Netanyahu's 'No's'... An Attempt to Perpetuate the Occupation and Thwart the Dream of a State

Dr. Ahmed Rafiq Awad: What is being put forward is not an electoral context, and at its core, it reflects a deeply rooted Israeli conviction to reject a Palestinian state and translate that practically.

Khalil Shaheen: The strategic convergence between Netanyahu and Trump is to block the empowerment of Palestinians to self-determination and establish their independent state.

Dr. Walaa Qudaimat: Netanyahu is politically committed to obstructing the establishment of a Palestinian state as part of a consistent strategy that views its establishment as a direct threat to the Israeli project.

Mohammed Al-Rajoub: Netanyahu's 'no's' constitute a tool to disrupt "political time," allowing Israel to impose facts on the ground and keep the international community preoccupied with crisis management.

Dr. Amjad Bashkar: Netanyahu's statements cannot be read as an inevitable roadmap, but rather as a pressure card and a deterrent message primarily directed at Palestinians.

Suleiman Basharat: Netanyahu seeks to present himself as the leader most committed to what is called "the Jewishness of the state" and rejecting any political concession to the Palestinians.

Ramallah - Exclusive to "Al-Quds" - The "no's" of the occupation government's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, are once again at the forefront, serving as an intense expression of a deeply rooted Israeli stance that categorically rejects the establishment of a Palestinian state, whether in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip, coinciding with his raising the slogan "Israel from the River to the Sea."

Writers, political analysts, specialists, and university professors, in separate interviews with "Al-Quds," believe that Netanyahu's recent statements regarding the rejection of a Palestinian state and the affirmation of the occupation of all Palestinian territories do not appear to be mere fleeting political rhetoric, but rather reflect a deeply entrenched strategic direction that has become one of the pillars of Israeli consensus, extending beyond electoral squabbles to systematic policies translated on the ground.

A careful reading of these statements reveals that Netanyahu's "no's" are no longer limited to a specific Israeli current, but have transformed into a comprehensive conviction within the Israeli political establishment, strengthened in recent years, especially after October 7, 2023.

This shift, according to writers, analysts, specialists, and university professors, has been accompanied by a de facto erosion of the two-state solution path, in light of rapid settlement expansion in the West Bank, and imposed arrangements in the Gaza Strip aimed at managing the population without granting them any sovereign or political horizon, thereby emptying the idea of a Palestinian state of its content.

They believe that Netanyahu's "no's" serve multiple functions; they are a tool to unite the Israeli interior and ensure the cohesion of the right-wing coalition, a pressure and deterrent message directed at Palestinians, as well as a bargaining chip used externally depending on the balance of power, especially in relations with the United States, although these "no's" remain subject to erosion whenever a high political or international cost is imposed.

Strategy of "Israeli National Consensus"

Political writer and analyst Dr. Ahmed Rafiq Awad believes that the statements of the occupation government's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, in which he stressed the non-establishment of a Palestinian state and that "Israel is from the River to the Sea," cannot be read as fleeting electoral positions, but rather represent a fundamental strategic vision that forms the core of what is known as "Israeli national consensus" that crystallized around 2004 with the end of Ariel Sharon's era.

Awad clarifies that the rejection of a Palestinian state is no longer a position exclusive to the Israeli right, but has become a broad consensus among various Israeli parties, including the left, and this consensus has been further strengthened after October 7, 2023.

Awad points out that Netanyahu has continuously expressed these positions since the 1990s, both in his writings and in his political stances, especially his explicit opposition to the Oslo Accords, and his practical behavior during his terms as prime minister until today.

A Conviction Translated on the Ground

Awad explains that what is being put forward today in political statements is happening in an electoral context, but at its core, it reflects a deeply rooted Israeli conviction to reject a Palestinian state, a conviction that is translated on the ground through the complete dismantling of the idea of establishing a state, through the extensive annexation of the West Bank, and the imposition of arrangements in the Gaza Strip that resemble international guardianship or disguised occupation, in addition to marginalizing the role of the Palestinian Authority and weakening it politically and economically.

