[ad_1]
In August, the influential US magazine Diplomacy conducted an investigation on the Palestinian two-state solution in “Authorities with Professional Knowledge and Major Generalists in the Field”. The question it asked was “Is the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict no longer feasible?” 64 experts should indicate their agreement or disagreement and explain their position with brief comments.
Half of the people who disagree with the two-state solution are dead, 7 people are neutral, and 25 people agree with this premise.
Some people who hold different opinions are currently or previously participating in think tanks that tend to be Zionist, such as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. These include Martin Indyk, the former US ambassador to Israel for apartheid, who served as the deputy research director of the American Israel Public Affairs Commission (AIPAC) before starting his diplomatic career.
The list also includes Dennis Ross and others who are actively involved in the so-called “peace process”. This is an endless event that aims to ensure the security of the apartheid state of Israel and completely abolish the basic rights of the Palestinians. Obviously, those involved in the “peace process” still have the illusion that a Palestinian Bantustan might be established.
The defenders of the two-state solution acknowledged that there are “obstacles” to its realization; among them, “the two parties” and “lack of political will” are most often mentioned. Some people even believe that the Palestinian leadership should be blamed because Hamas and the Palestinian Authority lack the support of the Palestinian people to make the necessary sacrifices and accept Israel’s policies of apartheid and settler colonization.
Interestingly, some people who take a “neutral” stance are more willing to adopt a postmodern relativistic stance on one of the issues of freedom, equality, and justice—no more, no less. Others have adopted a human rights approach to the Palestinian issue and refused to take a political stand.
Anyone can guess what it means to be “neutral” on clear issues of justice. Just a few decades ago, who would dare to remain “neutral” to the end of apartheid in South Africa?
In general, most of the supporters of the two-state solution in academia, foreign policy, and other fields are Israel, the United States, or Europe, and they believe that there is no problem with the settler-colonization project. The few Palestinians who support this racist approach to the Palestinian issue have failed to recognize the local facts: the system between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean is the reality of one country, an apartheid country, one community has all privileged citizenship, and another The community is deprived of its basic human rights.
It is hard not to notice the racism and injustice in the reality of apartheid in Palestine. As the diplomatic issue implies, the suffering Palestinians are not only those who lived in the occupied territories in 1967.
I personally participated in the survey and believe that it is important for the Palestinians to hear my voice. In a limited space, what I want to say is:
“In addition, Israel has taken irreversible steps to make this solution impossible—namely, expanding settlements inhabited only by Jews; annexing more land in the West Bank besides Jerusalem; building a separation between Palestinians and Palestine Human apartheid wall; blockade of the Gaza Strip; the Israeli parliament passed a racist nation-state law-in principle the two-state solution did not provide the Palestinian people with the basic rights under international law-equality and the right to return. Similar to Bantustan’s The solution is an excellent solution to racism.”
Such an influential American journal raises such a question about the reality of the two states of Palestine and ensures that some Palestinian voices are among the interviewees. This is a great demonstration of the power of the Palestinians to speak out in the center of the empire. This also reveals the fact that international discussions about Palestine are slowly but surely moving away from discussions about the “peace process” and the “uncompromising” of the Palestinian leadership.
This obviously annoyed the Zionists in the United States and Israel, and a survey interviewee expressed complete disappointment at the decision of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to raise such a question. The defensive nature of the tone of many “disagree” responses shows that even staunch Israeli supporters are aware that the two-state solution cannot solve the Palestinian problem, which is dead due to Israel’s apartheid policy in Palestine.
The other option is clear: a country establishes a country for all residents of Palestine with a long history, regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion; a South African country after apartheid, it is not based on one community being oppressed by another community. Accepting racist ideas about ethnic separation cannot truly solve the Palestinian problem. Only by restoring Palestine’s multicultural characteristics, that is, its inclusive, secular, and democratic characteristics, can lasting peace between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean and other regions be achieved.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
[ad_2]
Source link