(I grovel, weep, I offer my eternal gratitude—just solve it!)

(To the Lovers of Old Songs, Including the Symphony of the Two-State Solution)

We are not oblivious to the statements of numerous politicians around the world regarding the “solution” to the Middle East “conflict.” (2) They tirelessly and endlessly repeat a scratched record disc called the “two-state solution.” Despite my constant disgust with such statements, today, I have decided to write this article, leaving my fate to a God whose existence I do not believe in. I will accept everything they say and attempt to refute it.

They say: “Two states for two peoples.”

Alright. Where do you propose these states should be?

They will answer, bewildered by my ignorance: “In Palestine/Israel or Israel/Palestine” (depending on the current trend), as that is the land they “dispute” or “struggle” over, with each side claiming exclusive ownership.

I will ask again: “Where exactly? What are the borders of each of the proposed states, and on what basis?”

At this point, their astonishment will grow: “Of course, based on international legitimacy, meaning the borders of June 4, 1967.”

Excuse me. I’m not entirely sure about that second idea. Although there is very little black left in my hair, I haven’t heard any official mention of the June 4, 1967 borders in what feels like an eternity.

But let’s assume they did say that.

I will say: “Alright! I will venture to claim that the majority of the Palestinian people would agree with what I’m saying, with minor objections from some. Let’s ignore them for now. “My hands in your belt”—I agree! Give us the land that Israel occupied in 1967.”

And here begins the talk of “details”—that we must sit at the negotiating table to discuss these details, that there are complex issues within these details, and that the “sponsor” of these negotiations must be a “neutral” and powerful party capable of enforcing what is agreed upon on “all” sides.

Yes, exactly as you expected—they will say that this shepherd (3) is the United States of America.

And this statement will bring me back to my senses, forcing me to set aside my delirium and begin writing what I truly want to say.

The two-state solution depends on the approval of the concerned parties. Assuming that the weaker party in this equation—the Palestinians—agrees to it, the Israeli side, which holds the greater power, will inevitably reject it, as it does both in words and actions.

This is not merely an assessment of the situation but a confirmation of facts. The Israeli political establishment, both in government and opposition, rejects the twostate solution and openly declares this to the public, which makes my argument easier.

The opposition aspires to seize power by exposing the far-right government’s failure to uphold and achieve its declared objectives. At the same time, it announces goals that, in essence, do not differ from those of the current government.

The opposition opposes the establishment of a fully independent Palestinian state and instead favours an entity resembling the Kingdom of Lesotho during the apartheid era in South Africa. It calls for “democracy,” but within a state that has a religious and racial character (a Jewish state, as it is declared).

So, what two states are you even talking about?!

The political-military establishment in the State (4) of Israel has been built, since the founding of that infamous (5) state, on a racist ideology with a religious character that entrenches the rejection of the “other”—whoever they may be, especially if that other is weak. This presents a real dilemma, as the state has indoctrinated its entire society with this racist ideology, creating a militarized and aggressive community that places itself in contradiction and conflict with its entire surroundings, all while lamenting to the world about being rejected by that same environment.

In 1993, the State of Israel signed a peace agreement with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) known as the Oslo Accords, named after the capital of Norway, where the agreement was initially signed. Implementation began with the entry of PLO personnel and security forces—whom Israel allowed (6) —into Gaza and Jericho first, followed by an expansion of their presence into several Palestinian cities and residential areas in the West Bank.

The agreement contained many loopholes, the most significant of which, according to many experts, were:

The division of Palestinian land into three categories: A, B, and C.

–Area A (approximately 18% of the West Bank) was supposed to be under full Palestinian security and administrative control.

–Area B (about 22% of the West Bank) was placed under Palestinian civil administration but remained under Israeli security control.

–Area C, the largest portion (around 60% of the West Bank), remained under full Israeli control. These divisions were meant to be temporary, pending the declaration of an independent Palestinian state in the year 2000, as stipulated in the agreement. However, they remain in place to this day.

