What is the extent of the UN’s impunity when it comes to the two-state politics?

Once again, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres stressed that there is no other option to the two-state paradigm. Speaking at a meeting hosted by France, Canada, the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, Guterres noted that there was a contradiction between diplomatic support for the two-state politics and actions on the ground that threaten its implementation.

And yet, “There is simply no alternative,” Guterres declared. Even while Israel is blatantly creating an alternative that involves a prolonged genocide and ongoing settlement expansion.

For several years Guterres has been denying the possibilities of other political solutions for Palestine. A single democratic state, which many Palestinians have spoken in favour of, is not an option for Guterres. Decolonisation is also not an option.

What Guterres deems the only solution is a defunct paradigm which not only shackles Palestinians to humanitarian aid, but also allows Israel ample time to colonise further Palestinian territory.

Time has already run out for the creation of two-states, as Guterres knows. It has also run out much more for Palestinians who, after having their land partitioned in 1947, were forced to adhere to international impositions supporting colonial expansion in Palestine.

Rather than say that there is no alternative to the two-state paradigm, Guterres should explain why. Why, in the warped reasoning of the UN, is it still considered legitimate to say that the two-state is the only solution when it hasn’t provided a solution at all?

Why is Guterres calling for the full implementation of Trump’s peace plan which provides no security for Palestinians in Gaza? What is Guterres actively supporting when the two main paradigms so far – the two-state compromise and Trump’s plan – have only enabled colonial expansion, military occupation, genocide and forced displacement?

According to Guterres, the plan is for two sovereign democratic states. Israel is a settler-colonial enterprise, and therefore not democratic. Palestine is symbolically recognised with barely any contiguous territory remaining. Without decolonisation, a Palestinian state will only remain symbolic and illusory, no matter the funds that are funnelled to the Palestinian Authority. Guterres has never explained how a defunct paradigm can bring about two democratic states, when the paradigm cannot even challenge the discrepancy between the coloniser and the colonised.

“For Palestinians and all those who care about peace in the Middle East, support for two States must go beyond words,” Guterres stated. Words, however, must first truly explain what the two-state politics intended to achieve. Those who uphold the Palestinian people’s right to liberation, self-determination and a Palestinian state  cannot support the two-state, which is tantamount to supporting Israeli colonialism. Supporting Palestine means that international impositions are discredited.

There has been more than enough proof of where the international community’s loyalties lie, and this culminated in Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Perhaps there is more confidence in impunity now, in calling the two-state paradigm the only solution after the international community created its own impunity for complicity in genocide. This makes the two-state politics more perilous than ever. If no steps were taken to stop Israel’s genocide, with a clearly visible kill toll, why would any world leader take any steps to discredit the defunct two-state compromise and its normalised statistics of forced displacement and ethnic cleansing?

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