On November 15, 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), under Chairman Yasser Arafat, declared the establishment of the State of Palestine in Algiers. International recognition followed almost immediately—Algeria was the first to extend acknowledgment. By the end of 1988, nearly 78 countries had recognized Palestine, with India becoming the first non-Arab country to do so. The number rose to 94 by early 1989. These early recognitions came primarily from the Global South, along with communist and non-aligned states, acting in defiance of U.S. pressure and against the backdrop of the First Intifada.
As of October 2025, 157 out of 193 UN member states (about 81%) recognize the State of Palestine as a sovereign nation. This momentum reflects growing international concern over the ongoing Genocide in Gaza, though Palestine’s bid for full UN membership continues to be blocked by repeated U.S. vetoes in the Security Council.
The Oslo Accords: A Brief Window of Hope
The Oslo Accords of the 1990s were a promising step toward Palestinian statehood. Signed in Washington, D.C., on September 13, 1993, and brokered by U.S. President Bill Clinton, the accords marked a historic breakthrough. They created the Palestinian Authority and set out a framework for negotiations on final-status issues. For a brief moment, it seemed the train to statehood had finally arrived on schedule. World leaders spoke optimistically of peace within years, not decades.
Israel’s representatives were Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, while Yasser Arafat signed on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). In recognition of their efforts, Rabin, Peres, and Arafat were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994.
At the time, Benjamin Netanyahu—now Israel’s prime minister—was not in power. Then a rising figure in the opposition Likud party, he fiercely opposed the accords, arguing that they endangered Israel’s security.
Netanyahu’s Opposition
Netanyahu’s role was one of vocal and active opposition. As a leader of the Likud party, he argued that the Oslo Accords posed a grave threat to Israel’s security, insisting that granting territory to the PLO would invite more violence. While Netanyahu maintains he never personally called Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin a traitor, he frequently addressed rallies where crowds carried signs and chanted that slogan.
In November 1995, Rabin was assassinated by a right-wing Jewish extremist who opposed the accords. The assassin was influenced by the toxic atmosphere of incitement that surrounded the peace process—an atmosphere often fueled by Netanyahu-led rallies. The killing shocked the world and dealt a devastating blow to the fragile momentum toward a two-state solution.
The Settlement Reality
The expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank has fundamentally reshaped the political and geographic landscape. In 1993, when the Oslo Accords were signed, there were roughly 110,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank. As of 2025, that number has grown to more than 470,000—excluding East Jerusalem, where an additional 230,000–250,000 settlers reside. These settlements are reinforced by Israeli-controlled roads, military zones, and infrastructure that fragment Palestinian territories into isolated enclaves.
Critics describe the situation in the West Bank as comparable to apartheid-era South Africa, with Palestinians living under military occupation and denied full civil rights. At the same time, PLO President Mahmoud Abbas—who abandoned armed resistance—has faced sharp criticism for ineffective leadership and for failing to preserve Yasser Arafat’s legacy during this critical period.
The Influence of Pro-Israel Lobbying
If there is one country most responsible for the misery of millions of Palestinians, it is the United States, which has repeatedly used its veto power to block Palestinian sovereignty. U.S. foreign policy toward Israel has long been shaped by powerful advocacy groups. In their 2007 book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt argue that these lobbying networks exert disproportionate influence over Washington’s decisions. A stark contemporary example is Miriam Adelson, a pro-Israel billionaire who, in March 2025, pledged $100 million to Donald Trump’s campaign while openly advocating for the annexation of the West Bank—an indication of the direction U.S. policy in the Middle East may be heading.
Donald Trump’s Middle East Policy
Donald Trump’s Middle East policy has been shaped by a mix of religious ideology, political funding, and geopolitical strategy—closely intertwined with Zionist and evangelical Christian agendas. A central aspect of this alignment is the influence of evangelical beliefs that link Israel’s existence and expansion to biblical prophecy. Since 2009, his family’s ties to Israel have been evident—through his daughter Ivanka Trump’s conversion to Orthodox Judaism and his Jewish son-in-law Jared Kushner’s deep personal and financial commitments, including support for West Bank settlements and authorship of the Trump peace plan, which was widely rebuked by the international community.
During his first term (2017–2021), Trump advanced policies embraced by Zionists : relocating the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and officially opening it in 2018, recognizing the Golan Heights as part of Israel, and championing the Abraham Accords. His later actions only reinforced this trajectory—most notably the February 2025 “Gaza redevelopment” plan, backed by major pro-Israel donor Miriam Adelson, along with cabinet appointments that catered directly to Christian Zionist views.
In sum, Trump’s record demonstrates a consistent alignment with Israeli expansionist goals—driven not only by ideology and religious politics but also by the influence of financial patronage.
The Twenty-Point Peace Plan for Gaza (Sept. 29, 2025)
Trump’s 20-point plan for Gaza includes provisions for demilitarization, hostage release, humanitarian aid, and economic redevelopment. Key points include:
- Immediate end to military operations upon acceptance
- Release of all hostages within 72 hours
- Amnesty for Hamas members who commit to peaceful coexistence
- Temporary governance by a technocratic Palestinian committee
- A “Board of Peace” chaired by Trump to oversee redevelopment
- Establishment of an International Stabilization Force
- Economic development to transform Gaza into a prosperous region
However, Point 19 states that Palestinian statehood remains only an “aspiration,” contingent on Gaza’s demilitarization and Palestinian Authority reforms. Point 20 establishes dialogue but makes no concrete commitment to a two-state solution.