• Key issues such as borders, water rights, Jerusalem, settlements, and “security measures” were left in Israel’s hands “until further negotiations.”

• The right of return for Palestinian refugees displaced in 1948 and 1967 was not resolved, despite UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (1948) and UN Security Council resolution from 1967 affirming this right.

Between the signing of the Oslo Accords and the planned declaration of a Palestinian state in the year 2000, the number of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, increased significantly. As a result, the number of settlers rose from 110,000 in 1993 to 200,000 by the year 2000.

In the year 2000, a key figure in the Israeli “opposition”, Ariel Sharon—a former general in the Israeli army—stormed the courtyard of Al-Aqsa Mosque, escorted by Israeli police. This move aimed to distract the world’s attention from Israel’s refusal to fulfil its obligations under the previously mentioned Oslo agreement and to provoke the Palestinian people into violently reacting. He succeeded, sparking the Second Palestinian Intifada against Israeli occupation, demanding the implementation of the agreements and the declaration of a Palestinian state alongside Israel on Palestinian land.

Of course, Israel rejected this, citing the “Palestinian people’s unwillingness” for peace and the Palestinian Authority’s refusal to comply with Israeli and U.S.-backed demands. The “peace process” was then put on hold indefinitely—until further notice, or perhaps until God wills it. At that time the Israeli army attacked the Palestinian cities and villages, demolishing houses, ruining infrastructure, killing hundreds of Palestinians and injuring thousands. It surrounded the residency of the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, who mysteriously died lately.

It was clear that the two-state solution was within reach (7) , but as evidenced by Israel’s escalating settlement expansion, it was never intended to be fully implemented. Instead of preparing for Palestinian statehood, Israel built new settlements and expanded existing ones on land that, according to the agreement, was supposed to be part of the future Palestinian state. This alone proves that Israel never intended to follow through with the “two states for two peoples” framework. Beyond settlement expansion, other “contentious issues” contributed to derailing the two-state solution. The status of Jerusalem, borders, security measures (8) , and water rights remain major obstacles preventing a so-called “fair and balanced” resolution for both “disputing” parties.

Anyone advocating for the two-state solution should direct their questions to Israel’s political and military establishment, as well as to the Israeli society as a whole—and they will receive a clear answer:

No one in Israel is seriously considering removing settlements, restoring Jerusalem to its pre-June 5, 1967 status, granting Palestinians control over their borders, or even allowing them sovereignty over their own water resources.

So, what are we really talking about?

On the Issue of Settlers in the 1967 Occupied Territories

In one of my discussions with a supporter of the “two-state solution,” in Nottingham, I asked him:

“What do you propose we do about the nearly 800,000 settlers in these territories?” His answer was simple:

“Let them return to where they came from!”

This raises an additional question:

Should we, as Palestinians and our global supporters, treat others the way we were treated—simply as numbers?

Would international law—which opposes the mass expulsion of Palestinians from their land—permit such an action against the settlers who have lived in these occupied territories for decades? I don’t think so.

Many settlers were born in these settlements; some are already in their second or third generation in the older settlements. Those who speak of removing them are essentially calling for the expulsion of all who migrated to Palestine since the early 20th century and their descendants.

Such people fail to understand what the Palestine concept is (9) , nor do they genuinely seek to end the bloodshed in this land.

On the Right of Return

Since we have begun discussing the rejection of forced displacement and the commitment to international legitimacy, it is only fitting that we remember those Palestinians who were forcibly expelled from their homes between 1947 and 1951—the same period in which Gaza was turned into a massive detention camp for many who were forcibly displaced from their towns and villages in Palestine.

In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 194(10) , which explicitly affirmed the right of Palestinian refugees—those forcibly displaced—to return to their homes and lands, or, for those who chose not to return, to receive compensation for their lost or damaged property, in accordance with the principles of international law.

