Support for ‘two-state solution’ on the wane
Repeating mantra of "two-states living side-by-side," and more importantly, placing faith in the unlikely reincarnation of a stillborn to miraculously emerge as a healthy independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, are both foolish and futile.
Support for ‘two-state solution’ on the wane – Repeating mantra of “two-states living side-by-side,” and more importantly, placing faith in the unlikely reincarnation of a stillborn to miraculously emerge as a healthy independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, are both foolish and futile.
Recent Palestinian polls reveal that nearly three-quarters believe the chances of establishing a Palestinian state are slim to none. And in a separate question, 59 percent say the “two-state solution” is no longer feasible due to settlement spread. Forty-two percent, a plurality, believe the most effective means of ending the Israeli occupation is armed struggle.
If an overwhelming majority of Palestinians categorically dismiss the notion of a “two-state solution” and point to large-scale land grabs or settlements across the Occupied Palestinian Territories as evidence for its non-feasibility, why has the international community not reassessed nor repositioned foreign policy to reflect this reality?
The answer is: To foolishly pursue a mirage suits the Israeli regime and its backers perfectly. In fact, right-wing war criminals heading the Zionist project to liquidate Palestine, actually relish such naivety.
In addition, the polls confirm that the Bennet/Gantz regime is bargaining on two trends for two peoples: First, that the voting public – Israelis – accept or even support continuity, and second, that Palestinians – the non-voting public – will allow thei
r quest for self-determination to be permanently thwarted, without major upheaval.
Dahlia Scheindlin, a political scientist and Palestinian researcher Khalil Shikaki, jointly conducted the survey which confirms that support for the “two state solution” has been waning for years.
Though these findings are far from earth shattering revelations, they serve as a timely reminder that for all governments to cling onto the myth of “two-states” is misplaced, unsound and in conflict with its solidarity with victims of the settler colonial regime.
Zionist lobbies use the false narrative of “two-states” as a fig leaf to shield their complicity in Israel’s horrendous war crimes. Whether it is related to ethnic-cleansing being perpetuated around the clock in Occupied East al-Quds or the Palestinian neighborhoods of Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan, or the settler terrorism, the lobbies keep resorting to fake support for “two-states” as a means to deflect from their apartheid ideology.
Their silence on all of Israel’s violations of international laws including being in contempt of the United Nations Charter and a host UN Security Council Resolutions, is conveniently concealed by false attachment to certain governments’ “faith” in the illusion of “two-states.”
Similar propaganda has been used to co-opt a handful of Arab and African countries to “normalize” relations.
Against this background, one must give due to the Islamic Republic of Iran for not having fallen victim to Zionist Hasbara. Consistent with its abhorrence of Zionism, racism and apartheid, Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian described Israel as the root cause of all the problems plaguing the Middle East.
Amir-Abdollahian made the remarks in a telephone conversation with the head of the political bureau of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh.
Iran’s top diplomat congratulated Haniyeh on the 34th anniversary of Hamas’ establishment, saying, “Hamas is among the pioneers of the Islamic resistance front for the liberation of Holy al-Quds, and plays a pivotal role in restoring the historical rights of Palestinians.”
Amir-Abdollahian also denounced the British parliament’s “terror” designation for Hamas as a politically-motivated measure against the entire Palestinian nation.
The contrast between South Africa and Iran on their respective foreign policy positions vis-a-vis Israel reveals huge chasms. Any fair reading of the reasons why such wide array of differences exist would conclude that unlike Iran, Arab and African countries have unfortunately allowed themselves to be played by Israel.
A harsh reminder about the unequal and utterly disproportionate advantage Israel has in dictating terms is provided by the polls referred to above.
Most Israeli Jews defiantly justify their cause when asked if respondents feel guilt or shame about Israel’s ongoing “control over Palestinians in Judea & Samaria,” nearly three-quarters of Jews said they did not feel either sentiment.
Iqbal Jassat is an executive at the Johannesburg-based Media Review Network (MRN), a socio-political advocacy group that concerns itself with media and political analysis.