Palestine 1967 Border | The talk began about the two-state solution after the harsh defeat of Egypt and the Arabs in 1967 in what is known in the media as the setback “Naksa”. To many, this is impossible due to Israeli intransigence, the enormity of the outstanding issues, and Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
The two-state solution
It is a solution proposed to settle the Arab-Israeli conflict on the basis of the establishment of two states, one of which is Israel which is based on the land of Palestine occupied in 1948, and the other is Palestine which is based on the lands of the borders of June 4, 1967, before the defeat of the Arabs in the famous war that was historically known as the setback “Naksa“.
The lands of 67 include the areas of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip, and what connects them, and they constitute 22% of the lands of historical Palestine.
Acceptance of this solution requires recognition of the Israeli occupation and its control over 78% of the lands of historic Palestine.
When talking about this solution, the international parties do not clarify their position on many issues, including the rights of refugees, and content themselves with vague expressions of the need to achieve the two-state solution while finding a “just settlement” for these thorny issues.
Palestinian researchers assert that the first to propose this solution was the thinker Noam Chomsky, immediately after the defeat of 1967, and his proposal at that time was fiercely attacked by Israeli writers and politicians.
Palestine 1967 Border
Palestinian cities within the borders of the State of Palestine (Occupied Territories in 1967)
- Jerusalem
- Bethlehem
- Hebron
- Ramallah and Al-Bireh
- Nablus
- Salfit
- Qalqilya
- Tulkarm
- Tubas
- Embryo
- Jericho
- Gaza
- Beit Hanoun
- Beit Lahiya
- Dair Al Balah
- Khan Younes
- Rafah
Resolution 242
Most international positions adopt the two states as a solution to the settlement of the conflict in occupied Palestine. The road map in 2005 presented the position of the United States to sponsor negotiations on this solution based on UN Resolutions 383 and 1397.
The most famous UN resolution in this regard remains Resolution No. 242, which came after the defeat of 1967.
The decision stipulated the need for the occupation army to withdraw from the lands occupied “during the recent conflict” (the defeat of 67), and heated debates arose and still are about why the editors of the decision in English insisted on deleting the defining “al” and putting “lands” in an indefinite form in order to keep the door to interpretations open to all possibilities.
The resolution also calls for an end to all “states of war” and respect for the sovereignty of every state in the region with mutual recognition among them and “to respect and recognize the independence, territorial sovereignty and political independence of every state in the region, and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized borders free from Acts or threats of force.
Israel has focused its demands on the implementation of the second part of the resolution, as it has been calling for recognition and striking the resistance.
On February 14, 2017, a senior official in President Donald Trump’s administration announced that Washington no longer adheres to the two-state solution as a basis for reaching a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, in a position that contradicts the historical constants of the United States in this regard.
The senior White House official said, on condition of anonymity, that the US administration will not seek to dictate the terms of any agreement to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, but rather will support any agreement reached by the two parties, whatever this agreement may be.
He added that “a two-state solution that does not bring peace is not a goal that anyone wants to achieve,” noting that “peace is the goal, whether it comes through a two-state solution if this is what the two parties want, or through another solution if this is what the two parties want.”
An “impossible” solution?!
Many researchers believe that the two-state solution is a proposal that is impossible to implement on the ground, in light of the enormity of the files that must be resolved before the concerned parties agree to it.
Prominent Israeli leaders and organizations still reject the two-state solution for many reasons, including the connection of this solution to the refugee issue, which is a thorny issue that Tel Aviv does not want to open.
Also, the demographic factor remains decisive in this thorny issue, as Palestinian researchers assert that Israel knows that it will not be able to protect a “Jewish state” due to the large number of Palestinians living within the lands of 1948, in addition to a large number of settlements in the West Bank.
The status of occupied Jerusalem remains one of the most contentious axes of the two-state solution, due to the importance of the holy city.
Israel, some of whose leaders have been waving their acceptance of the two-state solution, soon on the ground perpetuates the opposite of this scenario with its absolute refusal to stop settlement activity and return to the 67 borders, and its constant assertion that there will be no waiver of Jerusalem, and even its vision of the future state of Palestine sums up in the creation of a besieged, disarmed entity that lives on The continuous and permanent Israeli blockade.
The two-state solution suffered a new setback after US President Donald Trump announced on December 6, 2017, his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and his call on the US State Department to immediately begin procedures for moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, a decision that sparked widespread Palestinian, Arab and international rejection.
In addition, on the Palestinian side as well, there are many obstacles to achieving the two-state solution, as the refugee issue seems difficult to solve, in light of the Palestinian Authority’s inability to impose an agreed-upon solution on the Palestinians in the diaspora.
Also, in addition to the right of return, there is no internal Palestinian consensus on the major issues that must be resolved on the horizon of an agreement with Israel on the two-state solution, including the “ban on resistance.” Knowing that Israel, which has already broken its covenants with the Palestinians many times, makes it impossible for others to trust its commitment to the terms of any future agreement.