One can easily guess what the Israeli government’s response was at the time. But for those who do not wish to speculate:

The Israeli government outright rejected the resolution, and every subsequent Israeli government has maintained that rejection to this day.

To demonstrate that this rejection is not a mere tactical position that could be negotiated from a Zionist perspective, I will cite a passage from an article (11) by Vladimir (Ze’ev) Jabotinsky, one of the leaders of the Zionist movement:

“There can be no voluntary agreement between us and the Palestinian Arabs. Not now, and not in the foreseeable future. I say this with complete conviction—not because I wish to hurt the feelings of moderate Zionists. I do not believe they would be hurt. Except for those who were born blind, all have long understood that it is absolutely impossible to obtain the voluntary agreement of Palestinian Arabs to the transformation of ‘Palestine’ (12) from an Arab land into a land with a Jewish majority.” End of quote.

It is evident that the forced displacement of Palestinians and the denial of their right to return are at the core of the Zionist ideology. There is not a single Zionisteven among the so-called “moderates”—who opposes this principle. If one does claim to oppose it, then they are simply not a Zionist.

The equal coexistence of all people on the land of Palestine—regardless of their religion or ethnic origin—is a fundamental Palestinian demand. And, without exaggeration, it is also a universal humanitarian demand.

On Borders and Security

Look at the borders of the Arab state and the Jewish state in Palestine as outlined on the map attached to the 1947 United Nations General Assembly Resolution on the Partition of Palestine, and you will understand why Zionist militias (even before the declaration of the State of Israel in May 1948) carried out ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by committing numerous massacres, specifically in areas allocated to the Jewish state.

The reason is simple: the geographical area designated for the Jewish state had an Arab Palestinian majority. Therefore, any discussion about the borders of a Palestinian state must take this map into account if we aim to uphold international law.

The territories “occupied” under international law are not just those seized by Israel in 1967, but also the “additional” lands that Zionist armed militias (which later became the Israeli “Defence” Forces) took by force, in direct violation of UN Partition Resolution 181.

The fact that Arab states and the Palestinian national movement rejected the partition plan at the time does not legitimize this occupation. Even if we were to say, “Fine, let’s recognize the June 4, 1967 borders”—as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) did in the framework of the 1993 Oslo Accords—the Israeli government would still claim that it needs secure borders, arguing that these borders are indefensible.

Thus, they reject the idea outright. They have openly declared, time and again, that they categorically refuse the establishment of any Palestinian state on “the Land of Israel”!

The Real Obstacle to Peace

From the above, we can conclude that it is not the Palestinians who reject international resolutions and laws, but rather the Israeli state and its backers. The only true path to resolving this conflict is through a commitment to international legitimacy in its entirety and adherence to human rights principles.

However, in a reality where the most powerful country in the world offers unconditional support to the Zionist project and its violations of international law—including genocide—there is no solution except a global revolution against this injustice.

This injustice not only crushes the Palestinian people but also targets anyone who dares to oppose it, even with words, and anyone who exercises their legitimate right to freedom of expression.

The Path Forward: Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS)

In my view, this necessitates action in the form of boycotting the rogue Israeli state and its major backer, withdrawing investments, and imposing sanctions in all fields to force them into compliance with international law.

This is neither delusional nor utopian—it is a realistic roadmap for defeating oppression and building a free and just global society.

I am not speaking about an imaginary right, nor am I expressing desires that contradict logic or international law. Rather, I am demanding—just as the overwhelming majority of the Palestinian people demand—a right that is firmly rooted in human rights principles and international law.

The only logical and just solution—one that aligns with human rights and all humanitarian principles—is the establishment of a single democratic state on the land of historic Palestine, where all its citizens and all those connected to it can live on the basis of equality in rights and duties.

