A ‘Two-State Solution’ to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict will fail. Not maybe … or perhaps … or even, we shall see. No! It will fail. Yes, I know that Biden, Putin, Xi Jinping, Modi, Macron, Sunak and Salman Al Saud have echoed that the ‘Two-State Solution’ is the only answer to regional peace. Why then does this solution that has been around for decades keep dying? Most seem to have forgotten the lesson of when India and Pakistan were partitioned in August of 1947. Not only did it displace 6.5 million Muslims and 4.5 million Sikhs and Hindus, not only did the two countries go to war four times (and numerous armed skirmishes) … but increasingly, countries like Russia and China have exploited those fault-lines. Still, I disagree for several reasons.
In my view, (a) the region’s leadership, (b) its consistent failing historical efforts to reach a solution and (c) the Bible’s commentary all point in the same direction – a ‘Two-State Solution’ will fail. In Part One, I will focus on leadership and ‘some’ of the historical accounts that have made a ‘Two-State Solution’ herculean at best. Later, in Part Two I will turn my attention to the Scriptures.
1) The Region’s Leadership
Hamas is the acronym for Harakat al-Mugawama al-Islamiya and the terrorist squad is largely concentrated in the Gaza strip, with a slight presence in the West Bank. It is one of two governing agencies and political parties in the region and the largest militant group in Gaza. Founded by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, a Palestinian cleric, during the first Intifada, it is the spin-off of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s oldest Islamist movement – the same ‘brotherhood’ that Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi banned (September, 2013), fearing that its anti-regime reactionary Islamists would lead to the growth of an Egyptian version of Iran’s Ruhollah Khomeini.
Fractured Palestinian legislative elections in 2006 led the Palestinians to reject the status quo at the ballot box and support Hamas over Fatah, Yasser Arafat’s old political party that had dominated the region for almost half century. Elected on January 29, 2006 (Change and Reform [aka Hamas] with 74 of the 132 seats (Arafat’s Fatah won 45), Hamas took over the administrative control of both the West Bank and Gaza. A brief civil war broke out and split the Palestinian Authority (PA) into two geographical parts. Hamas embedded itself in Gaza while PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas drove them from political positions in the Westbank. Today Hamas is the governing power, ruling over two million Gazan Palestinians.
Read their material and it is self-evident that the rulers of Gaza are not remotely interested in any compromise that might birth a Two-State existence. No surprises here, given that Hamas’ founding documents (1988 Hamas Covenant) and her 2017 revised doctrinal manifesto demonstrate their genocidal intentions towards Israel … and the West. See Articles 11, 13 15 of the Hamas Covenant. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
Khaled Mashal, the political leader of Hamas until 2017, is hardly conciliatory in his efforts for a Palestinian State:
“The state will come from resistance, not negotiation. Liberation first, then statehood. Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north ….” “There will be no concession on any inch of the land. We will never recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation, and therefore there is no legitimacy for Israel… We will free Jerusalem inch by inch, stone by stone. Israel has no right to be in Jerusalem.”
(December 8, 2012, Gaza City)
On Hamas’ use of human shields in Gaza, Mashal writes, “No nation is liberated without sacrifices... In all wars, there are some civilian victims. We are not responsible for them.” (Khaled Mashal, October 19, 2023).
Ismail Haniyeh was elected by Hamas’ Shura Council on May 6, 2017, to replace Mashal. A billionaire, he got rich charging 20% tax on all items moving through the tunnels from Egypt to Gaza. 1 Not surprisingly, the elites seldom suffer in their hypocrisy. From the comfort of his home in Qatar (a Hamas State sponsor), Haniyeh sees the sacrifice of his own people as a strategic necessary:
“I have said this before, and I say it time again: the blood of the women, children, and elderly … We are the ones who need this blood so it awakens in us the revolutionary spirit.” (October 26, 2023)
In February 2017, Yahya Sinwar was secretly elected as the new Hamas boss in the Gaza Strip, taking over from Ismail Haniyeh. His nickname among Palestinians is “the butcher of Khan Younis.” One of the masterminds of the October 7 attack on Israel, so far he has successfully evaded the Israeli military, hiding like a rat in one of their 500 miles of tunnels.
Criticism of specific Israeli actions during its war
with Hamas are legitimate. It is likewise
fundamentally important to not forget
Hamas’ worldview towards Israel – extinction!
There is no end to the acerbic rants of Hamas’ or PA leaders telling the world that it forbids a Jewish state on any part of the land of Palestine, an Islamic Waqf (Hamas Charter, Article 11). Examples are legion – so I will resist. What can be said is that given the bluster of leadership overseeing Palestinians’ interests, few can reasonably believe that a ‘Two-State Solution’ is (1) fundamentally realistic, or (2) that any such agreement reached would be lasting.
I see better odds of a fat man ... with a wooden leg ... riding a pogo stick...with a buck-toothed beaver under his arm that speaks Greek and likes tofu ... offering me a free time-share in the Florida Keys and an envelope with two tickets to watch the Toronto Maple Leaf’s play in the Stanley Cup – than a Two-State Solution that holds.
