INTERVIEW ⟩ Palestinian Foreign Minister: Our People Need a Future Worth Living For

And it’s a war without purpose. What is the goal of this war? Today, 80 percent of Gaza lies in ruins. The healthcare system is destroyed. The education system is destroyed. There are no public services. 2.3 million people have been repeatedly displaced. People are starving. What is happening in Gaza is indefensible.

Food has been turned into a weapon. Where else in the world do we see that? You see children on television whose ribs are visible. And those who believe in basic human decency can no longer tolerate it.

Interviewer: You mentioned the upcoming conference in New York. What concrete outcome would you hope to see from it?

Aghabekian: The conference will focus on three main themes. First, the recognition of the State of Palestine. We expect at least a few—perhaps two or three—more countries to take that step.

This recognition is not merely symbolic. Some may think it's just another number, that 149 becomes 152 or 153. But it sends a clear message to Israel that these countries recognize Palestine as a state, with borders as defined in the 1947 agreement.

However, recognition alone is not enough unless it is paired with a political roadmap to implement it. That’s the second component: the realization or materialization of statehood.

The third is development—designing assistance programs. For the West Bank, that means thinking in terms of development. For Gaza, it means emergency aid and reconstruction plans.

These plans have already been drafted and approved by all Arab states. We've also received strong signals from Europe and beyond that the plan is realistic and actionable—if there is political will. We’re looking for international commitment to fund and support these efforts.

Interviewer: Just to clarify—what exactly does the second point entail?

Aghabekian: The materialization of statehood means that if a country claims to uphold international law and a rules-based international order—and if, for example, the ICJ (International Court of Justice) has issued a ruling that the occupation must end—then third-party states have legal obligations. This also applies to the issue of settlements.

There are a number of actions countries can take to oppose settlement expansion. For instance, if settlers hold dual citizenship—say, if Estonian citizens are living in illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land—those individuals can be subject to diplomatic or legal pressure.

Countries can boycott goods produced in settlements, which are illegal under international law. Sanctions can be imposed on settlers who violate the law. If there are organizations in Estonia, for example, that fund settlement activity, steps could be taken against that.

The idea is to target all the individual components that obstruct the creation of a Palestinian state and address them one by one. A monitoring mechanism could also be developed to assess which countries are complying, what challenges exist, and so forth.

Interviewer: What is the current status of the two-state solution? Is there any real progress?

Aghabekian: That’s a good question, because most people assume the two-state solution is dead. But it isn’t—because it remains the only viable solution. Everyone, even the United States, says the two-state solution is the most sustainable path forward. The only country that rejects it is Israel.

Israel doesn’t want two states and has made it clear that it does not support the establishment of a Palestinian state. So what does Israel want? To maintain the status quo, which is not sustainable. Israel is heading toward an apartheid system, which is also unsustainable. If Israel doesn’t want two states, would it accept one state where Palestinians have equal rights as citizens? No. That’s why the two-state solution is still the most realistic and durable option.

This guarantees Israel peace and security, and the freedom to govern itself as it sees fit. For Palestinians, it guarantees the rights laid out under international law. International law recognizes the existence of two states—back in 1947, when the land was partitioned, two states were envisioned. Israel has since been established. Now it’s time to establish the second state.

Israel must not hold on to the illusion that it can continue expanding, occupying all of historic Palestine, and even pushing into neighboring countries. That has to stop. If it doesn’t, the cycle of violence will continue.

Interviewer: Realistically speaking, from your perspective, should Palestine also make any concessions to Israel in order to reach this goal?

Aghabekian: Palestine already made the greatest concession—by giving up 78 percent of historic Palestinian land. The original partition plan gave Israel 54 percent. Today, Israel controls 78 percent, including internationally recognized Israeli territory and the occupied Palestinian territories.

So, having already conceded 78 percent, the remaining 22 percent is no longer up for negotiation if we are to have a state of our own. That said, in the interest of peace, Palestine is willing to sit at the table with Israel—if Israel states that it recognizes the existence of a Palestinian state on the remaining 22 percent.

We can discuss land swaps, adjustments to the borders—that’s all negotiable. But only after Israel recognizes Palestine’s right to exist and agrees to respect what international law has already granted. Without that, there can be no progress and no peace—for Palestinians, Israelis, or the wider region.

If Israel believes that what it has done in Gaza will bring peace to the country, it is being deeply naive. When a population has been crushed, when 30,000 or even 40,000 children are left orphaned, when children have lost limbs—what kind of future can they possibly see?

Palestinians need to feel that there is a future worth living for. Otherwise, they are pulled toward death. Right now, everything in Gaza reeks of death. Is that the future we want for our children? No. Only peace—and respect for justice—can offer them a light at the end of the tunnel.

Interviewer: If the two-state solution were ever fully implemented, who would govern Palestine?

Aghabekian: The body with a mandate over all of Palestine is the PLO—the Palestine Liberation Organization. All Palestinian political factions should fall under the PLO umbrella.