Awad indicates that Israel has begun to propose new alternatives for managing Palestinian affairs, such as self-rule, tribal rule, or administrative rule, considering that the most dangerous aspect of this is the shift in the American position, as American administrations, including the current one, are no longer committed to the two-state solution as the only option.

American and European Abandonment of the Two-State Solution

Awad points out that the Trump administration explicitly stated that it does not see the two-state solution as the only scenario, which was reflected in its non-negotiation with the Palestinian Authority, its non-recognition of it, and the retention of the American embassy's relocation to Jerusalem after its annexation, in a step that reinforces the Israeli vision.

Awad indicates that this retreat is not limited to the United States, but extends to the European Union, which no longer sees the two-state solution as the optimal form of solution, and has begun to impose impossible conditions on the Palestinian Authority under the title of reform, and has also supported international resolutions that do not explicitly mention the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Awad believes that the two-state solution was practically abandoned after three decades of procrastination and delay since 1994, stressing that no one seriously worked to achieve it, whether internationally, Arab, or Islamic, which necessitated searching for other political options and solutions in light of the complete collapse of this path.

Deeply Rooted Ideological Convictions

Political writer and analyst Khalil Shaheen confirms that the statements of the occupation government's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, rejecting the establishment of a Palestinian state do not represent a new position, but rather a re-affirmation of a historical position he has expressed repeatedly, and even previously boasted that he was instrumental in preventing the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. Shaheen explains that this rejection is not only linked to immediate electoral calculations, despite their presence, but is primarily based on deeply rooted ideological convictions adopted by Netanyahu since his opposition to the Oslo Accords and the plan for withdrawal and redeployment from the Gaza Strip.

Shaheen explains that Netanyahu relies on a broad Israeli base for this position, which has been particularly strengthened after October 7, 2023, noting that this trend has been practically translated into official decisions, most notably the Knesset's decision in July 2024, which was voted on by 68 members, and considered the establishment of a Palestinian state an "existential threat" to Israel, and rejected any political negotiation path related to the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Shaheen points out that this decision came during the Biden administration and before the return of US President Donald Trump to the White House, which reflects an Israeli consensus across the coalition and opposition.

Shaheen indicates that the danger of this decision lies not only in its content, but in the extent of support it received, as it was not limited to coalition parties, but was also supported by opposition forces, led by Gantz's party, while other parties such as "Yesh Atid" and "Labor" withdrew from the session, and most of them abstained from voting against the decision, while only nine Knesset members opposed it, which confirms the existence of a near-Israeli consensus on rejecting a Palestinian state.

Shaheen stresses that focusing solely on Netanyahu's statements overlooks the essence of the ongoing policies on the ground, which aim to undermine any opportunity for the establishment of a Palestinian state, and even work to weaken the Palestinian Authority and gradually transform it into something resembling a "union of municipalities" in the West Bank, at a time when Israel rejects the return of the Authority to the Gaza Strip in any form.

Fragmentation of the Palestinian Political Entity

Shaheen believes that the Israeli plan, which in some aspects aligns with American proposals, aims to fragment the Palestinian political entity, either by deepening the division between the West Bank and Gaza, or by dismantling the central authority in the West Bank itself.

Shaheen explains that Netanyahu has adopted a strategy for years based on strengthening the separation between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and he is continuing to deepen this separation, while seeking to weaken the Authority in the West Bank, and perhaps drawing inspiration from alternative governance models, such as technocratic committees or local administrations based on tribes and families, within the framework of projects that have been circulated in Israel, including what is known as the "Seven Emirates" plan in the West Bank.