“Two-State Solution”—A Smokescreen for Oppression

In short, today’s discourse around the “two-state solution” serves no purpose other than to mislead the world, prolong Palestinian suffering, and continue their displacement and eradication—all under the guise of international legitimacy and moral conscience.

And to those who accept servitude, I say: blessed be your chains.

Nottingham 6 February 2025

NOTES:

1 There is a common tradition among Bedouins: when someone seeks something from a powerful and influential person, they seize the belt of that person at the right moment. The influential person then responds, “Rejoice!”—a promise of fulfilment. If they fail to meet the request, their prestige is diminished.

2 Some may ask why I placed the word “conflict” in double quotation marks, expressing my doubt about whether this term accurately describes the situation in that afflicted part of the world. My answer is that what has been happening for at least a hundred years is nothing less than a fierce colonial war against powerless and defenceless peoples, whose primary means of resistance is their perseverance in remaining on their land, along with some acts of resistance that, at best, succeed in drawing the world’s attention to their misery.

3 This time, I did not put the word shepherd (in Arabic it is the same word as the sponsor) “shepherd” (sponsor) in quotation marks because I used it in its literal (in Arabic) sense—the shepherd, with his staff and his flock. Feel free to use your imagination to figure out who the sheep are in this picture and what the staff represents.

4 There is a state called Israel, established on a land called Palestine. This distinction, which I consistently use in my writing, stems from geographical and historical facts and does not deny the ever-changing political realities.

5  Some may object to this terminology, considering it offensive to a certain people or religion, but I emphasize my commitment to facts and information. This state, which has committed—and continues to commit—genocide and ethnic cleansing for the past 77 years, particularly in recent times before the eyes of the entire world, has undoubtedly earned that title.

6 Despite the positive atmosphere that accompanied the signing of the agreement, Israeli occupation authorities refused to allow several PLO members to enter the occupied territories, citing various pretexts—one being that these individuals had “Israeli blood on their hands,” as if the Palestinian blood that was at that time dripping from the elbows of numerous Israeli leaders was of no consequence. As if states and organizations sign peace agreements with their friends, not their enemies. As if they were merely playing chess rather than waging war and killing each other.

7. This is what many—including myself—believed. However, the “two states for two peoples” concept, within the Zionist “liberal” framework, has always been and remains conditional on the submission of the “Palestinian state” to the dictates and “requirements” of the “Jewish state.” Readers can look up the statements of self-proclaimed “liberal Zionists”, who openly express their vision. Their desired level of control extends even to Palestinian school curricula, while, of course, there is no discussion about Israeli school curricula.

8. From the Israeli perspective—because no one looks at this issue from a Palestinian perspective—the dominant and undisputedly stronger party, which controls everything, is the one that supposedly “needs” security. Meanwhile, the incomparably weaker side is expected to submit to the conditions of the powerful and accept the concepts imposed from the stronger party’s perspective.

9. On the Concept of Palestine
I had written a speech, which I read at a solidarity demonstration for the Palestinian people in Nottingham last summer. In that speech, I compared the concept of Israel and the concept of Palestine.
Israel is a racist, religious state that claims exclusive ownership of the land of Palestine for Jews alone. It dictates that others must either leave or die, and those who are allowed to stay must accept this notionresigning themselves to being second-class citizens and remaining a permanent minority in the “Jewish state.”
Palestine, on the other hand, has embraced all who have come to it—those who stayed either became part of the land itself, enriching its soil, or passed on their genes to future generations. Based on this principle, everyone who lives in Palestine is Palestinian. The only condition for coexistence in Palestine is accepting others and treating them as equals.

10 See:
United Nations General Assembly Resolution AS/RES/194 (III), 11 December 1948

11 The aforementioned article was published in the Russian-language magazine “Rassvet” on November 4, 1923, under the title “The Iron Wall.”

12 I have preserved the original double quotation marks from the writer, maintaining their intended emphasis and meaning exactly as presented in the original text

originally posted at connectingeurope.org