On 28 September—on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York—Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, announced the creation of a Global Alliance to push for a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine, comprising a number of Arab, Muslim and European countries.
The announcement came just a week before the one-year mark of Israel’s war on Gaza. Given the nightmare that has been inflicted on Palestinians in the besieged territory, it comes as no surprise that popular support for a two-state solution has greatly diminished there. But also, many Palestinians in the West Bank and the diaspora—and even more Israelis—no longer believe in it.
In its place, discussions have shifted to a one-state solution. In the end, this might be the only way to bring lasting peace to both Israelis and Palestinians. However, it comes with one very big problem: the two sides have very different visions for what this state would look like.
In the Palestinian version, a democratic state would give both Palestinians and Jews equal rights. This would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state. The Israeli version, however, sees a Jewish state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Any Palestinian who chooses to live in said state would have to accept living as a second-class citizen or resident with very few rights. This would effectively be an Apartheid state.
The Israeli version should be unequivocally rejected. After all, how could the international community get behind an Apartheid state in the 21st century after already dismantling one in South Africa in the 20th century?
And while the Palestinian one is ideal, the world we live in is unfortunately not. It would be unwise to throw our diplomatic efforts behind a vision that—realistically speaking—cannot be implemented in the short and medium term.
This brings us back to square one—the two-state solution. If implemented, time will tell—through interactions between the two neighbouring states and peoples—whether a one-state solution could work in the long run.
Crucial time
Now more than ever, the international community should rally behind creating and recognising a Palestinian state. It is within this contest that the Global Alliance has a very important role to play, and it comes at a very crucial time, given Netanyahu’s declared intention to reshape the Middle East. And while the Israeli prime minister has been vague about what his plans are, some very clear conclusions can be drawn based on the actions he has taken over the past year. I will venture an explanation here.
First, he has made Gaza uninhabitable—and wants to keep it that way for a long time—in the hope that most Palestinians living there would eventually pack up and leave. As for northern Gaza, he wants it completely emptied of Palestinians. Second, he wants to destroy Hezbollah’s military capabilities in southern Lebanon up to the Litani River.
To achieve the first two objectives, he would also need to eliminate threats emanating from Iraq and Syria, which adds yet another goal to his plate. Yet still, to achieve this objective, Israel would have to neutralise Iran one way or another. To this end, Netanyahu is trying to instigate a direct conflict with Tehran in the hope that this could create fertile ground for regime change—a goal he has relentlessly pursued since 2003 without success.
Read more: Is regime change making a comeback in US foreign policy?
Netanyahu knows a direct confrontation with Iran would draw in the United States, and with Donald Trump back in the White House come January, it is more likely than not that his administration will take a hardline position on Iran—just as it did during his first presidency. However, it remains to be seen whether Trump would directly involve the US in any direct conflict.
Trump’s track record
The president-elect is well-known for his aversion to involving US troops in armed conflicts. However, he has greenlit military action from the air with American strikes on Syria in 2017 and 2018. He also ordered the assassination of Iran’s Quds Force leader, General Qasem Soleimani. In short, expect a far less restrained Israel under Trump.
Here, it’s important to recall that Trump—more so than any other US president—has backed Israeli policies designed to create facts on the ground for the establishment of its vision of a one-state solution “from the river to the sea.” He moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, recognised Israeli sovereignty over the Syria Golan Heights, and announced the "Pompeo Doctrine," which stated that Israel is not an occupying force in the West Bank.
Additionally, he defunded the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), signed the Taylor Force Act, halting American economic assistance to the Palestinian Authority, closed the Palestinian Mission in Washington D.C. and, signed an Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism. Last but not least, he withdrew from the Iranian nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—something Netanyahu had been clamouring for since 2015—and further steps in this direction are very likely.
Trump has already said that Israel’s present-day territory is too small to accommodate its population, expressed his wish for Israel to “finish the job” it started in Gaza, and said he wants both the conflict in Gaza and Lebanon to end before he takes office, giving the impression that he has no issues with Israel continuing with what it’s currently doing. How these pronouncements will be practically translated remains to be seen, but Netanyahu will certainly put Trump to the test.
Enter the Global Alliance. While it includes the European Union and Norway, at its core are Arab and Islamic states. Today (11 November), these states are gathering in Riyadh for the Summit of Arab and Islamic states. The overarching goal of the summit is to rally behind the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Action items
To achieve success, it must work towards specific goals. The first should be garnering enough global support for a Palestinian state that Trump would find difficult to ignore. The second is agreeing on practical steps that not only European members of the Global Alliance could take but other countries around the world could, too.