Regarding the Gaza Strip, Shaheen believes that what is known as Trump's "Twenty-Point Plan" largely intersects with Netanyahu's vision, as it does not offer a clear commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian state, but rather treats it as a deferred possibility linked to long negotiations, after the completion of Gaza's reconstruction according to an economic investment model. Shaheen points out that this plan, like the economic plans discussed by American economists, ignores the right to self-determination, and seeks to transform Gaza into a long-term investment area, while obscuring the political and national dimension of the Palestinian issue.

Shaheen confirms that these proposals are based on the expropriation of private property, and opening the way for investments with long-term contracts that may extend for decades, with the displacement of large numbers of the Strip's residents, which some of the authors of these plans themselves described as having a colonial character.

Shaheen points out that these models were also proposed as applicable in the West Bank, through economic approaches that separate Palestinians from their national project.

Shaheen stresses that the strategic convergence between the Netanyahu government and the Trump administration is to block the empowerment of Palestinians to exercise their right to self-determination and establish their independent state, including East Jerusalem, even if there are tactical differences regarding the speed and pace of implementation, especially in the Gaza Strip.

Facts that Eliminate the Palestinian State Project

Shaheen explains that Netanyahu also uses this intransigence in the context of the Israeli electoral bazaar, seeking to maintain the cohesion of his coalition in light of internal crises related to the budget and the conscription law, and to avoid increasing pressure to form an investigation committee into the events of October 7, 2023.

Shaheen stresses that what is happening on the ground in terms of settlement expansion, demolition, settler attacks, and continuous security escalation, reflects a systematic policy that goes beyond rhetoric, and aims to impose final facts that practically eliminate the Palestinian state project.

Undermining the Possibility of a Palestinian State

Writer and political researcher Dr. Walaa Qudaimat stresses that the Palestinian state represents a political and historical entitlement for the Palestinian people and is not a grant from any party, considering that the recent statements of the occupation government's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, come in the context of a practical translation of the policies pursued by successive Israeli governments aimed at undermining the possibility of establishing an independent Palestinian state.

Qudaimat explains that Netanyahu is politically and clearly committed to obstructing the establishment of a Palestinian state, and that his position is not temporary or linked to a specific stage, but rather falls within a consistent Israeli strategy that views the establishment of a Palestinian state as a direct threat to the Israeli project in the region, according to the ideological vision of his political current.

Qudaimat points out that this commitment is evident in various Israeli policies that work to weaken the foundations of the Palestinian state at the geographical, political, and economic levels.

Pushing Towards Normalization Without Political Costs

Qudaimat explains that Netanyahu employs all current developments on the regional and international arenas to push towards unconditional normalization, especially bypassing the condition of establishing a Palestinian state in exchange for normalization, noting that his continuous attempts to invest in regional changes reflect an Israeli endeavor to impose new political realities that ignore Palestinian national rights.

Creating Conditions for the Impossibility of a Palestinian State

Qudaimat explains that the Palestinian project is read within Israel as a direct undermining of the Zionist project, which drives Israeli governments to dedicate their efforts to creating conditions that make the establishment of a Palestinian state impossible, whether through the fragmentation of Palestinian geography or the weakening of the Palestinian political and institutional structure.

Qudaimat confirms that Israel also seeks to establish a Palestinian reality incapable of achieving the state project at the Palestinian, regional, and international levels, thereby preventing the attainment of full recognition and sovereignty.

The State and the Fruit of Long Struggle

Qudaimat stresses that Palestinians must realize that the Palestinian state is the fruit of a long struggle and immense sacrifices, and not a grant given in the context of political settlements.

Qudaimat emphasizes the need for the Palestinian leadership to be aware of the dangers threatening the state project, warning that any talk of establishing a state in the Gaza Strip separate from the rest of the Palestinian territories would constitute a serious undermining of the Palestinian people's entitlements and national unity.

Electoral Propaganda and Calculated Strategy

Academic and researcher in public administration and political science Mohammed Al-Rajoub explains that the repeated statements of the occupation government's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, regarding the rejection of a Palestinian state, and his raising of the slogan "Israel from the River to the Sea," cannot be understood in a single framework, but rather combine electoral propaganda directed at the Israeli interior, and a calculated political strategy aimed at managing the conflict with Palestinians rather than resolving it.

