Are the Politics of a Two State Solution Now Little More an Agit-Prop?; is Agit-Prop Little Anymore? Secretary Marco Rubio: "United States Rejects A Two-State Solution Conference"

 

Pix credit here

 

Agit-prop, or more formally perhaps agitation-propaganda, was one of the great gifts of the revolutionary disruptions of the late 19th and early 20thcenturies. It combines two elements of revolutionary action necessary for a determined but capable group of dedicated individuals (usually in their minds representing the most advanced social forces of the particular stage of history in which they were fortunate enough to live in--for Bolsheviks Lenin's professional revolutionaries; for Western intellectuals more informally). The first is agitation. Agitation suggests action. It is action with a purpose, one that necessarily brings something--an idea, an injustice, an absurdity, a call for action, or a provocation that successfully tempts an enemy into overreaction--to the otherwise passive masses inducing sympathy or action.  The second is propaganda. Propaganda suggests education. It is education with a purpose--first to discredit or question the foundational props of the social ordering that is the object of attack, and then to suggest in the most ideal terms possible, the glorious alternative which they serve as champions, interpreters, guides and (in the case of Leninist revolutionaries and other evangels) leaders. Revolutionary praxis is, in a sense, that magical combination of action inducing change--externally in the circumstances and distribution of power; internally in the way that it naturalizes a competing cognitive cage within the masses which changes the calculus of what appears natural, right, just and inevitable. 

Agit-prop itself has become naturalized within the instrumental palettes of political action across the range of contemporary ways of understanding (rationalizing) the world and from that deriving an aligned ideological framework for its curation and the better management of masses. By the end of the last century and like comedy, agit-prop has come to insinuate itself across a broad range of expressive vehicles, causes, and operationalization regimes. In the process it has escaped the confines of its origins in Bolshevik practice, as well as its narrow intellectual game playing that  reached it first wave refined heights in pre-World War 2 Europe in its classical forms of (now mainstream) political theater, art, and other manifestations tied to cultural production.   

Pix credit here

By the end of the first quarter of the 21st century, it has become clear that virtually anyone can engage in agit-prop.  Street people with local causes, better organized local, regional, national, or international organizations can organize actions of agitation and propaganda, sometimes on a vast scale.  Sometimes these are stunts that are geared toward leveraging willing press and other public organs to amplify their effects through reporting (and analysis aligned with the theme of the agitation). Nonetheless, the techniques of agit-prop appear to be  most useful as instruments of state policy. These can also be leveraged by the coordinated use of street level agitation projected into target communities within or outside their national borders. The so-called Gaza flotillas provide an excellent example of the contemporary forms of layered agit-prop with significant leveraging effects (for reporting eg here). This is neither to suggest its "value" as a normative object; it is merely to suggest that as technique for the ordering and disciplining of a reality  necessary to justify any sort of action, agit-prop is an increasingly useful and used tool of managing mass opinion--something necessary in order to comply with the niceties of democratic governance and its rule of/by law mechanisms.  Nonetheless it bears remembering that agit.prop is used precisely because under current conditions it appears to be a highly effective means of managing a situation successfully.

 It is in that context that one might most usefully approach both the United Nation's "Two State Solution Conference" and the response of the United States to that event. The Conference, billed as a "high-level conference on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine and the implementation of the two-State solution" (UN News here).  

The three-day conference, mandated by the General Assembly through resolutions ES-10/24 and 79/81 and co-organized by France and Saudi Arabia, brings together Member States, observers and regional stakeholders. It features plenary discussions and thematic roundtables on issues ranging from security arrangements and humanitarian response to reconstruction and economic viability. (UN News here).  

That framework, though, provided the agitation space within which a specific propaganda view could be solidified.  Its lebenswelt (the naturalization of which within the structires of global mass understanding) was nicely performed by Secretary General Guterres:

Mr. Guterres delivered a stark message about the urgency of action and the cost of delay. “For decades, Middle East diplomacy has been far more process than peace,” he said. “Words, speeches, declarations may not have much meaning to those on the ground. They have seen it before. They have heard it before. Meanwhile, destruction and annexation bulldoze ahead.”He reiterated that the only just and sustainable path forward is the establishment of two independent, democratic States – Israel and Palestine – living side by side in peace and security, with Jerusalem as the capital, based on pre-1967 lines and in line with international law and UN resolutions. Mr. Guterres challenged those resisting that vision. “What is the alternative? A one-State reality where Palestinians are denied equal rights, and forced to live under perpetual occupation and inequality? A one-State reality where Palestinians are expelled from their land?” he asked. “That is not peace. That is not justice. And that is not acceptable.” (UN News here).  

