On Wednesday, Moscow’s propaganda outlet Sputnik ran a story under this headline: “Israel’s Decision Against Palestinian State Contradicts Two-State Principle – Abbas.”
The PA Chairman is quoted as saying the Knesset’s July 18 declaration that was passed by a vote of 68-9, saying, “The Knesset of Israel firmly opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan,” “contradicts the two-state principle adopted by the United Nations and world powers and the very fact that the State of Palestine is a full participant in more than a hundred international organizations and agreements.”
Abbas expressed his gratitude to the 149 countries that recognized “Palestine,” and added, “Palestine is grateful and highly appreciates the call of Russia’s State Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament, on the world’s parliaments to denounce the Israeli lawmakers’ decision.”
Passed on the eve of PM Benjamin Netanyahu flight to Washington, DC to speak before a joint session of Congress, the Knesset plenum’s show of support came from some of Netanyahu’s opposition rivals, Yisrael Beitenu and New Hope.
On February 21, the Knesset voted overwhelmingly in favor of the government’s decision to reject unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state. The decision was supported by 99 MKs. Only 9 MKs, members of two Arab factions, voted against it.
WHY THE SUDDEN RENEWED INTEREST?
Martin Indyk wrote in Foreign Affairs last February that the concept of an Israel and a Palestine coexisting peacefully as separate states has long been dismissed as unrealistic or even dangerous, over decades of failed US-led diplomatic efforts. But then, the October 7 Hamas atrocities have paradoxically breathed new life into the two-state solution. President Joe Biden and his administration have repeatedly endorsed it as the only viable path to lasting peace in the region, garnering widespread international support, with Arab nations, EU countries, middle powers like Australia and Canada, and even China is echoing the call for a return to 2-state.
Indyk served twice as United States Ambassador to Israel and also as Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs during the Clinton Administration. He is more familiar with the 2-state conundrum than most US politicians. In his view, the resurgence of the two-state solution stems from a lack of credible alternatives. Neither Hamas’s goal of Israel’s destruction, nor the Israeli right’s vision of annexation are acceptable to the powers that be and the powers that report in the West. Netanyahu’s “conflict management” approach, as well as a binational state that would alter Israel’s Jewish character don’t have the trust of the same powers. By process of elimination, Indyk argues, the two-state solution emerges as the last remaining option for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
The curious thing is how everyone extolling the virtues of 2-state ignores both the fact that 99 out of 120 MKs have voted against it, and that upwards of 80% of PA Arabs in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza have no faith in it, as has been reflected often in reliable Arab polls.
NOT WITH THESE ‘PALESTINIANS’
Hussain Abdul-Hussain, a research fellow at Foundations for Defense of Democracies, published in Hoover Magazine this past June an article he titled, “Why Is there no Palestinian State?” I wholly recommend it. The author argues that “The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is intractable. One binational state is impossible, given that the two sides – Jews and Arabs — have irreconcilable national projects. The two-state scenario has also proven elusive with Palestinians refusing to recognize Jewish nationhood.”
He suggests that the political structure in “Palestine” shares similarities with nearby Arab nations such as Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and Jordan. These countries have predominantly experienced two political scenarios since gaining independence: authoritarian rule or civil war. With the emergence of Islamist movements in the 1980s, many civil wars in the region have resulted in victories for Islamist armed groups. These factions often receive support and financing from Iran’s theocratic government, which utilizes them to expand its influence across the Middle East.
Given the current political landscape, the establishment of a stable Palestinian democracy faces significant challenges, he argues. In the absence of either democratic institutions or a dominant centralized authority, the formation of a viable Palestinian state remains improbable. Consequently, as the two-state solution envisions one of these states as Palestinian, the absence of such a state renders this proposed resolution difficult to achieve in the foreseeable future.
“For Israel and the Palestinians, the only possible solution in the foreseeable future is more of the same: A makeshift arrangement of Palestinian self-governance meshed with Israeli policing and periodic flareups,” Abdul-Hussain concludes. “Unless America is willing to go back to state-building and spreading democracy, it will have to wait until Palestinians figure out how to build a state that Israel can make peace with. Israel cannot build a Palestinian state for them. Only Palestinians can, but first, they must listen and learn how.”
