed in the Oslo Accords, remains an open negotiating issue. As such, repetition of the call for a two-state solution would appear to be an attempt to prejudge the outcome of that negotiating process.
The 1991-93 Oslo Accords remain the only agreed, and still valid internationally legal basis for the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiation process. Together with Yasser Arafat representing the PLO, and prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, the Accords were countersigned by the leaders of the US, the EU, Russia, Norway and Egypt. They make no mention of the ultimate outcome of the permanent-status negotiations, whether that be in the form of a one-, two- or three-state solution, a federation, confederation or condominium,
or anything else. All this is left to the parties to negotiate in good faith. The solution cannot be imposed, prejudged or predetermined by non-binding political resolutions of international organizations or by the wishful thinking of political leaders, however genuine and well-meaning they may be.
While the two-state vision has become a standard component of non-binding UN political documentation, it has never been part of any formal, binding resolution or agreement between the parties.
The accepted, and logical assumption has been that whatever solution will be achieved, will only be through negotiation and agreement between the parties, and not through the imposition of such a solution, through prejudgment of the outcome of such negotiation or through glib declarations expressing the hope for a two-state solution.
Clearly, any concept of a two-state solution that would indeed include the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, could only emanate from direct, bona fide negotiations between Israel and a unified Palestinian leadership, and not through partisan political resolutions emanating from the UN or any other source, or from vague and generalized calls from international leaders for a twostate solution as a form of collective wishful thinking.
The writer served as the legal adviser to Israel’s Foreign Ministry and as Israel’s ambassador to Canada. He participated in the negotiation and drafting of the Oslo Accords. He presently serves as director of the International Law Program at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.