ACCOUNTABILITY CRISIS
CORRUPTION INVESTIGATION
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
ETHNIC CLEANSING
GENOCIDE
INTERNATIONAL LAW
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES
The relationship between the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the contemporary “two-state solution” represents more than mere historical continuity; it exemplifies the evolution of colonial policy from explicit imperial domination to sophisticated diplomatic management. This “two-state solution” framework, far from representing a genuine attempt at conflict resolution, constitutes the contemporary manifestation of the colonial logic embedded in the Balfour Declaration. Both instruments serve to legitimise Palestinian dispossession through the manipulation of international legal and diplomatic discourse while maintaining the appearance of principled engagement with competing national claims.
The transition from the Balfour Declaration’s explicit colonial language to the ostensibly neutral terminology of the two-state solution represents not the abandonment of colonial policy but its sophistication. The diplomatic formula has become a mechanism for perpetuating the fundamental power imbalance established in 1917 while providing international legitimacy through the language of conflict resolution and mutual compromise. Critical discourse analysis, postcolonial theory, and international legal frameworks are employed to examine how semantic manipulation has enabled the continuation of colonial practices under the guise of diplomatic progress. The research reveals how the language of “solutions” serves not merely as neutral diplomatic terminology but as a continuation of euphemistic discourse that has historically masked systematic oppression.
Postcolonial Theory and Diplomatic Discourse
The theoretical foundation for this analysis draws extensively from postcolonial scholarship, particularly the work of Edward Said, Homi Bhabha, and Gayatri Spivak, in examining how colonial relationships persist through discursive practices long after formal decolonisation. Said’s analysis of Orientalism provides crucial insights into how Western discourse constructs the Middle East as an object of intervention rather than a subject of self-determination. Contemporary scholarship by Rashid Khalidi, Joseph Massad, and Nur Masalha has demonstrated how Zionist discourse has employed colonial frameworks while claiming anti-colonial legitimacy. This paradox becomes central to understanding how the two-state solution can function as both ostensible decolonisation and continued colonial management.
Postcolonial Theory methodological framework draws from the work of Norman Fairclough and Ruth Wodak in examining how power relationships are constructed and maintained through language. The evolution from the Balfour Declaration’s explicit colonial language to the two-state solution’s ostensibly neutral terminology requires analysis of how diplomatic discourse obscures rather than illuminates power relationships. Teun van Dijk’s work on ideological discourse proves particularly relevant in examining how the language of conflict resolution can serve to legitimise rather than challenge existing power structures. The institutionalisation of the two-state solution in international diplomatic discourse exemplifies how hegemonic narratives become naturalised through repetition and institutional endorsement.
Patrick Wolfe’s framework of settler colonialism as a “structure not an event” provides essential theoretical grounding for understanding the continuity between the Balfour Declaration and contemporary policies. Wolfe’s analysis of the “logic of elimination” illuminates how settler colonial societies must continuously manage indigenous populations rather than simply displacing them. Lorenzo Veracini’s work on the distinction between colonialism and settler colonialism proves crucial in understanding how the Zionist project differs from traditional colonial relationships while maintaining colonial characteristics. The two-state solution, from this perspective, represents an attempt to manage rather than resolve the fundamental contradictions of settler colonial society.
The Colonial Genesis: The Balfour Declaration as Imperial Strategy in the Context of Promise and Betrayal
The Balfour Declaration emerged within a complex web of British imperial calculations during World War I. The Declaration cannot be understood as an isolated commitment to Jewish national aspirations but must be analysed within the broader context of British wartime diplomacy and post-war imperial strategy. The simultaneous commitments made through the Hussein-McMahon correspondence and the Sykes-Picot Agreement reveal the Declaration’s function as one element in a larger imperial project designed to secure British interests in the Middle East. The Declaration’s language reveals its colonial assumptions through its treatment of Palestinian Arabs as “existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,” denying them national identity or political rights in their own homeland. This linguistic construction reflects broader colonial patterns of rendering indigenous populations invisible within their own territories while simultaneously acknowledging their presence as an obstacle to be managed.
