Mohsen Pakaein, in an interview with the website of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations, described the recent initiative by France and some European countries to recognize the state of Palestine as a “political and diplomatic deception”—an action that, in his view, serves the interests of the Zionist regime rather than resolving the crisis.

According to him, “The timing of the two-state solution shows that Europe, while the genocide of the people of Gaza continues and no effective action has been taken against the Israeli regime, is trying to present a positive image of itself and calm its domestic public opinion with such initiatives.” Pakaein emphasized that “This plan is more of a propaganda cover to save the Zionist regime from the current deadlock than a real solution.”

“While European leaders, especially Emmanuel Macron, have explicitly stated that disarming Hamas and isolating the resistance is only possible through the two-state solution, it becomes clear that the main goal is to end the resistance and pave the way for the Israeli regime’s occupation, not to establish a just peace,” he added.

The international affairs analyst, reflecting on the historical background of the two-state solution, recalled: “Since 1948, after the United Nations revoked Britain’s mandate over Palestine, it approved the plan to establish two states. However, the Israeli regime not only did not comply with it but, in subsequent wars, occupied more territories, including the West Bank and Gaza. Throughout these years, the West and America have supported the Israeli regime, and the two-state solution has never been implemented.”

He added that “France’s recent initiative faces the same obstacles, as the Israeli regime fundamentally opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state, and Europe has no will to exert real pressure on Tel Aviv.”

Pakaein also addressed this initiative from the perspective of international law, noting that the establishment of an independent state requires four fundamental elements: “defined territory, stable population, government, and sovereignty.”

He said: “Today in Palestine, no defined borders remain, the population is not secure, the self-governing authority has no power in defense and foreign policy, and national sovereignty is meaningless. Even Mahmoud Abbas effectively has no power to govern this land independently.” According to this foreign policy analyst, “Without these elements, any plan to establish a Palestinian state will remain merely on paper.”

Pakaein pointed out that “the Islamic Republic of Iran years ago presented a comprehensive and executable plan at the United Nations, based on which all original inhabitants of Palestine, including Muslims, Christians, Jews, and even displaced refugees, would decide the future system of this land through a free referendum based on democratic principles.”

To explain this initiative, the analyst cited “the experience of South Africa, where, after widespread struggles against the apartheid regime and global public pressure, free elections were held, and the racist system was dismantled.” Therefore, in his opinion, “the same model can be applied in Palestine, and the future of this land should be determined not by symbolic Western plans but by the direct vote of the people.”

Pakaein concluded by saying: “Focusing on the two-state solution under current conditions ultimately benefits the Israeli regime, as eliminating resistance groups paves the way for the continuation of occupation and even the gradual destruction of Palestine.”

He emphasized that “If Europe truly seeks a just peace, instead of propaganda plans, it must exert real pressure on the Israeli regime to end the occupation and respect the human rights of the Palestinian people.”