Al-Rajoub explains that Netanyahu's discourse, which is based on repeating "no's" such as no Palestinian state and no withdrawal, outwardly appears as a definitive statement of position, but a reading of Netanyahu's political experience and the context of his statements reveals that it is not about a rigid doctrine as much as it is a functional political language used flexibly according to the balance of power, especially in relations with the United States.

Al-Rajoub points out that these statements cannot be separated from the Israeli internal environment, where Netanyahu leads a fragile coalition based on an alliance of the national and religious right and the most extremist currents.

Israeli Mobilization Discourse

Al-Rajoub points out that this political base does not demand political solutions as much as it demands continuous ideological reassurance, which Netanyahu is keen to provide through a mobilizing discourse that affirms the constants of the Zionist project and reproduces a sense of Israeli superiority and dominance.

Al-Rajoub explains that the slogan "Israel from the River to the Sea" is not put forward as a legal project or a constitutional vision for a single state, but rather as a mobilizing slogan aimed at charging the collective consciousness of the right, and closing the door to any theoretical discussion about the Palestinian state, even before delving into the details of political solutions.

Al-Rajoub confirms that the real danger in this discourse lies in the fact that it reflects a strategy of conflict management, not resolution, as Netanyahu, despite his long years in power, has not presented a comprehensive vision for a settlement, nor has he gone for full annexation, but has maintained a gray area that keeps Palestinians in a state of "no state and no sovereign rights," with security and economic management that prevents explosion without opening a political horizon.

A Tool to Disrupt "Political Time"

Al-Rajoub believes that Netanyahu's 'no's' constitute a tool to disrupt "political time," allowing Israel to expand settlements and impose new facts on the ground, geographically and demographically, while the international community remains preoccupied with managing the crisis instead of resolving it.

Al-Rajoub points to a fundamental contradiction in Netanyahu's behavior, represented by rhetorical rigidity versus practical flexibility when real American pressure is available, citing previous understandings of calm and security arrangements.

Al-Rajoub considers that this contradiction is not a weakness, but a style of governance that relies on publicly announcing rejection, and passing retreats in security or temporary forms.

Al-Rajoub confirms that Netanyahu's statements do not represent final positions as much as they are a moving negotiating ceiling, which turns into a de facto policy in the absence of American will, and is recycled as a tool for internal propaganda and a deeper strategy to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, despite its susceptibility to collapse whenever the balance of power changes.

Higher Political Load

Political science professor Dr. Amjad Bashkar believes that the statements of the occupation government's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, rejecting the establishment of a Palestinian state, and his raising of the slogan "Israel from the River to the Sea," are not new in their content, but they carry a higher political load in the current circumstances, and can be understood within three main levels: internal, external, and ideological.

Bashkar explains that the first level is the Israeli internal level, where these statements fall within the framework of clear electoral propaganda, even if wrapped in ideological discourse.

Bashkar explains that through his statements, Netanyahu addresses his solid base of the Israeli right and settlers, in addition to his allies from extremist right-wing parties, led by Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich.

Bashkar believes that the slogan "Israel from the River to the Sea" does not constitute an executive plan as much as it is an affirmation of Netanyahu's political identity and a message in which he presents himself as "the true guarantor of the complete Zionist project."

Bashkar confirms that Netanyahu has accustomed, in times of political or judicial crises or during wars and protests, to resorting to intensifying ideological discourse in order to unite his base and prevent its erosion.

A Tool for Negotiation and Pressure

On the external level, Bashkar indicates that these statements represent a tool for negotiation and pressure, and not a final political declaration.

Bashkar points out that Netanyahu historically raises the ceiling of his ideological discourse and then begins a gradual retreat when a stronger balance of power is imposed on him, whether due to international or American pressure.

