Amid the ongoing of the recent conflict, the Palestinian Authority has conveyed its openness to assume a governance role in post-Hamas Gaza. The condition? A resolute commitment from the United States to champion a comprehensive two-state solution in resolving the enduring Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This revelation comes from a high-ranking official of the Palestine Liberation Organization (P.L.O.), Hussein al-Sheikh, the secretary-general of the organization.
In a recent discussion with Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, al-Sheikh emphasized the Palestinian Authority’s desire for a substantial commitment from the U.S. administration, one that encompasses the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. Speaking from the Palestinian Authority’s headquarters in Ramallah, West Bank, al-Sheikh underscored the necessity for “a serious American initiative that would force Israel to abide by it, to commit to it.”
YOU CAN ALSO READ: SHEIKH HASINA: ART OF DIPLOMACY
This announcement presents a dual narrative for the White House, offering both relief and a formidable challenge. As the Biden administration grapples with finding a way out of the worst violence witnessed in decades between Israel and Hamas, the vocal group in control of Gaza, the Palestinian Authority’s willingness to play a central role post-conflict adds a climax in the diplomatic avenue. U.S. officials maintain that the Palestinian Authority’s involvement in Gaza is crucial once Israel concludes its military mission against Hamas.
Palestinian authority demands resolution of core issues for two-state solution
Hussein al-Sheikh, Secretary-General of the Palestine Liberation Organization (P.L.O.), has outlined the critical components that must be addressed in any potential deal for a two-state solution, a deal that he sees as essential for peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In an interview with reporters, al-Sheikh emphasized that for a comprehensive resolution, core issues must be settled, including Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank, currently home to over 700,000 Jewish settlers, and determining the political status of East Jerusalem, a city the Palestinians consider their capital.
However, al-Sheikh expressed skepticism about the willingness of the current Israeli government to agree to these terms, especially given its previous efforts to annex significant portions of the West Bank. He questioned the existence of a suitable partner on the Israeli side for such negotiations.
Even if Israeli forces eliminate Hamas, doubts persist about the Palestinian Authority’s legitimacy as the group’s successor in Gaza. Hamas ousted the Authority from power in 2007, and since then, the Authority has faced challenges in the West Bank, including accusations of corruption, weakness, and a lack of accountability.
Al-Sheikh, despite being seen as a potential successor to the aging Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, faces public unpopularity in his role overseeing daily interactions between Palestinians and the Israeli military, particularly since the recent escalation in hostilities.
In acknowledging the volatile situation in the region after the recent attacks and subsequent military responses, al-Sheikh warned that without a comprehensive political initiative from the U.S., postwar Gaza could become a breeding ground for radicalism.
While President Biden has publicly endorsed a two-state solution as the key to resolving the crisis, he has yet to provide a detailed roadmap for achieving this goal. Despite verbal support for a Palestinian state, the administration has not taken concrete steps to invest in or advance such a project.
Biden administration faces criticism for unfulfilled campaign promises on Israeli-Palestinian front
President Biden’s failure to fulfill key campaign promises regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has come under scrutiny as tensions escalate in the region. Despite pledging to reopen the Washington office of the Palestine Liberation Organization (P.L.O.) and the American consulate in Jerusalem, both closed by his predecessor, Donald J. Trump, Biden has yet to take action. Additionally, he has not appointed a Middle East envoy, a step taken by several of his predecessors.
The Middle East peace process has now surged to the forefront of the White House’s foreign-policy agenda following the recent outbreak of hostilities between Israel and Hamas. However, it is believed that the peace issue of Middle East initially casts a lower priority to the USA compared to geopolitical concerns like China and Russia.
Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, on his recent tour of the region, acknowledged the renewed importance of the issue. During a foreign ministers’ meeting in Tokyo, Blinken outlined key elements for achieving sustained peace, emphasizing the unification of Gaza with the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority. However, this approach may strain relations with Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hinted at Israel maintaining a security role in Gaza post-war, citing the consequences of relinquishing control.
Palestinian authority claims Netanyahu’s strategic goal in Gaza is mass displacement
In addition to all these diplomatic developments, al-Sheikh has accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of exploiting the recent Hamas attacks to forcibly drive Palestinians out of Gaza. Al-Sheikh drew a chilling parallel to the historical “nakba,” the catastrophic mass displacement of Palestinians before and after the establishment of Israel in 1948.
According to al-Sheikh, the overarching objective of the current conflict is to displace the Palestinian population, with an ulterior motive of completely severing Gaza from the West Bank. In a charged atmosphere, he acknowledged the unpopularity of the Palestinian Authority’s call for calm among its people, who are incensed by the staggering civilian casualties in the Gaza war and harbor a fervent desire for retribution.
Al-Sheikh acknowledged the current discord between the Palestinian Authority’s stance and the sentiments of the people, asserting, “People may not understand my position today, but they will tomorrow.” The PLO leader further added, “I’m not Hamas; I represent the Palestinian people.”
Why many Palestinians support One-state solution?
However, a considering number of Palestinians urge that One-state solution is the only remedy they can have at this moment as a meaningful solution. The historical context highlights the discontent among Palestinians regarding a two-state solution, which they perceive as a historic defeat. The initial U.N. partition plan in 1947 allocated 44 percent of the territory to the region’s Arabs, a proposition considered unjust by Arab Palestinians given their majority population and land ownership. The subsequent acceptance of a confined Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza under the Oslo accords became a significant concession for Palestinians.
Israel’s insistence on tight constraints on Palestinian sovereignty and the annexation of Jewish settlements in the West Bank has further complicated the two-state proposal. With the significant growth in Jewish settlements since 2000, reaching over 650,000, the feasibility of uprooting citizens or accepting a more emaciated version of Palestinian sovereignty raises profound challenges.
According to the One-state solution supporters, a one-state solution, while not without its own set of challenges, is presented as a potential resolution to Israel’s settlement project. Granting full citizenship to Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank within Israel could mark the end of the occupation and the beginning of Palestinian self-government in the context of a multiethnic democracy. Moreover, it could circumvent the political divide among Palestinians, eliminating the need for a unified leadership to sign a peace deal.
The greatest virtue of the one-state approach, proponents argue, lies in its unique potential for reparations for Palestinians displaced during Israel’s war of independence in 1948. Enabling the return of these refugees to their ancestral villages and facilitating freedom of movement between Gaza, Tel Aviv, and Ramallah stands as a distinctive advantage over the two-state framework, which could confine the majority of Palestinian refugees to Gaza and the West Bank.
However, despite the substantive merits, critics assert that a democratic one-state solution remains politically fantastical, raising questions about its feasibility in the complex and deeply entrenched Israel-Palestine conflict.