To describe the French-Saudi-led drive to recognise a Palestinian state under the conditions of the New York Declaration on the two-state solution as just being about appearances would be underselling it.

What we call the two-state solution is as much a tactical manoeuvre as launching a bombing raid, albeit a manoeuvre on the field of politics rather than of armed confrontation – something that Macron himself has openly acknowledged. ¹

The “spectre” of a Palestinian state

Over 50 years ago, Ghassan Kanafani wrote about the two-state solution in an article originally published in al Hadaf, which is no doubt making rounds among Palestine supporters amidst the latest wave of recognitions.

In the fallout of “Black September”, after ten months of fighting, the forces of the Jordanian monarch expelled the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, Ghassan reflected on a narrative that had recently come to the fore in discussions of the Palestinian question: the promise that a sovereign and independent Palestinian state would soon be established alongside Israel.

Ghassan identified three forms that this state could take: the first two forms, where a state is “offered” to the Palestinians, and a third form, which would be established by the Palestinians themselves as a transitional stage to reclaiming the whole of Palestine.

Ghassan considered the third form to be impossible under the present conditions, but the first two, he considered to be little more than deceptive ploys aimed at undercutting the Palestinians’ main political representative body – the resistance.

The Palestinian resistance is not just a military force; it is a social and political reality born from the violent and continuing colonisation of Palestine. In lieu of there being a sovereign Palestinian entity capable of countering this violence, the use of force by the resistance becomes the most potent way by which Palestinians everywhere are capable of asserting genuine political power. 

And the Western powers are very much aware of this fact, despite their narratives that treat the resistance as a rogue entity acting against the interests of its people. To counteract this, a counterinsurgency war must be waged in the political and social spheres as well as in the military sense.

The promise of a Palestinian state is designed to persuade the Palestinians to reject the resistance – by promising them an end to the occupation without the pain and suffering brought on by the armed struggle.

If the resistance cannot present a clear alternative to this vision, Ghassan notes that they could be baited into a confrontation at a point when they are still weakened by defeat.

The latest promise

But this is not 1971 – we are not living through the wake of Black September but through a still ongoing war in the Gaza Strip. This is coupled with a joint assault by Israeli and Palestinian security forces on the “Triangle of Fire”: Jenin, Nablus, Tulkarm; and fluctuating tensions across West Asia.

The New York Declaration, upholds the role of the Palestinian Authority, a body that did not exist in the 70s, as the recognised Palestinian government in the West Bank and Gaza. Of course, once it has been reformed.

The declaration addresses pressing issues such as guaranteeing Palestinian sovereignty over their resources, promising investment in infrastructure projects and key growth sectors, sanctioning settlements, and even mentions upholding the right of return for refugees.

As well as calling for a lasting ceasefire, there is also a provision promising that states will be encouraged to support South Africa’s genocide case against Israel in the International Court of Justice, though it is worth noting that both Britain and France have persistently refused to acknowledge the assault on Gaza as a genocide.

But the issue that is repeatedly re-emphasised in the declaration, as well as in the rhetoric of its signatories, is that of disarmament, or more specifically, Palestinian disarmament.

The Palestinian state shall recognise Israel and have its own specially-trained security forces, but it shall have no military of its own, and all political parties who refuse demilitarisation shall be excluded from elections.

While France and Britain take action against Palestinian solidarity at home, the declaration takes a stand for free press, combatting misinformation, and against the criminalisation of non-violent solidarity.

Not only that, but the declaration puts major emphasis on shaping the environment in which new generations of Palestinians will grow up: ending stipends to the families of those in Israeli prisoners, reforming UNWRA under the Colonna Report and taking special care to depoliticise the curricula used to educate Palestinian children; anti-hate speech measures and de-radicalisation programs – all to empower a new generation of young peacemakers who shall lead the way towards coexistence.

It should be clear where their priorities are, even if we were to overlook the fact that these countries have taken no concrete steps to put a stop to Israel’s onslaught, despite being more than capable of doing so.

Once again, the New York Declaration aims to wrestle control of Palestinian politics away from the resistance – assuming that the resistance is sufficiently weakened, and that the Palestinians who are either living through the horrors in Gaza or under suffocating pressure in the West Bank are exhausted enough to accept an offer. 

Why now?

Whether it was by shattering Israel’s security myth on October 7, or by derailing the much-publicised normalisation process between Israel and the Arab states as a prerequisite to a trans-Eurasian trade corridor, the actions of the Palestinian resistance and its regional allies have propelled the Palestinian question back to the foreground of world politics.

The rush of the US, European and Arab states to aid Israel, even in the face of mass protests from their own populations have only served to drain their own legitimacy. And, not to mention, the legitimacy of an international rules-based order that seems incapable of putting a stop to the ongoing massacre.

It is fair to say that resolving this question, that is, keeping Israel safe and removing the threat posed by the resistance, whilst also managing a population of millions of Palestinians, has become urgent.

And that is not to mention Israel’s own belligerence, which has gone so far as to shake the Gulf states’ own security apparatus, and needs to be reined in.

Same as before

For the Palestinian Authority, this move appears to be a boost to their own legitimacy: their diligence has finally been rewarded and they have been handed pre-made plan for the future: the promise of peace and an independent state, which the resistance will either refuse or be in no position to oppose either way.

Several others have already pointed out that a separate sovereign Palestinian state is logistically unfeasible, not least because it will inevitably need to pass through Israel and the US, who have consistently taken every practical measure to make a Palestinian state impossible.

But beyond logistical issues, the key factor remains that without a capacity for armed force, Palestinians will be left with no way to assert themselves politically other than the paternalistic guardianship of the powers who promised them a state.

And as with most other colonised peoples, Palestinians have already learnt that the Western powers have no qualms in disregarding whatever promises they make, especially if they’ve already obtained what they want.

Husam Zomlot, can stand as proudly alongside British government ministers outside the newly inaugurated Palestinian embassy in London, but that won’t change the fact that two thousand miles away, the massacre and land thefts are raging on regardless.