The Question of Authority and Consent
The fundamental illegitimacy of the Balfour Declaration lies not merely in its consequences but in its assumptions about authority and consent. Britain’s promise of Palestinian territory to the Zionist movement at a time when Britain neither controlled Palestine nor consulted its inhabitants represents a classic example of colonial presumption. The Declaration assumed that European powers possessed the authority to dispose of non-European territories and peoples without their consent, treating Palestine as an empty vessel to be filled according to European political calculations. This assumption of authority without consent would become a defining characteristic of subsequent diplomatic efforts, including the two-state solution framework. The pattern established in 1917—external powers determining the fate of Palestine without meaningful Palestinian participation—has persisted through decades of diplomatic initiatives that claim to serve Palestinian interests while systematically excluding Palestinian agency.
Strategic Calculations and Imperial Interests
British support for Zionism was driven primarily by imperial rather than humanitarian considerations. The calculation that a grateful Jewish population in Palestine would serve British interests in protecting the eastern approaches to the Suez Canal and India reveals the Declaration’s instrumental character. The subsequent British Mandate over Palestine institutionalised this colonial relationship, creating legal frameworks that prioritised Jewish immigration and land acquisition while systematically disadvantaging the Palestinian Arab majority. The Mandate system itself represented colonialism in new diplomatic clothing. Ostensibly temporary arrangements designed to prepare territories for independence, the mandates in practice created legal frameworks for continued colonial control. The Palestine Mandate uniquely incorporated the Balfour Declaration into its text, making British support for a Jewish national home legally binding while offering no comparable commitment to Palestinian Arab national aspirations.
The Evolution of Diplomatic Language: From Colonial Mandate to “Solution”, echoes of “Final Solution”
The transition from the explicit colonial language of the Balfour Declaration and Mandate system to the ostensibly neutral terminology of contemporary diplomatic discourse represents a sophisticated evolution in the management of colonial relationships. This transformation reflects broader changes in international legal and political contexts that made explicit colonial language untenable while preserving the essential power relationships established during the Mandate period. Development of international human rights law, the UN Charter’s emphasis on self-determination, and the decolonisation movements of the mid-twentieth century created new discursive constraints on colonial policy. The language of the two-state solution emerged within this context as a means of adapting colonial relationships to new legal and political realities while preserving their essential characteristics.
The emergence of “solution” language in diplomatic discourse reflects a broader shift toward technocratic approaches to political conflicts that obscure fundamental questions of power and justice. By framing the Palestine question as a technical problem requiring expert diplomatic intervention rather than a case of colonial dispossession requiring decolonisation, the solution framework fundamentally redefines the nature of the conflict. This linguistic shift serves multiple ideological functions. It presents the conflict as a symmetrical dispute between equal parties rather than a colonial relationship between occupier and occupied. It suggests that resolution requires mutual compromise rather than the end of colonial domination. Most crucially, it implies that external diplomatic intervention can produce legitimate outcomes without meaningful consent from the colonised population.
The Function of Euphemistic Language
The step toward euphemistic language in diplomatic discourse parallels broader historical patterns in which systematic oppression is masked through technical or neutral terminology. The transformation from explicit colonial language to the ostensibly neutral framework of conflict resolution represents not the abandonment of colonial policy but its adaptation to contemporary discursive constraints. This pattern of euphemistic evolution has historical precedents that illuminate its contemporary function. The Nazi regime’s use of technical language to mask genocide—most notably in the term “Final Solution”—demonstrates how bureaucratic terminology can serve to normalise and legitimise systematic oppression. While the contexts differ dramatically, the semantic pattern reveals how the language of “solutions” can function to obscure rather than illuminate the true nature of political relationships.
