Since the signing of the Oslo Accords between the Israeli occupation and the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1993, the Palestinian Authority has remained a temporary self-governing administration. Many Western countries such as the United States, Canada, and several European Union countries have refrained from recognizing a Palestinian state. Despite expressing support for the two-state solution as a general resolution to the Palestinian conflict, these countries insist that the establishment of a state can only be achieved through negotiations between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority. This stance has left the Israeli occupation free to erode any prospects for the creation of a Palestinian state on a daily basis.
Out of the 138 other countries that have recognized Palestine in the United Nations, their recognition has not contributed significantly to the existence of an independent Palestinian state, even within the framework of the internationally supported two-state solution. This solution has been gradually fading due to the policies of the occupation and its supporters. The occupation has managed to normalize and enhance its relations with many of these countries.
The battle of “Aqsa Flood” has repositioned the Palestinian issue, the Palestinian state, and the rights of the Palestinian people on the international agenda with vigor. This necessitates a reassessment by all parties of all policies that have been based on bypassing the rights of the Palestinian people.
A recent report by the American Axios website at the end of January 2024 revealed that U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken issued instructions to officials at the U.S. State Department to present him with options for American or international recognition of the Palestinian state. He also requested recommendations on the form in which a “demilitarized Palestinian state” would appear. This news came in the context of a potential shift in thinking within the Biden administration regarding the possible recognition of a Palestinian state.
This development has increased the seriousness of considering this shift, especially with another statement from British Foreign Secretary David Cameron indicating that London is considering recognizing the Palestinian state. He emphasized the need to show irreversible progress towards the two-state solution. Britain is discussing with its allies the issue of recognizing the Palestinian state, including within the United Nations.
These statements raise questions about the underlying reasons behind them, including the possibility of a real change in American and British policies regarding the Palestinian state. They also raise questions about the issues associated with such rhetoric at this particular moment.
Initial analysis suggests that the United States, in particular, and other parties that have committed to the policy over the past 30 years that negotiations between the Israeli occupation government and the authority will lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state, now have thoughts worthy of study about the possibility of recognizing a Palestinian state. This recognition would naturally align with their interests, sometimes stating that some form of Palestinian entity primarily serves Israel’s security.
Essentially, regardless of American motives and their seriousness, the mere consideration of these ideas, due to the implications of the “Aqsa Flood” operation on October 7, 2023, where the Palestinian resistance put an end to all the projects of the occupation and its allies that bypassed the Palestinian people and their rights, is significant.
It is clear that a fundamentally new reality has been established by the battle of “Aqsa Flood,” placing the establishment of a Palestinian state in a new equation with new inputs and requirements that demand new and adjusted policies to deal with them.
This proposition is supported by former U.S. Ambassador James Jeffrey, who believes that the war in Gaza is a significant event that forces the United States and others to consider unconventional solutions. However, Jeffrey sees the need for these discussions to move beyond the circles of the U.S. State Department to other arenas like the U.S. National Security Council, for example.
While the American proposition may be a continuation of previous policies but in a new mold, this resembles the pattern seen in the visions of every U.S. president from Clinton to Bush to Obama and now Biden in recent decades.
On the ground, these developments might not bring about a substantial change, but they represent a shift in perspectives. Furthermore, there is a potential for a substantial change in the political equation following the military success, as the Palestinian resistance’s ability to effect positive change in the Palestinian political structure is a strong possibility. This could create real pathways in regional and international political stances.
The Palestinian people do not seek a state where their leader is simply granted the right to sit in the seat designated for heads of state at the UN General Assembly. They do not desire just international recognition of a singular legitimate representative but a sovereign state and the restoration of their rights usurped by the occupation. If the Palestinian collective manages to reach a comprehensive formula, it will pave the way for real shifts in regional and international political landscapes.
