Summary
The formula — an Israeli and a Palestinian state side by side — whose content Falk argues is radically underdetermined in Palestine: The Legitimacy of Hope: the “two-state consensus” is a dead end in its American form, while the Barghouti–Avnery conception of genuine sovereignty and equality is a different solution under the same name (PDF p.20, p.55-59).
Details
- The Introduction records disillusionment: a spreading awareness that the so-called two-state consensus has reached a dead end, dramatised by the collapse of direct negotiations on April 29, 2014 (PDF p.20).
- The preconditions post judges viability by date: “What might have seemed like a viable Palestinian state in 1967, when Security Council Resolution 242 was adopted, became less so when the Oslo framework was accepted on the White House lawn in 1993, and by 2013 it is a delusionary goal.” (PDF p.54)
- The two conceptions distinguished: “the American conception”, detailed in President Obama’s May 19, 2011 speech — withdrawal to 1967 borders with minor adjustments, acceptance of Israel’s refusal to implement the Palestinian right of return and of the main settlements’ incorporation — against the Barghouti–Avnery conception of “a genuinely sovereign and independent Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and a genuine equality of the two states” (PDF p.56-57).
- Marwan Barghouti calls the two-state solution “the only possible solution” and adds that it “must not be abandoned”, on the law-based terms; both Barghouti and Kerry reject a one-state solution, leaving the process in limbo (PDF p.56, p.59).
- The Mashaal post’s fallback: if the political space for the two-state consensus is gone, alternatives should be explored, “including a return to a unified Palestine that is governed in accordance with human rights standards and international law” (PDF p.51).
Related pages
Palestine: The Legitimacy of Hope, Marwan Barghouti, One-state solution, Oslo Accords, Right of Return, Self-determination