The official positions of the Zionist regime’s officials, including Benjamin Netanyahu, who recently declared his rejection of any agreement establishing an independent Palestinian state, clearly demonstrate that Tel Aviv does not, in practice, believe in the “two-state solution.” Given these positions, to what extent do you think this solution remains attainable?
Since the establishment of the Zionist regime in 1947, its very foundation has been built upon the usurpation of the entirety of Palestine; and from that time until today, there has never existed, in Tel Aviv’s political lexicon, anything called “Palestinian state.” Hence, the leaders of this regime, both past and present, have consistently pursued a policy of deception, manipulation, and guile in order to first establish “Israel, the Jewish State,” stretching from the river to the sea, and then move toward realizing what they refer to as “Greater Israel.” This entity would encompass the lands of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, and the northern parts of the Arabian Peninsula – i.e., northern Saudi Arabia. All these territories are, in the Zionist mindset – shaped by their interpretation of the Torah – considered part of what they call “Historic Israel.” Therefore, one simply cannot rely on the Zionist regime’s acceptance of any solution, including the establishment of a Palestinian state. All the wars waged by this regime since 1967, including the war on Gaza and others, have in fact been attempts to erase Palestine entirely from the map and, as I mentioned earlier, to establish a purely Jewish state extending from the river to the sea.
Netanyahu’s statements – and those of all past and present Zionist enemy leaders – have never indicated any genuine acceptance of a Palestinian state. Even during the Oslo Accords, which they signed with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), it became clear that they were merely stalling for time and engaging in deceit. The evidence is plain: only a minimal portion of the Oslo Accords was ever implemented, since the limited powers granted to the “Palestinian Authority” in the West Bank were purely symbolic, while the Zionist regime has continued to maintain actual control over the territory. Moreover, a recent decision has been made in the Knesset to annex the West Bank to the Zionist entity. This move follows an extensive increase in settlement expansion, which has made it impossible for the West Bank to remain a constituent part of the envisioned Palestinian state outlined in the Oslo Accords—the one that was meant to consist of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
There is currently a fundamental plan underway, whose goal is to displace the residents of the West Bank toward Jordan, to force the Arabs or Palestinians of the Galilee toward Lebanon, Syria, and other countries, and to relocate the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip toward Egypt and other regions. Therefore, expecting Tel Aviv to accept the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside the Zionist regime is an utterly futile expectation.
Does the "two-state solution” in practice grant legitimacy to armed resistance as the principal option for confronting the occupation, or does it negate it? If the two-state solution does indeed undermine the option of armed resistance, what practical consequences could this have for the Palestinian issue?
The very foundation of the two-state solution is weak and unstable, for no rational person can believe that the Palestinians could establish a viable state for themselves when it would consist of two separate parts – the West Bank and the Gaza Strip – without any geographical connection between them. The realization of such a plan is extremely difficult; and even if it were hypothetically implemented, the West Bank would turn into a kind of municipality within the land usurped by the Zionist regime. Similarly, the Gaza Strip would function as a province or a municipality within that same framework. The nature of such a state would be fragile; it would have neither stability nor the ability for Palestinians to freely manage their own affairs.
Indeed, the option of resistance will remain as long as the Palestinians are deprived of a state, and as long as their aspiration is to reclaim their occupied homeland, that is, historic Palestine, the option of resistance will endure just as it existed in the past, continues today, and will persist in the future. Generations of Palestinians have been raised with the spirit of resistance and the ideal of establishing an independent state and liberating Palestine, and this resistance will continue. Time will reveal this truth. All the massacres, displacement, torture, and destruction that have been inflicted upon the Palestinian nation have neither extinguished the flame of resistance nor erased its spirit from their hearts. They will continue to keep alive, both in their minds and in their hearts, the aspiration to liberate the Palestinian lands from the grasp of the Zionist occupiers.
Some political analysts and observers believe that the initiative taken by a number of Western governments, including France, to promote the two-state solution is in fact an attempt to create the groundwork for expanding and deepening normalization across the region. How do you assess the connection between these developments?
Regarding the efforts of France and other Western countries to accelerate the normalization of relations between the Zionist regime and regional states, it should be said that Western governments, particularly the US, believe that if the two-state solution were to be realized – though I personally consider its realization impossible – it would compel many Arab countries to openly normalize their relations with the Zionist regime under the pretext of finding a solution to the Palestinian issue. Since 1947, the issue of Palestine has evolved into a deeply complex matter that has burdened the entire region. In any case, the Zionist regime seeks normalization with all Arab and even non-Arab states of the region, because it aspires to be a state accepted among its neighbors. This has been Israel’s objective since its establishment.
After the formation of the Zionist regime, David Ben-Gurion once sat with his advisor Moshe Sharett, who later became Foreign Minister and, for two years after Ben-Gurion, served as Prime Minister. Ben-Gurion had intended to step away from power for two years to rest, which is why Sharett assumed the premiership until Ben-Gurion’s return. In that meeting, Ben-Gurion turned to Sharett and said, “We have created this state, but how can it maintain stable survival within a hostile surrounding environment?” Sharett replied that they must divide the three Arab countries surrounding Israel and turn them into sectarian states, thereby ensuring they become embroiled in internal religious and factional conflicts.
Sharett explained that they would divide Egypt into three states. Northern Egypt, including Alexandria and its surroundings, would be a Christian state. Central Egypt, from the Nile to Sinai and the border of the Gaza Strip, would be a Sunni state. Southern Egypt would be a Nubian state,[1] which would in some way be linked to Sudan.
As for Syria, he continued, it would be divided into three or four states: Alawite, Kurdish, Sunni, and Druze. Iraq would also be divided into three states: Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia. He added, “This way, we will create problems between these countries, drawing them into sectarian and factional conflicts with one another. In such circumstances, Israel will be safe, and no one will have the strength to attack it or expel the Jews from it.”
As a matter of fact, if we closely examine what is taking place across the region today, particularly after Operation Al-Aqsa Flood and the wars targeting Lebanon, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Yemen, it becomes clear that the Zionist regime and its leaders are actively pursuing a plan. This plan is aimed at fragmenting the region surrounding it into sectarian states locked in conflict with one another. In my view, if fate allows this plan to be realized, or if Israel and the US succeed in imposing this scheme upon Arab and Islamic countries, the path will then be paved for the establishment of Greater Israel. This is exactly what Netanyahu presented on a map a little over two months ago. As I mentioned earlier, this “Greater Israel” would encompass Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, the northern part of Saudi Arabia, and the Sinai Peninsula, which is part of Egyptian territory.
In any case, any development is possible in West Asia, particularly in light of the ongoing American and Zionist schemes, as well as the statements from Tel Aviv and Washington regarding the “transformation of the Middle East.” The essence of this change is the establishment of a new Middle East that is completely under their domination. Although governance would ostensibly remain in the hands of local regimes, in reality, these systems would operate under the coercion and dictates of the United States and Israel.
(The views expressed in this interview are interviewee’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Khamenei.ir.)
[1] The reference is to the land of Nubia, a vast region along the Nile in southern Egypt.
Comment