The Two-State Solution: Origins, Development, and Contemporary Function
The specific terminology of the “two-state solution” evolved gradually from the 1947 UN Partition Plan through various diplomatic initiatives of the 1970s and 1980s. The UN Partition Plan represented the first formal international endorsement of territorial division as a means of resolving competing claims to Palestine, though it was not yet described using contemporary solution language. The terminology gained prominence during the 1970s and 1980s as Palestinian leadership, particularly under Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organisation, moved away from the goal of liberating all of historical Palestine toward acceptance of a truncated state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This evolution reflected not Palestinian preference but the recognition of political realities that made more expansive goals unrealistic. The institutionalisation of two-state language reached its culmination during the Oslo process of the 1990s, when the framework became the official diplomatic consensus among major international actors. The Oslo Accords established interim arrangements ostensibly leading toward Palestinian statehood while creating institutional mechanisms that enabled continued Israeli expansion and control. The two-state solution has functioned not as a framework for conflict resolution but as a mechanism for conflict management that preserves essential colonial relationships while providing the appearance of diplomatic progress. The emphasis on “process” rather than outcome has enabled decades of negotiations that legitimise continued Israeli expansion while postponing indefinitely the establishment of genuine Palestinian sovereignty. This temporal manipulation represents a crucial aspect of contemporary colonial management. By promising future statehood while enabling present expansion, the two-state framework creates a perpetual interim period that serves Israeli interests while claiming to serve Palestinian aspirations. The process becomes an end in itself rather than a means toward genuine resolution. Contemporary critics across the political spectrum increasingly recognise that the two-state solution has become impossible to implement due to Israeli settlement expansion and security requirements that would render any Palestinian entity non-viable. The proposed Palestinian state increasingly resembles the Bantustans of apartheid South Africa—non-contiguous territories under effective external control lacking genuine sovereignty.
This evolution reveals the two-state solution’s function as a diplomatic facade that legitimises continued colonial control while maintaining international legitimacy. The framework enables Israeli territorial expansion while providing international actors with the appearance of principled engagement in conflict resolution.
Semantic Analysis: The Language of “Solutions” and Historical Precedents
The deployment of “solution” language in diplomatic discourse requires critical analysis of its semantic implications and historical precedents. The term “solution” implies both the existence of a problem requiring resolution and the possibility of definitive resolution through technical intervention. This framing fundamentally shapes understanding of political conflicts by suggesting they represent technical rather than political challenges. In the context of Palestine, solution language transforms a case of colonial dispossession into a conflict management problem amenable to diplomatic intervention. This semantic transformation obscures fundamental questions about the legitimacy of colonial settlement while focusing attention on technical arrangements for managing competing claims to territory.
Euphemistic Language: semantic parallel between the Nazi “Final Solution” and the contemporary “two-state solution”
The use of euphemistic language to mask systematic oppression has extensive historical precedents that illuminate the contemporary function of solution discourse. The Nazi regime’s deployment of technical language—most notably the term “Endlösung” or “Final Solution”—demonstrates how bureaucratic terminology can serve to normalise and legitimise systematic violence. While the contexts differ dramatically in scale, intention, and implementation, the semantic pattern reveals common functions of euphemistic language in political discourse. Both cases involve the deployment of technical terminology to mask the true nature of political relationships and to enable systematic oppression while maintaining the appearance of rational policy-making.
The semantic parallel between the Nazi “Final Solution” and the contemporary “two-state solution” reveals a profound historical irony. The state of Israel, established partly in response to the Holocaust, has become associated with diplomatic frameworks that employ similar patterns of euphemistic language to legitimise the systematic oppression of another people. This semantic ambiguity extends beyond mere linguistic similarity to encompass broader patterns of historical reversal. The victims of systematic oppression have, through the mechanisms of settler colonialism, become associated with the systematic oppression of others. The diplomatic language that masks this transformation reveals the persistence of colonial logic even within ostensibly anti-colonial movements.
Contemporary Manifestations of Colonial Policy, Settlement Expansion and Territorial Control
The continued expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank represents the most visible contemporary manifestation of the colonial logic embedded in the Balfour Declaration. Settlement expansion proceeds under the ostensible framework of the two-state solution, revealing how diplomatic discourse can enable rather than constrain colonial practices. Legal and administrative mechanisms that facilitate settlement expansion—including discriminatory zoning laws, restricted Palestinian construction permits, and separate road systems—create spatial arrangements that echo historical patterns of colonial control. These arrangements make viable Palestinian statehood impossible while maintaining the diplomatic fiction that a two-state solution remains possible.