Pix credit UN News here

A marvelous piece of agit-prop in its current sense. It was all the more marvelous for the way in which it produced an alignment of layered longitudinally effective lower level agit-prop elements with the formalities and theater of organized political authority at the national and international levels. It produced an effect of both naturalness and consensus--building on itself from both the top down (the UN event) and the bottom up (street level agit prop). One is reminded in this case of the opening scene of the 3 Penny Opera with the Shill inviting us into the world that would be revealed in the course of the play and to which one would develop a "natural" sympathy.  Its value is measured, of course, by its effectiveness; and its effectiveness is a function of the ability of agitation to draw attention and of propaganda to deeply penetrate. 

 

Pix credit here

Given contemporary realities of political communication at this stage of historical development, the only possible response would have also been an agitation theatrics of equal intensity. But that was not forthcoming. Instead, the United States delivered a statement of the obvious: that the U.N. was producing a fine piece of agitation-propaganda with respect to which the United States would have no part.  The concession of the form and value of the UN gathering--something like the modern form of a play be Berthold Brecht in 1920s Berlin but now with more punch, may satisfy theorists who are interested in such things--as things, events, or forms of action.  But from the perspective of U-S policy it does very little. The only counter to agit-prop is more agit-prop. To misunderstand or dismiss the power of agit-.prop, relentlessly deployed within a highly curated environment for agitation and propaganda is to misunderstand the phenomenology of politics and its reality bending objectives in the current age. That is something the United States does at its own peril. Or it can just concede and join the masses. The only way to manage communication, interpretation, and the ordering premises of mass reality to to shape it, do it, organize it, and have the stamina to make it so. For that agit-prop is a necessary element. It is one worth investing in. Just ask those who participated in the event.

The United States was quite correct in calling out the agit-prop of the event in which it refused to participate. Nonetheless it might have been better at offering its own form of agitation and done a better job managing its propaganda for effective penetration into the consciousness of the masses and as an element its peers might be able to embrace.  For that the absence of street level agit prop remains a major gap.

The Response of the State Department follows below in full.

Postscript: On 31 July 2025 the4 Department of State announced  (via a media note) Sanctioning Officials of the Palestinian Authority and Members of the Palestine Liberation Organization 

The State Department has reported to Congress that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Palestinian Authority (PA) are not in compliance with their commitments under the PLO Commitments Compliance Act of 1989 (PLOCCA) and the Middle East Peace Commitments Act of 2002 (MEPCA), including by initiating and supporting actions at international organizations that undermine and contradict prior commitments in support of Security Council Resolution 242 and 338, taking actions to internationalize its conflict with Israel such as through the International Criminal Court (ICC) and International Court of Justice (ICJ), continuing to support terrorism including incitement and glorification of violence (especially in textbooks), and providing payments and benefits in support of terrorism to Palestinian terrorists and their families. The United States is imposing sanctions that deny visas to PLO members and PA officials in accordance with section 604(a)(1) of the MEPCA.  It is in our national security interests to impose consequences and hold the PLO and PA accountable for not complying with their commitments and undermining the prospects for peace.

 

United States Rejects A Two-State Solution Conference

Press Statement

Tammy Bruce, Department Spokesperson

July 28, 2025

This week, the UN will serve as host to an unproductive and ill-timed conference on the two-state solution in New York City.  This is a publicity stunt that comes in the middle of delicate diplomatic efforts to end the conflict.  Far from promoting peace, the conference will prolong the war, embolden Hamas, and reward its obstruction and undermine real-world efforts to achieve peace.

As Secretary Rubio has made clear, this effort is a slap in the face to the victims of October 7^th and a reward for terrorism.  It keeps hostages trapped in tunnels.  The United States will not participate in this insult but will continue to lead real-world efforts to end the fighting and deliver a permanent peace.  Our focus remains on serious diplomacy: not stage-managed conferences designed to manufacture the appearance of relevance.

President Macron’s announcement about recognizing a Palestinian state was welcomed by Hamas.  This reflects a pattern of counterproductive gestures that only emboldens Hamas, encourages its obstruction of a ceasefire, and greatly undercuts our diplomatic efforts to end the suffering in Gaza, free the hostages, and move the whole Middle East towards a brighter and more prosperous future.