The End of the Two-State Solution?
Netanyahu has repeatedly stated that he will not allow a two-state solution. Geopolitical analyst John Mearsheimer has outlined scenarios for the region’s future, none of which include Palestinian statehood in any meaningful form. Once Gaza is fully demilitarized under this plan, critics argue that Palestinian statehood will exist only on paper, similar to Tibet’s fate after integration into China.
Renowned American geopolitical scientist Professor John Mearsheimer outlines four potential scenarios for the future of Israel-Palestine:
- Democratic Binational State: A single state granting equal rights to Palestinians and Jews. Mearsheimer considers this highly unlikely due to the demographic challenge.Israel’s Jewish population, roughly 7 million, is nearly matched by the Palestinian population in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza (approximately 5.5-6 million combined). Demographic trends favor Palestinians, raising fears among Israeli Jews of losing political control.
- Two-State Solution: Separate Israeli and Palestinian states. Mearsheimer views this as increasingly unfeasible due to the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Israeli settlements in the West Bank now house over 700,000 settlers across 150+ settlements and outposts, fragmenting Palestinian territory. The Oslo Accords’ framework has stalled, with no serious negotiations since 2014. Palestinian Authority governance is weak. Israel’s right-wing governments, dominant since 2009, prioritize settlement expansion over concessions.
- Apartheid State: Critics, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, argue this is already the status quo. Israel controls the West Bank and Gaza through military occupation, restricting Palestinian movement, rights, and self-governance while granting Jewish settlers full citizenship. Within Israel, Arab citizens face systemic discrimination, though they have formal voting rights. The 2018 Nation-State Law, prioritizing Jewish character, reinforces this divide.
- Ethnic Cleansing: Forcible removal of Palestinians to create a predominantly Jewish state, a scenario the United Nations has accused Israel of pursuing now.The UN Special Rapporteur’s 2023 report highlighted “forced evictions, home demolitions, and settler violence” as mechanisms displacing Palestinians.
The Erosion of Arab Support
Perhaps most significantly, regional dynamics have shifted in ways that sideline the Palestinian issue. Egypt and Jordan had already compromised earlier, securing U.S. economic and security support in exchange for peace treaties with Israel. The signing of the Abraham Accords in September 2020 marked another turning point, as the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan normalized relations with Israel without demanding progress on the Palestinian question. This shift greatly weakened Palestinian leverage. For decades, the Palestinian cause stood at the core of Arab foreign policy, but today priorities have changed. As a result, Palestinian leaders are left with far fewer regional champions willing to tie their own national interests to the pursuit of Palestinian statehood.
The One-State Reality
Some analysts argue that a de facto one-state reality already exists. Israel exercises varying degrees of control over all territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Millions of Palestinians live under this system without full political rights, creating what critics describe as an apartheid situation.
Who Bears Responsibility?
The tragedy facing Palestinians has multiple sources of responsibility:
Palestinian Leadership: The Palestinian leadership has long been plagued by deep internal divisions, with the geographical and political split between Gaza and the West Bank—deliberately reinforced by Israeli policies—undermining national unity until a China-brokered reconciliation agreement in July 2024. Mahmoud Abbas’s commitment to non-violent diplomacy and rejection of armed resistance, contrasting with Yasir Arafat’s militant legacy, has been criticized by many as ineffective and a betrayal of Arafat’s vision for Palestinian liberation.
Arab Nations: Neighboring Arab states, particularly Jordan and Egypt, both grappling with economic instability, have faced criticism for prioritizing national interests over Palestinian statehood. These countries, alongside others that normalized relations with Israel through the 2020 Abraham Accords, are accused of sidelining Palestinian aspirations for economic and geopolitical gains.
European Powers: With few exceptions like Spain, Ireland, Norway, and Sweden, most European nations delayed recognizing Palestine until it was too late to shape the conflict. By hiding behind calls for “direct negotiations” or aligning with U.S. and Israeli positions, they exposed a stark gap between their stated commitment to human rights and self-determination and their actual policies—undermining Palestinian aspirations and enabling Israel’s unilateral path toward a de facto one-state reality.
International Community: The broader international community has watched the situation deteriorate without taking decisive action to prevent what many view as ethnic cleansing and collective punishment.
A Live Catastrophe
The reality is stark: under current proposals, a demilitarized Gaza will likely preclude a viable Palestinian state. What remains will exist only on paper. The tragedy of the Palestinians represents a collective failure of humanity—a live genocide and catastrophe unfolding in real time, witnessed by the world yet inadequately addressed.
This stands as one of the defining moral failures of the 21st century: the systematic dispossession of a people, observed by an international community that has responded with little more than rhetoric and symbolic gestures. The train to Palestinian statehood, which seemed poised to depart in the 1990s, has not merely been delayed—it may have left the station entirely, carrying only the hopes of millions without its passengers, who sought nothing more than self-determination in their ancestral homeland.
faznotes.com 
Leave a comment