A Two-State Solution?

by Eduardo del Buey

A Two State Solution?

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

Often misattributed to Albert Einstein

Very often, and after an Israeli attack on Hamas or Hezbollah, Gaza or Lebanon, leaders around the world glibly call for a two-state solution in the Middle East as though this could be done easily and would eliminate the intense hatred that has bound them in an endless cycle of violence for over a century.

The goal continues to elude us and will continue to do so for some time to come.

The pogrom in Amsterdam this weekend underscores the intentions and objectives of Islamist terrorism ostensibly in the name of Palestinians and its consequent negative impact on any possibility of rapprochement between both sides.

Israelis and Palestinians are locked into their respective positions, and no leaders on either side appear to have support, political will, or viable plan for pursuing a two-state solution.

There are two wars underway in the Middle East – one pits Israel against Arab states that reject its existence, and the other pits Israel against Islamist terrorism as represented by Hamas and Hezbollah.

The wars between Arab states and Israel appear to be waning, with many Arab states in formal or informal relationships with Israel and standing together against their common enemy – Iran.

Two tectonic shifts occurred in the region in the late 1970’s: the election of Menachem Begin as Prime Minister of Israel in 1977 and the Iranian revolution of 1979 that brought to power an expansionist Shia regime determined to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and export its revolution throughout the Middle East and beyond.

The process of kicking the Palestinian issue down the road by both Israel and many Arab states began with the election in 1977 of Menachem Begin. His party, Likud, had always stood against any compromise with the Palestinians.

By 1977, the Sephardic Diaspora that had come to Israel after being expelled by Arab states after the war of independence achieved political power commensurate with their numbers.

They had no sympathy for the very Arabs who had ejected them from their homes, and they quickly adopted the nationalistic objectives promoted by Likud.

Mr. Begin saw the possibility of dividing the Arab world by pursuing a peace deal with Egypt’s Anwar Sadat. This deal left the Palestinian issue dormant. Egypt recognized Israel, signed a peace deal, and established diplomatic relations.

In 1994, Jordan followed suit.

Today, many Arab countries are finding an accommodation with Israel through the so-called Abraham Accords introduced by the Trump administration. This has enhanced the security of these Arab states in their fight with a greater enemy – Iran.  

Mr. Trump’s victory on November 5^th leads me to believe that the incoming administration will enhance the Abraham accords and provide the Mr. Netanyahu with the support that his government needs to eliminate the dream of Palestinian statehood for good and make peace with a Arab states.

This would end the possibility of a two-state solution indefinitely.

The Palestinian movements today appear to be reduced to terrorist groups bereft of credible leadership, capable governance, and Arab support. The Palestinian Authority is a sclerotic and corrupt institution and has little influence over events. Its leader, Mahmoud Abbas represents no one of consequence.

The only two times that the Middle East appeared to be close to a peace deal was when Israel was governed by non-Likud governments. On both occasions, Yasser Arafat rejected deals that would have given the Palestinians 97% of the territory they sought and East Jerusalem as the capital of an independent Palestinian state.

Instead, Mr. Arafat unleashed violent intifadas that destroyed any confidence that most Israelis could have had in a peaceful Palestinian state.

Benjamin Netanyahu has built upon this growing rejection by many Israelis of a two-state solution, and this has resulted in little if any confidence on the part of a majority of Israelis to accept Palestinians as potential partners for peace.  

The Hamas massacre of October 7^th and Israel’s overwhelming military response to both Hamas and Hezbollah since have resulted in much bloodshed and a worsening of an already bad situation.

Israel is divided between those who oppose the Netanyahu government and those who seek to keep it in power through its alliance with extremist expansionist religious parties.

At this stage, conditions on the ground make it very difficult for any potential Israeli leader to create the coalition required to attract Israelis to the peace table and negotiate an eventual two-state solution.  

The Palestinians, backed by Iran, lack any credible leadership with the broad support required to forge a consensus for a realistic peace which realistically must include a recognition of Israel’s right to exist.

As the old saying goes, it takes two to tango, and there don’t seem to be any willing or able dancers.

A Gallup poll taken in Israel in December 2023 showed that 65% of Israeli Jews opposed a two-state solution. Moreover, Prime Minister Netanyahu and his cabinet hate the idea. They oscillate from maintaining the status quo to outright annexation, with some radicals calling for the expulsion of the Arab populations not only from the territories but also from Israel proper.

Seventy four percent of Israelis hold no hope for a peace agreement for both sides, and this figure is not expected to change anytime soon.

On the Palestinian side, a recent Palestine Center for Public Opinion poll reported that less than 40 percent of the Palestinian public—in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem—supports a two-state solution over one-state alternatives. Support for a two-state solution has declined steadily since 2018. Indeed, most Palestinians support the vicious terrorist attack of October 7^th and refuse to overthrow the Hamas government.

Furthermore, most Palestinians believe that a two-state solution is unlikely to emerge from the conflict. Instead, many say they want to reclaim all of the territory, including the pre-1967 Israel.

In short, many Palestinians and their international supporters believe that Israel and all Jews must be wiped off the face of the earth as they have repeatedly claimed publicly for a long time.

Calls around the world for global intifada by Palestinian sympathizers underscores this reality.

Recent polling from PCPSR finds support among Palestinians and Israeli Jews for a two-state solution has dropped to 43 percent and 42 percent, respectively.

A recent Center for Stratigic and International Studies (CSIS) report concludes that growing Israeli anger and the hardline nature of the Netanyahu-dominated joint government—its past support of new settlements and hardline anti-Palestinian positions—make it all too likely that Israel’s solution to “peace” could well be to isolate or occupy Gaza and continue occupying the West Bank.

The United Nations has no credibility with Israel and is seen by Israelis as a prime supporter of Islamist terrorism in the territories. UNRWA’s direct participation in Hamas and Hezbollah’s terrorist activities, and UNIFIL’s failure to contain Hezbollah far from the Lebanon-Israeli border as stipulated in relevant Security Council resolutions and, indeed, its complicity with Hezbollah, are prime reasons for this mistrust.

Thus, to those who glibly provide bromides calling for a two-state solution without taking into account how improbable this is given the realities of the region’s politics, I would ask in what world are they are operating?

Neither side has the leadership or popular support to pursue the type of negotiations that would call for the internal political changes required to create a realistic basis for credible negotiations.

No global leader or institution has the credibility with both Palestinians and Israel to bring both sides to the table given the climate of enmity present in both camps.

This is why I cringe when leaders glibly call for a “two-state solution” as though this was ripe for the plucking.

Wishful thinking is no substitute for reality.

And, in this case, all the facts described above indicate that a two-state solution is wishful thinking and beyond the realm of possibility for the foreseeable future.