Israeli control over Palestinian natural resources, including water, agricultural land, and mineral rights, reflects broader colonial patterns of resource extraction and economic subordination. The Paris Protocol’s integration of Palestinian and Israeli economies under Israeli control institutionalises Palestinian economic dependence while claiming to facilitate Palestinian development. Economic subordination serves multiple colonial functions. It creates Palestinian dependence on Israeli employment and markets, making resistance economically costly. It enables Israeli resource extraction while limiting Palestinian economic development. Most crucially, it makes genuine Palestinian independence economically difficult while maintaining the appearance of economic cooperation. The deployment of security discourse to justify restrictions on Palestinian movement, economic activity, and political organisation reflects broader colonial patterns of population control. Security requirements serve to legitimise comprehensive systems of surveillance, restriction, and control that would be recognised as oppressive in other contexts. The security framework transforms colonial control into a technical necessity, suggesting that restrictions on Palestinian freedom serve Palestinian as well as Israeli interests. This discursive transformation obscures the colonial character of security arrangements while providing international legitimacy for comprehensive population control.
Legal Framework: Crimes Against Humanity in Historical Context. International Legal Standards and Their Application
The framework of crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, provides legal criteria for evaluating systematic oppression regardless of the diplomatic language used to justify it. The Rome Statute defines crimes against humanity as systematic attacks against civilian populations, including forced displacement, persecution, and the crime of apartheid. Multiple international legal experts, UN Special Rapporteurs, and human rights organisations have applied these frameworks to Israeli policies in the occupied Palestinian territories. The systematic character of settlement expansion, forced displacement, and discriminatory legal systems meets international legal criteria for crimes against humanity regardless of the diplomatic frameworks used to justify these policies.
The Crime of Apartheid and Systematic Discrimination
The crime of apartheid, defined in international law as systematic oppression by one racial or ethnic group over another, provides a particularly relevant framework for analysing the contemporary situation in Palestine. The existence of separate legal systems for Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank, combined with discriminatory access to resources and freedom of movement, creates institutional arrangements that mirror the legal structure of apartheid. Recognition of apartheid does not depend on diplomatic frameworks or stated intentions but on the systematic character of discriminatory practices. The institutionalisation of separate and unequal treatment through legal and administrative mechanisms constitutes apartheid regardless of the ostensible commitment to future equality through a two-state solution.
The legal framework of crimes against humanity enables evaluation of contemporary policies independently of their historical justifications or diplomatic packaging. The systematic character of oppression, rather than its historical origins or stated intentions, determines legal culpability under international law. This legal framework reveals how diplomatic discourse can serve to obscure rather than address systematic violations of international law. The emphasis on process and future solutions enables continued violations while postponing accountability through promises of future compliance with international legal standards.
Continuity of Colonial Logic
This analysis reveals fundamental continuity between the Balfour Declaration and the contemporary two-state solution framework. Both represent manifestations of colonial logic that prioritise European and settler interests while claiming to serve universal principles of justice and self-determination. The evolution from explicit colonial language to ostensibly neutral diplomatic discourse represents not the abandonment of colonial policy but its sophistication in response to changing international legal and political contexts. The transformation of Palestine from an explicit British mandate to an ostensible diplomatic process has maintained essential colonial relationships while adapting its justification to contemporary discursive constraints. The two-state solution functions not as a framework for decolonisation but as a mechanism for managing colonial relationships in ways that maintain international legitimacy while enabling continued expansion and control.
The Function of Euphemistic Language and Semantic Ambiguity
The semantic analysis reveals how euphemistic language serves to normalise and legitimise systematic oppression while maintaining the appearance of rational policy-making. The evolution from colonial mandate language to solution discourse parallels broader historical patterns in which technical terminology masks political relationships and enables systematic violations of fundamental human rights.
