Indyk's duplicitous comments and the two-state compromise

Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies recently hosted its 8th annual international conference themed “Israel in a Turbulent Region”. Subjects discussed ranged from BDS, Iran, the Oslo Accords as an alleged “incubator for terrorist organisations” according to speaker Gilad Erdan, demilitarisation of Gaza, anti-Semitism, and former US special envoy and ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk’s latest take on the two-state compromise. This last discussion came hot on the heels of the latest unsuccessful attempts for statehood recognition by the Palestinian Authority at the UN Security Council (UNSC).

According to reports in the Jerusalem Post, Indyk expressed the opinion that a failure on behalf of the post-election Israeli government to launch diplomatic initiatives based upon the two-state paradigm would result in a UNSC resolution proposal imposing the alleged solution upon Israel.

“If there is a government in Israel after these elections that decides to pursue a two-state solution, then there is a way forward,” Indyk declared. This would entail coordinated initiatives with the US, Egypt and Jordan “to provide the Palestinians both with an Egyptian-Jordanian anchor, and the political cover of the Arab Peace Initiative.” Should this diplomatic endeavour succeed, Indyk insisted that freezing settlement construction should be reciprocated with gestures from Palestine – namely refraining from utilising international platforms against Israel.

Failure to adopt such a strategy, according to Indyk, would result in the permanent members of the UNSC imposing a two-state resolution upon Israel, thus alluding to US involvement in the process.

As with other rhetoric, the two-state conspiracy is perpetually discussed as an Israeli concern and as detrimental to the settler-colonial state. However, despite various attempts by the UN, the US and also the PA in establishing frameworks that would lead to the implementation of the two-state solution, the UNSC has so far repudiated every initiative in practice. Negotiations – a fundamental component of the colonisation process – have repeatedly insisted upon two-state discussions as a prelude to peace, yet the framework is unlikely to ever be implemented. Rather, it will continue to be asserted as a hypothetical scenario, utilised to propagate an illusion of forging unity, and ultimately discarded as Israel continues with its expansion plans under the auspices of the UN and the US.

Indyk’s concluding comments shift from lack of trust in leadership to the lack of trust between the Palestinian and Israeli population. “As long as that is the case, it is very difficult to create a situation in which the political leadership feels the people at their back insisting they make a deal,” he said.

While divergences between the Israeli leadership and general population exist, there is still an inherent foundation which renders one dependent on the other. Both Israel and its population are complicit in colonisation and one cannot exist without the other. Hence, any disagreements in this regard will ultimately be diluted for the pursuit of the final goal.

On the other hand, Palestinians are constantly marginalised by the PA’s attempts to endear itself to imperialist whims and prospects for Palestine. Lack of trust in leadership is a reality for Palestinians, whose prospects of resistance, although endorsed by Hamas and other Palestinian factions, is still threatened by diplomatic efforts to thwart the anti-colonial struggle.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.