Following the Middle East Quartet’s statement in 2016 which effectively rendered the two-state compromise obsolete, the international community, including representatives of the Quartet, have failed to come up with other strategies. International diplomacy has been based on extending the farce of allegedly working towards the impossible.
There are other narratives contributing to this illusion. On one hand, the Palestinian Authority has repeatedly urged the implementation of the two-state paradigm, bringing the leadership in line with international aims and, simultaneously, at odds with Palestinian aspirations. Meanwhile, Israel has become more adamant about refusing to allow the two-state scenario.
Within the space of a few days, Science and Technology Minister Ofir Akunis, as well as Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat, have affirmed their refusal to consider two states. As quoted in Israel National News, Akunis pointed out: He described advocates of two states as seeking to “destroy Israel’s existence” through “the establishment of a Palestinian terror state.”
In an interview with the BBC, Barkat rejected the idea of two states and proposed a system in which Palestinians would be granted partial autonomy, while Israel would be “firmly in charge of security and defense.” Israel, he added is “the only democracy – the real democracy in the Middle East.”One part of this equation is constantly omitted. Whether the international community, Israel, and the PA speak of one or two states, the end result is still a system of oppression for the Palestinians. This is because the only narrative and outcome being given serious consideration is the survival of Israel as a colonial entity.Currently, there is a discrepancy where the two-state compromise is still being discussed by the international community, with the PA as the only means to a solution, while Israel is openly refuting this to create more prospects for colonial expansion. It is ironic that while Israel is increasing its opposition to any possibility of two states, the Palestinian leadership is failing in this regard. The PA’s persistent invoking of negotiations in order to create a fragmented state upon territory lacking contiguity is obstructing the emergence of growing Palestinian demands for a decolonized state. Hence, the prevailing one state narrative is that of “Greater Israel”, while the PA pits itself firmly against the people’s demands for decolonization. The last 50 Israeli-Palestinian years have been one of the longest chapters in the history of temporariness. Two peoples separated but mixed; a state-and-a-half that's fenced in to the point of being choked off, but still without a single border. A capital city that has an unbelievable gap between the declarations made about it and its reality. Alluring and repulsive, beautiful and filthy, spiritual and cynical – a city of peace without a single corner free of struggles and disputes. Never has a city been so reunited, yet few are the cities that are so torn apart. It’s all because of the Jerusalem paradox.
Jerusalem is the capital of Jewish deceit. If this wasn't so tragic and fatal, it would be possible to add it to the collection of jokes about the fools of Chelm. The city is the precise focal point at which all the diplomatic formulas that totally contradict each other collide, and move Israel firmly toward political destruction. Two of Israel’s formulas for action constitute an embarrassing contradiction, in terms of logic: “two states for two peoples,” and “Jerusalem will never be divided.” Ostensibly this seems fine – a positive desire for peace along with great love and patriotism toward the Holy City, our eternal city. So what’s wrong? What’s wrong is that these two trains traveling in opposite directions have already collided, and the two main victims – peace and the city – are dying before our eyes. And we? We’re celebrating. Whoever is committed to the two-state formula and truly accepts its practical application can’t avoid the understanding that the capital of the second state – Palestine – will also be in Jerusalem. Because unfortunately for them, the Jews don’t have a monopoly on the city’s symbolism. And from this it’s clear that dividing the land between its two peoples marches hand in hand with the formula of dividing Jerusalem into two capitals.
A peace agreement on sharing the territory will also apply to dividing Jerusalem as a split-shared area.
On the other hand, the ardent, impassioned formula of a united city that will never be divided completely negates the principle of another capital within its jurisdiction. The immediate significance of “one city” is “one state”: that is, a clear veto on any plan that would divide the land into two states. Because the same political, psychological, religious and ideological sources that prevent the division of this urban monster are the ones that for the same reasons reject division of the rest of the country. For the past 50 years, official Israel has been doing everything it can to avoid choosing between the two formulas. Everyone – both Labor and Likud – has perfected the necessary verbal and diplomatic acrobatics, in a vain attempt to deceive reality and turn the paradoxical into the logical and acceptable.
And we have become so accustomed to this that we don’t even notice the dual, conflicting language of our leaders. At Bar-Ilan University, at the United Nations, and in English, they wrap themselves in proper diplomatic nuance: seekers of peace committed to the two-state vision.
Middle East Monitor