The use of the semantic ambiguity “solution” in discourse transforms questions of justice and decolonisation into technical problems amenable to diplomatic intervention. This transformation serves multiple ideological functions, including the presentation of asymmetrical conflicts as symmetrical disputes, the suggestion that external intervention can produce legitimate outcomes without meaningful consent, and the focus on future processes rather than present justice. The institutionalisation of the two-state solution in international diplomatic discourse has created structural obstacles to the genuine resolution of the Palestine question. The framework’s emphasis on managing rather than resolving fundamental contradictions has enabled decades of expansion and consolidation while maintaining international legitimacy through the promise of future resolution. Contemporary recognition that the two-state solution has become impossible to implement creates opportunities for alternative frameworks that prioritise justice over diplomatic convenience. The decolonisation framework, emphasising the dismantling of colonial structures rather than their management, offers possibilities for genuine resolution based on equality and mutual recognition rather than continued subordination disguised through diplomatic language.
Historical Responsibility of Wider Humanity and the U.N. Assembly
The trajectory from the Balfour Declaration to the two-state solution reveals how colonial relationships can persist and evolve through successive adaptations to changing international contexts. The responsibility for this persistence extends beyond the original colonial powers to include contemporary international actors who maintain diplomatic frameworks that legitimise continued oppression while claiming to serve universal principles of justice and self-determination. Understanding this continuity requires recognition that diplomatic progress cannot be measured merely by changes in language or institutional arrangements but must be evaluated based on material changes in power relationships and the realisation of fundamental human rights. The persistence of colonial relationships through successive diplomatic frameworks demonstrates the need for approaches that prioritise substantive justice over procedural legitimacy and that recognise the agency and rights of colonised peoples rather than treating them as objects of diplomatic intervention.
The semantic parallel between historical and contemporary “two state solution” semantic ambiguity in discourse and the U.N. Assembly serves as a reminder that euphemistic discourse has consistently served to mask systematic oppression while enabling its perpetuation. The responsibility of scholars, legal practitioners, and diplomatic actors includes recognition of these patterns and commitment to frameworks that prioritise substance over appearance in the pursuit of genuine justice and lasting peace.
READ MORE:
History of the Question of Palestine – Question of Palestineun.org
Two-state solution – Wikipediawikipedia.org
One-state solution | Explained, Two-State Solution, Israel, & Map | Britannicabritannica.com
Explainer: what is the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?theconversation.com
Israeli–Palestinian conflict – Wikipediawikipedia.org
Frontiers | Annexation, normalization and the two-state solution in Israel-Palestinefrontiersin.org
Democracy and the Two-State Solution | Council on Foreign Relationscfr.org
What is the two-state solution? | Britannicabritannica.com
two state solution – Scholars at Harvardharvard.edu
Origins and Evolution of the “Two-State Solution” Terminology
1947 UN Partition Plan: The concept originated with the UN partition plan that envisaged “the division of Palestine into 3 parts: a Jewish state, an Arab State, and the City of Jerusalem, to be placed under an International Trusteeship system.” History of the Question of Palestine – Question of Palestine. However, this wasn’t yet called a “two-state solution.”
1970s-1980s Evolution: The specific terminology “two-state solution” gained prominence during the 1970s and 1980s as various diplomatic initiatives sought to resolve the conflict. During the first intifada (1987–93), Yasser Arafat of the Palestine Liberation Organization began explicitly endorsing this framework Two-state solution | Meaning, Map, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, & Borders | Britannica as Palestinian leadership moved away from the goal of liberating all of historical Palestine.
Oslo Process (1993): The first Oslo agreement in 1993 called for Palestinian self-government Democracy and the Two-State Solution | Council on Foreign Relations and formalized the two-state framework in international diplomacy, though the specific phrase was already in common usage by then.
The terminology was not introduced by any single person but evolved through diplomatic discourse as a shorthand for “a proposed approach to resolving the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, by creating two states on the territory of the former Mandatory Palestine.” Two-state solution – Wikipedia