US Vows to Oppose an Independent Palestinian State
In a significant departure from longstanding US foreign policy, the United States has effectively abandoned the goal of facilitating an independent Palestinian state. This pivot was articulated by the US Ambassador to Israel, who stated that the Biden administration is no longer actively pursuing the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel. The announcement solidifies a trend of increasing American alignment with Israeli nationalist policies, while drawing criticism from international human rights organizations and Arab and Muslim-majority countries.
Rejection of the Two-State Framework
For decades, the two-state solution has been the cornerstone of US-led efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Envisioned as a way to guarantee both Israeli security and Palestinian self-determination, the model has been repeatedly endorsed in UN resolutions, US diplomatic statements, and international peace initiatives. The current US stance, however, reflects a calculated abandonment of that vision, indicating that Washington now views alternative arrangements—implicitly favoring perpetual Israeli control over Palestinian territories—as more “realistic.”
This policy shift coincides with Israel’s ongoing expansion of settlements in the West Bank, its refusal to re-engage in negotiations under international mediation, and its declared security doctrine which sees full control from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea as non-negotiable.
Mike Huckabee’s Controversial Proposal
Adding further fuel to the controversy, former Arkansas Governor and influential evangelical figure Mike Huckabee recently suggested that any future Palestinian state should be carved out of “a Muslim country,” rather than being established in historic Palestine. This proposal, widely criticized as colonial and racist, echoes a growing sentiment among US right-wing politicians and evangelical groups who regard Israel as a divinely mandated state and dismiss Palestinian claims to the land.
Huckabee’s statement underscores a disturbing ideological fusion of religious fundamentalism and geopolitics, where the fate of an entire people is discussed in terms of ethnic and religious relocation, rather than sovereignty and justice.
Implications for Palestinians
The US policy shift effectively greenlights Israeli annexation and further marginalizes Palestinian political aspirations. It also undermines moderate Palestinian leaders who have engaged for decades in negotiations under the belief that the US would act as a credible mediator. Without international guarantees or a viable path to statehood, Palestinians are left with little political leverage, increasing the likelihood of more unrest, radicalization, and international isolation.
Furthermore, the change diminishes the role of international law, especially United Nations Security Council resolutions that affirm the right of Palestinians to self-determination and label the Israeli occupation and settlements as illegal.
UNSC Veto: Unilateral Defense of Israel
On June 4, 2025, the United States was the lone dissenter in a UN Security Council vote on a resolution calling for an immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire in Gaza. The resolution, supported by 14 of the 15 council members, included provisions for humanitarian aid access and the unconditional release of hostages held by Hamas. Yet, the US exercised its veto power, citing concerns that the resolution failed to include any concrete mechanisms for Hamas disarmament or address the root causes of the conflict from Israel’s security perspective.
According to US officials, any resolution that does not account for Israel’s “right to self-defense” and its strategic goal to dismantle Hamas’ military infrastructure is unacceptable. This veto, while controversial, is part of a broader trend of the US shielding Israel from international pressure, even as the humanitarian toll in Gaza escalates.
Regional and Global Reactions
Arab and Muslim-majority countries have condemned the policy reversal, seeing it as a betrayal of Palestinian rights and a destabilizing move in an already volatile region. Even some of America’s traditional allies in Europe have expressed unease, noting that the abandonment of the two-state solution renders future negotiations meaningless and sets a dangerous precedent for other territorial disputes worldwide.
Iran, Turkey, and Qatar have used the opportunity to rally diplomatic and public opinion against US policy, while more moderate nations like Jordan and Egypt face increasing pressure from their own populations to distance themselves from Washington.
Conclusion: A Permanent Apartheid Reality?
Critics argue that the new US position signals not just policy stagnation but acceptance—if not endorsement—of a permanent system of occupation and apartheid. With no viable path to statehood, Palestinians are increasingly trapped in a stateless limbo under military rule, with diminished rights and no recourse to international justice.
The shift marks a turning point in the Middle East conflict: the United States, once seen as a broker of peace (however flawed), now appears as an open opponent of Palestinian independence. This stark reality could have lasting implications for American credibility, global diplomacy, and the prospects for justice in Palestine.
Word Count: 764 words
