Will the Palestinian State ever be a reality?

The UAE-Israel accord speaks of a "negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that meets the legitimate needs and aspirations of both peoples." No one could explain what this means. It is so because it does not speak of Palestinian State or Palestina. It only speaks of a solution to the Palestinian conflict with Israel.

The words sound right, but are missing one essential and obvious phrase, a Palestinian state. After all, what solution is sought for the Palestinians if not that, so why not just state it? The omission of any reference to Palestinian statehood is particularly strange at this stage in the game. The Trump administration had already committed to a two-state resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in its January peace plan.

If Palestinian statehood can be put it in writing in January, why not do so in September? Netanyahu already pledged his support for a two-state resolution to the conflict in his famous 2009 Bar-Ilan speech. Just in case there was any room for doubt Netanyahu has also committed to the Trump peace plan. One speculative possibility is that the documents were designed to avoid any controversial topics, so they could easily be ratified by the Israeli government and Knesset, where there is strong opposition to Palestinian statehood.

Whatever the reason, without a specific reference to a Palestinian state, a door is left open to the possibility that a resolution to the conflict might not involve such Palestinian sovereignty, even the demilitarised one that Netanyahu has envisioned. To underscore this point, Netanyahu did not reference Palestinian statehood at the White House ceremony.

Also absent from Netanyahu's rhetoric of a former soldier seeking to lay down the guns of war, was any mention of his extended hand to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas or in fact any plea for Palestinian peace.

Instead, Netanyahu spoke of ending the Israeli-Arab conflict, as if to swallow the suddenly silent Palestinian issue, within the larger regional unrest. Trump spoke of Palestinians coming to the negotiating table, but ignored Palestinian statehood.

The closest they came was a reference made by bin Zayed, in which he thanked Netanyahu for "halting the annexation of Palestinian territories." In other words, the very territory that Israel has planned to annex and to which the Right already believes must be an integral part of sovereign Israel, remains in their eyes, Palestinian territory.

In reality they reflect a dramatic regional change that involve a new Israeli-Gulf alliance against Iran and a complex upgrade of military equipment for Gulf states that could threaten Israel's 'Qualitative Military Edge'. This includes the possible US sale to the sophisticated F-35 fighter jets to the UAE. During Oslo accord of 1993 too, it seemed as if peace and Palestinian statehood were just around the corner.

No party to these Accords has any incentive to abide by it in the long run. The best they can manage is to hold on to it till November 3. Any accord should have the consent of all parties involved, directly or indirectly. Just because Trump wants a Nobel Peace Prize, two warring countries in a region cannot sustain an accord.