The two-state solution, long heralded as
the only viable path to peace between Israelis and Palestinians, has
been the cornerstone of international diplomacy for decades.
Yet, despite countless negotiations,
summits and accords, the dream of peaceful coexistence between two
sovereign states has remained elusive.
The harsh reality is that the two-state
solution is not just impractical, it is a dangerous delusion. If
pursued, it will only bring more terror and instability to the region.
A better and more appropriate name should
be the Two-State Delusion. Former Ambassador to Israel David Friedman
has coined the phrase “One Jewish State” to define exactly what Israel
can and should look like. An entire new organization is now focused
around this phrase because it understands that a two-state solution is
not practical.
The Historical Context: Rejection Over and Over
Since the establishment of Israel in 1948,
the idea of a two-state solution has been proposed multiple times, only
to be met with consistent rejection by the Palestinian leadership.
The United Nations Partition Plan of 1947
was the first such proposal, offering Jews and Arabs their own states.
While the Jewish leadership accepted the plan, the Arab states and
Palestinian leaders categorically rejected it, launching a war aimed at
the destruction of the nascent Jewish state.
This pattern of rejection has been repeated numerous times.
In 2000, during the Camp David Summit,
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Palestinian Authority Yasser
Arafat an incredible deal that would have created a Palestinian state in
Gaza and most of Judea and Samaria, with a shared capital in Jerusalem.
Arafat’s response was not just a
rejection, it was the launch of the second intifada, a wave of brutal
terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians.
In 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert offered Arafat’s successor Mahmoud Abbas a similar deal, which
was also turned down.
These rejections underscore a fundamental
truth: The conflict is not about land or borders. It is about the
refusal of the Palestinian leadership to accept the existence of a
Jewish state in any form. The Palestinian national movement, as it has
existed since its inception, is rooted in the goal of eliminating Israel
and the Jewish people, not in establishing a state that exists
alongside it.
The Oslo Accords: A Failed Experiment
The Oslo Accords, signed in the 1990s,
were supposed to pave the way for a two-state solution. The accords were
based on the premise that mutual recognition and negotiations would
lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state and peace between the
two peoples. Instead, Oslo brought more violence, more terrorism, and
more bloodshed.
Following the signing of the Oslo Accords,
Israel made significant territorial concessions and recognized the P.A.
as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. In return,
the P.A. was supposed to renounce violence and commit to peace.
Yet what followed was a wave of terror
that cost the lives of over a thousand Israelis. The P.A., rather than
building the infrastructure of a future state, used the areas under its
control to launch attacks against Israel, indoctrinate its population
with hatred and glorify terrorism.
This same old story never changes.
The failure of the Oslo process was not
due to a lack of effort or goodwill on Israel’s part. It failed because
the Palestinian leadership never truly embraced the concept of peace
with a Jewish state. To them, the negotiations were not a path to peace
but a tactic to gain concessions while continuing the struggle against
Israel.
The Abraham Accords: A New Path Forward
In stark contrast to the failures of Oslo
and the two-state delusion, the Abraham Accords represented a
revolutionary shift in Middle Eastern diplomacy.
These agreements, brokered by the United
States, have led to the normalization of relations between Israel and
several Arab nations, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and
Morocco.
The success of the Abraham Accords lies in
their pragmatic approach, which is rooted in mutual economic interests,
security cooperation and a shared concern about the threat posed by
Iran.
The Abraham Accords demonstrate that peace
in the Middle East does not require the creation of a Palestinian
state. Instead, it can be achieved through direct engagement between
Israel and other Arab nations, bypassing the Palestinian leadership that
has repeatedly shown itself to be an obstacle to peace.
The Accords have already yielded tangible
benefits, including increased trade, tourism and security cooperation
between Israel and its new Arab partners.
Moreover, the Abraham Accords have the
potential to reshape the broader Middle East. By creating a new alliance
of moderate Arab states that recognize the benefits of partnership with
Israel, the Accords isolate the radical elements that continue to
promote violence and rejectionism. This new dynamic offers a more
promising path to stability and prosperity in the region than the tired
and failed pursuit of a two-state solution.
The Core Issue: A Conflict Over Existence, Not Land
The failure of the two-state solution is
not a flop of diplomacy or negotiation tactics; it is a failure to
address the core issue at the heart of the conflict. This is not a
territorial dispute that can be resolved by drawing new borders or
creating a Palestinian state alongside Israel. The conflict is
fundamentally about the existence of Israel as a Jewish state and the
refusal of many Palestinians to accept that reality.
The Palestinian national movement, from its inception, has been driven
by the goal of eliminating Israel. This is evident in the rhetoric of
Palestinian leaders, the content of their educational system and the
glorification of terrorists who have attacked Israeli civilians. For the
Palestinian leadership, the two-state solution is not an end goal; it
is a means to an end—the eventual dismantling of Israel.
This is why every offer of statehood has
been rejected. Accepting a Palestinian state alongside Israel would
require a fundamental shift in Palestinian national identity, one that
is currently defined by its opposition to Israel’s existence. Until this
changes, any attempt to impose a two-state solution will be doomed to
failure.
Moving Beyond the Delusion
The two-state solution has become a sacred
cow in international diplomacy, but pursuing this mirage has not
brought peace; it has only perpetuated conflict and suffering for both
Israelis and Palestinians.
It is time for the international community
to abandon the failed paradigm of the two-state solution and embrace a
new approach that prioritizes security, stability and cooperation over
the pursuit of an illusory peace.
Peace will not come through the creation
of a Palestinian state that will likely become another base for
terrorism against Israel. It will come through the strengthening of
alliances, the promotion of economic development and the marginalization
of those who continue to reject Israel’s right to exist.
Only by moving beyond the two-state delusion can we hope to achieve a lasting and just peace in the Middle East.
No comments:
Post a Comment