Any faction can join, but they must respect the PLO’s mandate and the agreements it has signed. They must accept the PLO’s vision for Palestine and its vision for peace. Only then can they be part of the PLO. If not, they cannot participate in governance.

Anyone who wants to be part of a future government must be under the PLO and come to power through democratic elections. At the moment, we cannot hold elections—because we can’t do so without Gaza, and we can’t do so without East Jerusalem, which was annexed by Israel in 1980 but remains part of the occupied territories.

Interviewer: Holding elections in Gaza might lead to difficult outcomes, especially if support for Hamas has not declined—perhaps even increased in light of recent events.

Aghabekian: Despite Israel’s actions, people are deeply exhausted by the occupation and the relentless cycle of violence they’re trapped in. But if Hamas wants to be part of Palestinian politics, it must accept the PLO’s vision. Otherwise, it cannot take part in the electoral process.

The current vision is one of a unified Palestine—under a single governing authority, with a unified mandate and unified security forces. The time for division is over.

Interviewer: But if Hamas were to win a future election by a large margin, that would give it significant political power.

Aghabekian: Then it would be part of the PLO and, by doing so, would have accepted the PLO’s mandate.

Interviewer: Let’s turn to Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu’s government won’t last forever. Do you see any indication that things might improve for Palestinians under a different Israeli leader?

Aghabekian: Yes, Netanyahu is certainly harmful to the Palestinian cause—but it’s not just about him. It’s about Israeli politics in general, which has followed the same trajectory since 1948: an expansionist ideology and the belief that more land can be occupied. We’ve seen left-wing, right-wing, and centrist governments, but the policy has remained the same.

So yes, Netanyahu needs to go—but more importantly, the policy must change. If there’s to be peace, Israel cannot continue waging war against its neighbors or clinging to expansionist ambitions.

Interviewer: Do you think the current violence in Gaza increases the likelihood that future Israeli governments might reconsider their policies?

Aghabekian: Hopefully. We’re now hearing from former generals, former security officials, and former politicians in Israel who are saying this cannot go on—that what Israel is doing is indefensible. The more voices like that we hear inside Israel, the better. And we must seize that momentum.

Interviewer: What is the current state of Palestine’s relations with Arab countries? Are there any major political disagreements that need to be resolved?

Aghabekian: There are no major disagreements. I believe there is broad consensus regarding the future of Gaza. There is agreement on the role—or rather the absence of a role—for Hamas. There is consensus on unified security forces. And there is agreement that the Palestinian Authority should take over governance in Gaza, and that Palestinians must not be displaced.

Today, there is more unity than ever. We’ve seen this clearly in the last two summits, where Arab countries stated unequivocally that they do not support the displacement of Palestinians. They support the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza, call for a ceasefire and an end to the war, and oppose normalization of relations [with Israel] unless there is a clear political path forward. That is extremely important for Palestinians.

Saudi Arabia, alongside France, is co-chairing the June 17 conference in New York, and also led the “Global Alliance for the Implementation of the Two-State Solution” initiative, which includes Saudi Arabia, Norway, and the European Union. This platform has the support of 94 countries and organizations.

Interviewer: It’s quite clear that the greatest influence over Israeli policy lies with the United States. Do Arab countries—especially Saudi Arabia—have any leverage to shape U.S. policy?

Aghabekian: I believe Saudi Arabia can do a great deal. It carries significant weight—not just economically, but also in terms of its political influence across the Arab world and globally. The fact that it has strong ties with the United States is, of course, very important—because geopolitics is ultimately driven by interests.

We’re beginning to see certain shifts in U.S. policy, even if they’re slow. President Biden has done things without fully coordinating with Israel—something that would have been unthinkable in the past. That in itself is a signal to Israel that it needs to move forward. As I said, progress is slow, but it’s still progress.

This may also be a message to Israel: that making peace is in its own interest. The current path is not sustainable. War is not sustainable—peace is.

Interviewer: In terms of global diplomacy, to what extent do you see Western countries aligning their positions with that of Washington?

Aghabekian: I think there’s a general understanding that, ultimately, everything hinges on Washington. Securing U.S. support is seen as essential. But significant weight also lies with the European Union and the Arab world. In the end, national interests will shape what happens going forward.

The old myth that Israel is a “democratic oasis” in a barbaric region no longer holds much weight. We don’t hear as often anymore that countries “share values” with Israel. What values are those exactly? Occupation? A genocidal war? What values do the EU or the U.S. supposedly share with Israel? Yes, Israel is a democracy—but it's a democracy for Jewish citizens only, not for everyone who lives there.

Interviewer: Looking ahead, what are the next steps for Palestinian representatives?

Aghabekian: The next steps involve rallying global support behind the peace process. The upcoming June conference and the Global Alliance are crucial. Achieving a ceasefire is absolutely essential—we must stop the killing of civilians and halt the spread of hunger. We must ensure that what is happening in Gaza does not spill over into the West Bank. We know what that would mean—it would be catastrophic.

These are the issues we must work on. But we cannot do it alone. We need the world to stand with us.