On the Media – “David Remnick: How The Two State Solution Ended in Disaster”

Date: October 15, 2025
Hosts: Brooke Gladstone, David Remnick
Guests: Hussein Aga, Robert Malley

Overview

This episode revisits a conversation between New Yorker editor David Remnick and two veteran Middle East negotiators, Hussein Aga and Robert Malley, centering on their new book, Tomorrow Is Yesterday. The discussion explores the collapse of the two state solution as a viable path to peace between Israel and Palestine, in the wake of brutal conflict, failed diplomacy, and entrenched grievances. The conversation, rich in hard truths and blunt skepticism, questions decades of policy consensus and considers whether “peace” itself is a misleading and even harmful concept in the current environment.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Collapse of the Two State Solution

• Historical Context & Current Catastrophe (01:17–03:40)

  • The hosts reflect on the peace deal between Israel and Hamas, the devastation in Gaza, and the bleak reality after two years of escalating violence since October 7th, 2023.
  • The traditional “two state solution” is described as an illusion; both sides are further divided and hardened.
  • Remnick and the guests note that both the scale of destruction and the futility of diplomatic efforts have led to profound despair.

  “Nearly two years after the October 7th attack, the two state solution now seems like mere rhetoric, an illusion.”
  — David Remnick (01:17)

• Personal Investment and Disillusionment (03:40–04:09)

  • Aga recounts decades as a negotiator: “I was sucked back into it … I thought that I can be of some help and finished up not to be the case. So it was very, very frustrating.” (03:45)

• Misreading the Conflict: Rationality vs. Emotion (04:25–06:30)

  • Aga criticizes attempts to “solve” the conflict as technical or rational problems, arguing that Western frameworks ignore the emotional and historical wounds at the root.
  • “Rational and cool has nothing to do with the conflict...The deep issue of the psyche of both communities ... was given lip service to.” — Hussein Aga (04:50)

2. Failed Diplomacy and Dangerous Gimmicks

• American Mediation: Illusions and Hardline Realities (06:30–08:14)

  • Malley laments that U.S. engagement only worsened the situation; efforts around the two state solution not only failed but served to “perpetuate a status quo that is … opposite to the stated goal.” (08:35)
  • Other possible alternatives (confederation, shared states) were frozen out by exclusive focus on two states.
  • “It gave the Palestinians the illusion that the Americans were going to rectify the glaring imbalance... which they didn’t do.” — Robert Malley (09:16)

• Suppression and Double Standards (09:20–10:58)

  • Forms of Palestinian activism (boycotts, international courts) were discouraged “for the sake of peace,” while Israeli settlements and unilateral actions were quietly excused.

3. The Roots, Reality, and Aftermath of October 7th

• Motivations for the Attack—Myths and Realities (13:50–16:49)
  • Contrary to Western and Israeli narratives, Aga asserts that Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar was motivated mainly by a desire to free prisoners via hostage exchanges—not some grand vision to end Israel.
    • “Sinwar...thought we can kidnap more Israeli soldiers and trade them with prisoners. I think this is really...the core motivation for Sinwar for October 7, nothing more.” — Hussein Aga (14:13)
  • Malley agrees, emphasizing that the rationale was mostly about breaking international indifference to the Palestinian cause, not stopping Arab normalization with Israel.

4. Camp David, Missed Opportunities & The Power of Historical Trauma

• Revisionist History of Peace Talks (16:49–20:18)

  • Aga disputes that Arafat “walked away” from a real deal at Camp David; nothing official was on offer, only vague promises.
    • “Show me the deal that was offered in Camp David. Show me anything official that really can be construed as an offer that was rejected.” — Hussein Aga (17:25)
  • Both highlight deep psychological and historical barriers for both populations—in particular, for Palestinians, the Nakba and dispossession since 1948.
  • For Israelis, distrust is fueled by the experience of withdrawal from Gaza and Lebanon and subsequent violence.

• Failed Blueprints and Cultural Disconnect (21:19–23:31)

  • Multiple attempts at detailed peace proposals foundered because political “moments” passed, and because Israelis approach the conflict with a “cost-benefit” perspective while Palestinians are driven by emotion, dispossession, and history.

5. What Remains: Grief, Inescapable Rage, and a Broken Process

• The Futility of Prescriptions (24:08–26:36)

  • Both guests express humility and even hopelessness about the way forward.
    • “We’re not in the prescription business ... I don’t know ... the first part is obviously to put an end to this war.” — Robert Malley (24:08)
  • Malley sees little point in declarations by Western leaders unaccompanied by concrete consequences.
    • “If you want to go back ... that is where the real indictment of the Biden administration stands.” (24:24)

• Futures: Annexation, Ethnic Cleansing, or New Arrangements? (25:19–29:06)

  • Malley predicts further annexation and forms of ethnic cleansing rather than peace.
    • “If you ask me where I think we're headed, I think we're headed unfortunately towards a worsening of the situation with forms of ethnic cleansing and forms of annexation ... Even if it's not formalized, it could be ... it's happening every day on the ground.” — Robert Malley (25:57)
  • Aga calls for realistic “arrangements” like long-term truces or working coexistence, not illusions of final peace.