Based on this, Bashkar believes that Netanyahu's statements cannot be read as an inevitable roadmap, but rather as a pressure card and a deterrent message primarily directed at Palestinians.

As for the ideological level, Bashkar confirms that Netanyahu's recognition of a Palestinian state would practically mean the end of his political project, not only for him personally, but also for his allies within the Israeli right.

Bashkar stresses that Netanyahu, even if he accepts certain compromises on the ground, cannot explicitly announce them, because that would lead to the loss of his political alliances.

The Fall of the 'No's' Before American Will

Bashkar believes that the possibility of establishing a Palestinian state in the current stage is unrealistic, in light of the large settlement expansion since 2017, which has swallowed vast areas of West Bank lands, in addition to the escalating geographical division in the Gaza Strip.

Bashkar explains that Netanyahu's "no's" fall only when there is a clear American will or when the cost of continued rejection becomes high for Israel.

Bashkar confirms that Netanyahu always seeks a political way out that "saves face," noting that several sensitive issues, such as settlements, calm, security coordination, and taxes, have seen actual retreats despite the hardline rhetoric.

Bashkar points out that Netanyahu raises the ceiling of his rejectionist discourse when he feels that the balance of power temporarily favors him, but these "no's" quickly remain only in the media, and are emptied of their content on the ground if the American position changes.

Burying the Future Establishment of a Palestinian State

Political writer and analyst Suleiman Basharat explains that the recent statements of the occupation government's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, especially those related to rejecting the establishment of a Palestinian state whether in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip, clearly express the essence of the strategic goal of Israeli behavior towards Palestinians, and reveal a deeply rooted mentality that works to bury any future possibility of establishing a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders.

Basharat points out that when Netanyahu said: "The establishment of a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip has not happened and will not happen," he was not expressing a temporary or tactical position, but rather a comprehensive strategic vision based on solidifying an Israeli conviction that it is impossible to establish a Palestinian state in any part of the Palestinian land, whether in the West Bank or Gaza.

Basharat confirms that Israeli behavior on the ground and politically is consistent with this vision, through policies of encroachment, settlement, blockade, and the excessive use of force.

The Leader Most Committed to the "Jewishness of the State"

Basharat explains that Netanyahu invests this discourse in two main dimensions, the first being the Israeli internal dimension, where he seeks to present himself as the leader most committed to what is called "the Jewishness of the state" and rejecting any political concession to the Palestinians, in an attempt to win over the Israeli public and the extremist right-wing current, and to prepare the ground for his re-election in the event of early elections, likely in October.

Regional and International Messages

The second dimension, according to Basharat, relates to regional and international messages, as Netanyahu confirms through them that Israel is not prepared to trade the future of the Palestinian state for any other issues, including the normalization process and the "Abraham Accords."

Basharat believes that Netanyahu's talk about the possibility of new countries joining these agreements, specifically under the conditions put forward by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, aims to bypass the Palestinian issue, and establish a new regional phase in which Palestinian rights are marginalized.

American-Israeli Consensus on the Conflict

Regarding the American position, Basharat believes that there is an Israeli-American consensus on the essence and strategy of the conflict, where the United States provides political cover and military support for Israeli behavior, but differs with Tel Aviv on the nature of the tools.

Basharat points out that Washington prefers to use the political path and indirect pressures to push Palestinians to accept the existing reality, while Israel tends towards the option of decisive force and the excessive use of military power.

Basharat believes that this discrepancy is evident in issues such as Gaza's reconstruction, resistance weapons, and withdrawal from the Strip, where the American administration seeks to link political incentives and reconstruction with disarmament, while Israel believes that direct force is the most effective way to achieve its goals.

Basharat emphasizes the danger of American adoption of the Israeli vision, warning that the failure of the political path may push Washington to grant Israel broader authorization to use force, in light of strong Israeli influence within American decision-making circles, which means the continuation of the Israeli colonial project that began in 1948 and continues to this day.