Sa’ar’s twisted narrative on the two-state paradigm and Israel’s colonial expansion

Newly appointed Israeli Foreign Minister, Gideon Sa’ar, gave a perfect example of how colonialism twists narratives for political gain. “I don’t think this position is realistic today and we must be realistic,” Sa’ar stated, with regard to the possibility of establishing a Palestinian State within the context of normalisation of relations. He defined a Palestinian State as “a Hamas state”.

The Abraham Accords are back at the helm of US-Israeli political speculation, although now the genocide in Gaza and the narrative spun by Israel about Hamas need to be taken into consideration. As for Sa’ar, there are many instances of him openly opposing the two-state paradigm and speaking in favour of settlement expansion and annexation.

“There is no two-state solution; there is at most a two-state slogan,” Sa’ar had declared in 2019. And there is nothing to counteract his statement. The two-state paradigm was never invented for implementation, but as veneer for Israel’s settlement expansion, while forcing Palestinians into abiding by hypothetical unrealistic ideas. Israel’s existence depends upon ethnic cleansing, expansion and replacing the indigenous population with complicit settlers. How can a Palestinian state emerge if settler-colonialism is not at least halted and, at best, dismantled?

However, Sa’ar calling for a reality-check on the two-state politics must take into consideration that Israel created another reality for Palestinians, one where Gaza is already experiencing genocide, and where the Occupied West Bank is also under grave threat from Israel and its settlers alike. Sa’ar’s “realistic” stance is a statement that normalises genocide and the excuse under which genocide was committed – the so-called threat from Hamas.

Is Sa’ar advocating for normalising genocide in a way that allows Israel to butcher Palestinians indefinitely? The almost but not quite rhetoric in terms of eliminating Hamas, which the US promoted for Israel to prolong the genocide, works well for Sa’ar’s vision. However, statistics clearly show Israel’s genocide targeting Palestinian civilians. The international community’s disrespect for Palestinian civilians in Gaza could not have been displayed more prominently than through the almost unanimous refusal to call out Israel’s genocide, particularly in the West. And given the international community’s adherence to the two-state politics, as well as its refusal to recognise the results of the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections in which Hamas won, Sa’ar will definitely find allies among Western leaders for his genocidal vision.

Although Sa’ar has opposed the return of Israeli settlers to Gaza within the genocide context, he was also opposed to the 2005 disengagement from Gaza. “There is no international consensus for this,” Sa’ar had said about Israeli settlements in Gaza. International consensus is not a strong position unless the international community takes a stance in favour of decolonisation, and Israel has consistently widened the parameters of what the international community deems acceptable.

International consensus is just as a much a slogan as the two-state paradigm, to use Sa’ar’s term. And this is the danger for Palestinians, and has always been. The international community has coerced the Palestinian people into waiting for colonialism and imperialism to declare and implement their politics, define their consensus and create weak spaces of humanitarian relief. What happens if Israel decides, as it does in the Occupied West Bank, to challenge the international consensus on Gaza?  The international community’s consensus is much stronger on its abandonment of Gaza, than it is against Israel’s ongoing colonial expansion.

Sa’ar’s twisted narrative on the two-state paradigm and Israel’s colonial expansion