6. Palestinian Political Fragmentation

• A Fractured National Movement (29:55–31:29)
  • The international focus on excluding or weakening Hamas, keeping Fatah in power, and isolating the Palestinian Authority is, Malley argues, a direct product of the “peace process.” The result is a divided, impotent, feckless leadership.
  • Aga notes that “The Palestinians were not interested in governance. And governance...came as an afterthought.”

7. The Iran Question and Israeli Strategy

• Iran’s Actual and Perceived Role (31:29–34:37)

  • Guests agree Iran wants influence and has a “ring of fire” strategy, but there is little evidence of tactical coordination for October 7th.
    • “If this was a plan ... the time to do was October 8th. Right. Israel was at its weakest.” — Robert Malley (32:20)
  • Netanyahu’s priority has long been to bury the Palestinian issue and focus international attention on Iran’s nuclear program.

• JCPOA Withdrawal & Muddling the Nuclear File (34:14–35:39)

  • Malley highlights the contradiction of Israeli and US approaches, arguing the US withdrawal from the nuclear deal strengthened Iran’s desire for a deterrent.

8. The Role and Limits of the United States

• Bleak Assessment of American Policy (36:37–37:42)

  • Malley suggests the best the US can do is “do no harm,” implying disengagement might do less damage than misguided intervention.
  • There’s faint hope that new attitudes among younger Americans might create political space for a more honest US approach someday.

• Potential Promise of Broader Arab Engagement (37:42–39:15)

  • Aga advocates for Palestinians to be part of a larger Arab negotiating bloc, using the Abraham Accords’ framework to amplify their leverage and secure needed concessions.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

On Futility and “Dangerous Gimmicks”

• “The two state solution ... in the Israeli interpretation, a demilitarized Palestinian state side by side with a shared Jerusalem and so on ... that was a dangerous gimmick.”
  — David Remnick (08:14)

On Western Exclusion of Palestinian Emotions

• “Rational and cool has nothing to do with the conflict ... The language used was to find kind of solutions that have a technical outcome that are measurable and that can be portrayed by lines on maps...”
  — Hussein Aga (04:25–05:27)

On Negotiation Myths

• “Show me the deal that was offered in Camp David. Show me anything official that really can be construed as an offer that was rejected.”
  — Hussein Aga (17:25)

On Gaza’s “Resolution”

• “I do not believe in the resolution of the conflict anymore. I think it’s the kind of conflict that will not be resolved. I believe in arrangements.”
  — Hussein Aga (27:54)

On where the conflict is headed

• “I think we’re headed unfortunately towards a worsening of the situation with forms of ethnic cleansing and forms of annexation ... it’s happening every day on the ground.”
  — Robert Malley (25:57)

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Timestamp | Segment Description | |------------|----------------------------------------------------------------| | 01:17 | Remnick’s introduction: Illusion of the two state solution | | 04:25 | Aga on Western misreading—rationality vs. emotion | | 07:02 | Malley on US involvement and peace process deception | | 09:20 | How two state rhetoric suppressed activism and excused settlements | | 13:50 | What motivated Sinwar and Hamas on October 7th? | | 17:25 | The Camp David “deal” myth and Arafat’s real motives | | 21:39 | Failed proposals and irreconcilable emotional/historical wounds| | 24:08 | Why the guests “aren’t in the prescription business” | | 25:57 | “Ethnic cleansing and annexation”—Malley predicts the future | | 27:54 | Aga: Only arrangements, not resolutions, are realistic | | 29:55 | The fractured Palestinian polity—cause and consequence | | 31:29 | Iran’s involvement and Netanyahu’s long game | | 34:14 | America, Iran, and the collapse of the nuclear deal | | 36:37 | Malley: “Do no harm” is best current US policy | | 37:42 | Aga: Abraham Accords as a platform for further negotiations |

Tone and Language

• Direct, unsparing, and often despairing.
• Marked by deep skepticism and a refusal to indulge in “phony optimism.”
• The guests and host are both emotionally invested and intellectually rigorous, blending memoir-style recollection with sharp political critique.

Conclusion

This episode presents a thought-provoking and deeply sobering exploration of why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has eluded resolution and why the “two state solution” may have been, at best, a well-meaning mirage or, at worst, a harmful distraction. The guests bring unique credibility—having spent decades in the diplomatic trenches—but as the conversation makes clear, their years of experience have only deepened their pessimism about final-status agreements and the kind of “solutions” that dominate Western policymaking. In their view, only radically new thinking—about coexistence, process, and the emotional-historical foundations of the conflict—can create space even for imperfect arrangements, let alone peace.