Biden has not used any legal means to recognize a Palestinian state.
Either he uses the military aid to pressure israel into creating a two state solution (or one-state solution), or he bypasses israel and recognizes a Palestinian state unilaterally.
What would a two state solution look like on the ground?
The West Bank has been partitioned into de facto bantustans since the Allon Plan. This wouldn’t be like the resettlement of Israeli settlers in Gaza in 2005. The forced relocation of hundreds of thousands of settlers, many militant, or the de juro annexation of 60-88% of the West Bank are both terrible solutions. On the other hand, a binational unified one-state solution would prevent those possibilities, while resolving the Right to Return issue that’s been present since 1948.
As of January 2023, there are 144 Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including 12 in East Jerusalem.[2] In addition, there are over 100 Israeli illegal outposts in the West Bank. In total, over 450,000 Israeli settlers live in the West Bank excluding East Jerusalem, with an additional 220,000 Jewish settlers residing in East Jerusalem.[3][4] … The year of the disengagement (2005) would see the removal of 8,475 settlers from Gaza, while in that same year the number of new settlers in the West Bank increased by 15,000.[80]
While I agree in principle that a one-state solution is preferable, the reality is that neither side is interested in any one-state solution that the other - or the rest of the world - would find palatable. A two-state solution is uglier and messier and all around worse than a one-state solution, but more viable. “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable - the second-best.”
It is true that neither side is currently interested in a one-state solution. However this comes from different places. From the Palestinian side this comes from necessity as all efforts of a unified state were denied, while from the Israeli side this comes from the concept of transfer and Greater Israel / Eraz Israel.
However, increasing local and international pressure on the government, as well as the realisation that apartheid could neither be maintained by force forever nor overthrown by the opposition without considerable suffering, eventually led both sides to the negotiating table. The Tripartite Accord, which brought an end to the South African Border War in neighbouring Angola and Namibia, created a window of opportunity to create the enabling conditions for a negotiated settlement, recognized by Niel Barnard of the National Intelligence Service.[2]
Partially necessity and partially the ascendency of Hamas, which is uninterested in any… serious one-state solution. Fatah was much more open to the idea, though they still pushed primarily for the two-state solution.
Of course, Israel fueled Hamas’s rise, so there’s definitely an element of self-inflicted wounds here too.
I’m not a fan of Hamas due to their war crimes. I’m also not a fan of Fatah due to corruption. And I think we’re both in agreement that the Palestinian people should be given the right to a free and fair election to choose their own leaders. You’re right that the 1988 charter wasn’t a serious one-state solution. It called for Sharia Law and Protected Classes for Christians and Jews like society in the middle east before Western colonialism. But considering the 2017 revised charter, it seems like Hamas is much more willing for a binational one-state solution than Israel is in even a two-state solution.
Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.
I still think Palestinians should be able to choose their own leaders for governance either way. But I don’t see how a two state solution is practical at all. With those kind of borders, it would only pave way to more conflict. Palestine would at the very least want to be connected and not be a bunch of small isolated enclaves surrounded by a hostile state, and Israel would want to further encroach into those enclaves.
The two-state solution has been openly stated as US policy by Biden.
Biden has not used any legal means to recognize a Palestinian state.
Either he uses the military aid to pressure israel into creating a two state solution (or one-state solution), or he bypasses israel and recognizes a Palestinian state unilaterally.
If he could first stop pouring bombs on every square foot of Gaza that would be nice. Yes, he. He’s the enabler of this genocide
What would a two state solution look like on the ground?
The West Bank has been partitioned into de facto bantustans since the Allon Plan. This wouldn’t be like the resettlement of Israeli settlers in Gaza in 2005. The forced relocation of hundreds of thousands of settlers, many militant, or the de juro annexation of 60-88% of the West Bank are both terrible solutions. On the other hand, a binational unified one-state solution would prevent those possibilities, while resolving the Right to Return issue that’s been present since 1948.
While I agree in principle that a one-state solution is preferable, the reality is that neither side is interested in any one-state solution that the other - or the rest of the world - would find palatable. A two-state solution is uglier and messier and all around worse than a one-state solution, but more viable. “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable - the second-best.”
It is true that neither side is currently interested in a one-state solution. However this comes from different places. From the Palestinian side this comes from necessity as all efforts of a unified state were denied, while from the Israeli side this comes from the concept of transfer and Greater Israel / Eraz Israel.
Looking at apartheid in South Africa, fierce opposition to the ending of apartheid was present for decades before negotiations to end it began. With enough international pressure and internal resistance, the apartheid ended.
Partially necessity and partially the ascendency of Hamas, which is uninterested in any… serious one-state solution. Fatah was much more open to the idea, though they still pushed primarily for the two-state solution.
Of course, Israel fueled Hamas’s rise, so there’s definitely an element of self-inflicted wounds here too.
I’m not a fan of Hamas due to their war crimes. I’m also not a fan of Fatah due to corruption. And I think we’re both in agreement that the Palestinian people should be given the right to a free and fair election to choose their own leaders. You’re right that the 1988 charter wasn’t a serious one-state solution. It called for Sharia Law and Protected Classes for Christians and Jews like society in the middle east before Western colonialism. But considering the 2017 revised charter, it seems like Hamas is much more willing for a binational one-state solution than Israel is in even a two-state solution.
I still think Palestinians should be able to choose their own leaders for governance either way. But I don’t see how a two state solution is practical at all. With those kind of borders, it would only pave way to more conflict. Palestine would at the very least want to be connected and not be a bunch of small isolated enclaves surrounded by a hostile state, and Israel would want to further encroach into those enclaves.