US-drafted UNSC Resolution: Why Clarity on a Two-State or One-State Future Is Now an Imperative
At a moment when Palestinian political identity is questioned by senior Israeli ministers, when settlements continue to expand, and when proposals to forcibly “resettle” Gaza are voiced from within Israel’s governing coalition, Western democracies face a stark choice: either affirm—clearly and publicly—their support for a viable two-state solution, or acknowledge and adopt the only other rights-preserving path, a single democratic state with equal citizenship for all. There are no other defensible options left.
Israel’s Rejection of Palestinian Statehood Has Become Explicit Policy
The latest diplomatic struggle erupted ahead of a crucial UN Security Council vote on a U.S.-drafted resolution regarding post-war Gaza administration. After quiet revisions by Washington inserted language referring to a “credible pathway” to Palestinian statehood, Israel launched an all-out effort to strip the phrase from the text.
War Minister Israel Katz and Foreign Minister Gideon Saar both vowed that “no Palestinian state will be established.”
Itamar Ben-Gvir, a key powerbroker in the coalition, went so far as to dismiss Palestinian identity itself as an “invention.”
These statements are not rhetorical flourishes. They align with the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, ongoing displacement of Palestinians, and the continued push from some ministers for the forced removal of Gazans and re-settlement of the Strip by Israelis—policies fundamentally incompatible with any internationally accepted vision for peace.
A UNSC Resolution Exposes the Depth of the Crisis
- a transitional administration in Gaza, and
- a UN-mandated international stabilization force (ISF) supported by eight major regional governments, including Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Türkiye, Jordan, Pakistan, and Indonesia.
The proposal has satisfied no one. Palestinian factions have urged Algeria to reject it, denouncing the plan as foreign imposition and “another form of occupation.” Meanwhile, Russia submitted a competing resolution that emphasizes stronger guarantees for Palestinian statehood and territorial contiguity.
The internal splits within the Security Council reflect deeper fractures: the international community is attempting to grapple with Israel’s categorical rejection of Palestinian national rights while also navigating Palestinian concerns that external administration may undermine self-determination.
On the Ground, Violence and Humanitarian Suffering Continue
In the occupied West Bank, Israeli violence and escalating settler attacks have killed seven Palestinians—including six children—within two weeks.
In Gaza, even after a fragile ceasefire, near-daily Israeli strikes since 10 October have killed hundreds. Meanwhile displaced families living in the Mawasi camp struggled through flooded tents after the first winter storm, highlighting the profound humanitarian crisis that persists despite international appeals for protection and aid.
These realities reinforce what Palestinians, human rights organizations, and increasingly international legal experts have long argued: policies that deny meaningful political rights to an entire population inevitably produce cycles of violence, displacement, and humanitarian catastrophe.
The West Cannot Sustain Ambiguity Anymore
For decades, Western governments—particularly the U.S. and EU states—have expressed rhetorical support for a two-state solution even as the material conditions for such a solution were allowed to deteriorate.
Today, Israeli political leaders are not merely undermining the two-state framework; many openly reject it as a matter of principle.
If the two-state solution is impossible, and if permanent occupation or apartheid-like arrangements are morally and legally indefensible, then the only alternative consistent with liberal democratic values is a single democratic state with equal rights for all.
Western governments rarely articulate this basic truth. Instead, they remain caught in a cycle of condemning Palestinian political language while avoiding confrontation with an Israeli leadership dismantling the very foundations of any just peace.
This ambiguity now fuels instability, undermines Western credibility, and leaves Palestinian rights suspended in perpetual limbo.
Two Viable Futures—And Only Two
The world is left with exactly two legitimate pathways that respect Palestinian rights and ensure security for Israelis:
1. A Real, Enforceable Two-State Solution
This would require:
- a sovereign, contiguous Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza;
- an end to settlement expansion and annexation;
- a political horizon backed by international guarantees.
2. A Single Democratic State With Equal Rights
- If Israel continues to rule over the land from the river to the sea, then justice requires equal citizenship, equal legal rights, and equal political representation for all inhabitants—Jewish and Palestinian alike.
Anything else—permanent occupation, fragmented enclaves, demographic engineering, or externally imposed administration—fails every test of legality, morality, and stability.
The Moment of Decision Has Arrived
Israel’s current leadership has made its position clear: no Palestinian state, no political equality, and no credible vision for Palestinian self-determination. Palestinians, meanwhile, continue to endure violence, displacement, and erasure—even as they insist on their right to shape their own political future. The West must now make its own position just as clear. Will it support a two-state solution with real enforcement mechanisms? Or will it support a single democratic state with equal rights?
These are the only two futures that uphold human dignity and comply with international law. Continued ambiguity is not neutrality—it is complicity in a status quo that denies millions of people the right to live freely, securely, and equally in their homeland.
Change is happening
This development at the UN Security Council—the world’s highest forum for maintaining global peace—comes at a moment when global public sentiment has shifted dramatically in the wake of the Gaza war. Across academia and broader civil society, awareness of the structural dynamics of the conflict has deepened, and calls for an urgent, justice-based resolution—rather than one shaped by political alliances or strategic convenience—are becoming more widespread. Reflecting this shift, the Oxford Union Society voted overwhelmingly, 265–113, to declare that Israel is a “greater threat to regional stability” than Iran, a result emblematic of how public understanding of the conflict has transformed in less than a year.
Posts
