Dismissing the concept of a Palestinian state is a priority for Israel’s education minister

Israel’s Education Minister Naftali Bennett has on several occasions exhibited his penchant for pointing out purported divergences in opinion and policy when it comes to Benjamin Netanyahu’s convenient references to the two-state imposition. Another opportunity arose during the Jerusalem Post Conference in New York last Sunday, during which Bennett reiterated his dismissal of a Palestinian state and insisted that the Israeli prime minister “should adopt our perception that between the sea and the [River] Jordan there will not be a Palestinian state.”

Israel National News published excerpts of Bennett’s comments, which showed both the context of Trump’s forthcoming visit to Israel as well as the manipulation of concepts such as unity, existence and peace. However, the vision outlined by Bennett depends upon division, annihilation and aggression, which nullifies any reference to the vague ideals which have in any case become mere embellishments to otherwise corrupt diplomatic hyperbole.

In his opposition to a Palestinian state, Bennett attempted to overturn the documented history of Israel’s colonisation of Palestine, stating that allowing a Palestinian state would threaten “our very existence.” The alternative, according to Bennett, is “learning to live together.” There is an astute indication of a process, albeit one that can only be understood within the parameters of colonial violence. If all the projection is put aside, it is clear that Palestinians have learnt and experienced what “living together” with an entity of colonisers has entailed, from ethnic cleansing and disappearances to the current displacement and the constant creation and perpetuation of a massive refugee population.

Read: Israel denies Palestinian education minister access to Gaza

“Living together” has suited the purposes of both Bennett and Netanyahu. Despite their well-publicised differences in opinion, both have as their ultimate ambition the disappearance of Palestine altogether. Bennett has long advocated for the annexation of Area C in the occupied West Bank, while Netanyahu has relied upon the cycle of negotiations to expand settlement construction and deprive even more Palestinians of their land. Another version of “living together” has been opined in the past by Argentinian-born former settler leader Dani Dayan, now Israel’s Consul-General in the US, who believes that “settlements are legal, legitimate and necessary for peace.” There is no disagreement in ambition, even if Israeli leaders have chosen to articulate their destruction of Palestine through different phrases and intent.

Needless to say, when Palestine is misrepresented by the international community’s chosen puppet, the only resilient force against Israeli violence is made up of Palestinians themselves. In his recent meeting with US President Donald Trump, PA President Mahmoud Abbas opted to promote the two-state narrative while demanding that Israel should recognise the State of Palestine “as we recognise the State of Israel.” For the sake of clarity, Abbas really should stop using the royal “we” to promote his own willingness to acquiesce to Israeli demands, such as shunning the Palestinian right of return, for instance, which seems to be a silent agreement between Israel and the PA. This view was also echoed by Bennett in his address at the New York conference, in which he opposed a Palestinian state as it would “flood Israel with refugees.”

As Trump’s visit to the Zionist state draws near, history and the current dynamics between Israel and the PA seem to have prepared the groundwork for the perpetual adage of negotiations “without preconditions”. Between Bennett and Abbas, there is no need for the negotiations to be used as a pretext, let alone attempt any semblance of implementation. The merging of objections to the Palestinian right of return says it all, which makes a political alternative for and by Palestinians even more urgent.

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