Bruno DRWESKI
Executive Summary: The “two-state solution” was already neither viable nor legitimate at the time because of the colonization of the West Bank, and because it disregarded the self-determination of peoples and the right of return of Palestinian refugees, without which cohabitation would be impossible unless a total surrender of one of the two parties was achieved. Israel’s failure to comply with United Nations resolutions, from which it derives its legitimacy, calls into question its membership of the “international community”. Today, the “two-state solution” can only be a transitional step, the reality of life having shown that the deep logic of Zionism was that of an extremist, racist and anti-democratic trend, which never seriously sought to allow the planned Palestinian entity to form, while marginalizing Israeli opposition to Zionism. The balance of power on the ground has been fundamentally changed following the uprising of 7 October 2023, however thought. According to some historians, we would be at the final stage of the Zionist project, which would have lost its legitimacy and internal coherence. My hypothesis is that the “solution to a State” would be viable by introducing in Palestine the national-cultural non-territorial autonomy of each group, based on the model of the Potsdam Accords, a door of exit acceptable to all parties which, however, requires a mental rupture with a painful and sordid past.
Keywords: Palestine, Israel, Near East, Two-State Solution, Solution to a State,
West Bank, Gaza, Refugees, Colonization, 1947, 1967, 7 October 2023, Zionism, Jewish State,
Hamas, UN, State of Palestine, National-Cultural Non-Territorial Autonomy, Rupture,
Paix.
Leave a comment