Now, I am not suggesting that a Two-State Agreement will never happen. Not at all! At some point, Palestinian leadership will see an advantage, likely financial or political, in settling this 4,000 year-long dispute between Ishmael and Isaac. What I will say is that any such arrangement, deal, treaty, accord, pact or settlement will ultimately disappear faster than an offering bucket at a televangelist’s rally. It will not hold!
Here are some of those salient moments in history when Palestinians had opportunity to reach a ‘Two-State Solution,’ but rejected the opportunity to take the opportunity. Space does not permit a full review of all the points of history.
2) The Region’s History
1947 The UN Partition Plan
Before WWI, Palestine was ruled by the Ottoman Turks. Choosing to side with Germany in the war, Turkey ended up losing her colonies. The League of Nations carved up the entire Ottoman Empire, giving the British control over what became known as ‘Mandate Palestine.” After enduring ten years of uprisings, strikes and killings, London announced that it would end its governance over Palestine and turned the matter over to the United Nations. The governing body created the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), who ultimately recommended that the area under British-mandate control be divided into two states, one governed by Jewish Palestinians, the other governed by Arab Palestinians, with Jerusalem under international control. Among the many details of the partition plan …
The Arab state would occupy 43% of Palestine, along with one third of the coastline and control over the main aquifers supplying water to the entire land. Think of the hotels and the beaches that could have populated that region.
Israel would occupy 56%, most of it located in the Negev desert, unsuitable for agriculture or urban development.
There would be a large Arab minority of 45% in the Jewish state; a 1% Jewish minority within the Arab state.
Neither group was fully pleased. Still, given that the plan allowed the Palestinian Jews both sovereignty and control over immigration, they agreed. The Palestinian Arabs, however, rejected the proposal outright – unwilling to permit any sort of Jewish state in the area. Opportunity missed!
On Saturday, November 29, 1947, the UN - by a vote of 33 to 13 (10 abstentions, one absent) - adopted Resolution 181, which called for the partition of British-ruled Palestine into two independent Jewish and Arab states. On May 14, 1948, the day the British Mandate expired, the Jewish People’s Council, under David Ben Gurion, in view of the earlier UN vote, declared the State of Israel. The next day, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq went to war against Israel. It is popularly known as the War of Independence. Today, Palestinians call their military defeat in 1948 "al-Nakba", or "the Catastrophe".
There is no historical record of any Arab population ever
seeking self-determination and their own Palestinian State before the early 20th century. Indeed, there is no mention of Palestine as a state in either UN resolution 242 (1967) or even the later Oslo Accords (1993).
1949 UN Resolution # 194
Towards the end of the 1947-49 war, the General Assembly of the UN adopted Resolution # 194 (III) determining that Arab …
“… refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the governments or authorities responsible.” (UNRWA, paragraph 11)
Israel, not yet a member of the UN, was fundamentally opposed to Resolution 194, as Israel’s first Prime Minister explicitly stated in a June, 1948 cabinet meeting. Ben Gurion said, "They [the Palestinians] lost and fled. Their return must now be prevented.... And I will oppose their return also after the war." In view of this, one would think that Palestinians would vote in favor of the ‘right of return’ for Palestinian refugees or compensate them accordingly. Not to be! The resolution was adopted by 35 of the 58 member countries, with 15 voting ‘No’ and 8 abstaining. Of the six Arab league nations represented at the UN, all voted against, including the Palestinian representatives.
1967 UN Resolution # 242 (III)
Many will remember the Six-Day War (June 5-10, 1967). As Arab countries mobilized, Israeli forces launched a pre-emptive strike, destroying Egyptian and Syrian airbases, followed by a ground assault against its enemies. Later, when Israel refused to give Egypt back the land gained, Egypt appealed to the UN Security Council – resulting in Resolution 242. The resolution is most significant and has been a part of every major Arab - Israel agreement, from the 1979 Egyptian-Israel Treaty of Peace through to the Oslo Accords of 1993. For the first time, it defined international expectations about Israel’s withdrawal from all the territories captured. In short, # 242 called for …
Withdrawal of IDF forces “from territories of recent conflict”
Arab “termination of all claims or states of belligerency”
Recognize the State of Israel and its “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”
The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), representing all Palestinians, rejected the resolution.
1978 Begin/Sadat [Camp David] Peace Proposal
Remember the peanut-farmer president, Jimmy Carter? Early in his presidency he reached out to the Middle-Easterner players – Egypt’s Anwar Sadat and Israel’s Menachem Begin. Sadat was eager for closer ties to the U.S. and he wanted ‘his’ Sinai back. Begin, Israel’s newly-minted Likud Prime Minister [the first non-labor-led government in Israeli history] stated he was willing to ‘sit down and talk’ to his neighbors.
Eventually, both Sadat and Begin agreed to a September summit at the presidential retreat at Camp David. Over a 12-day period, a comprehensive peace deal was reached – based on Resolution 242, earning Sadat and Begin a share of the 1979 Nobel Prize for Peace. On October 6, 1981, Sadat would be murdered because of it.
The agreement was signed March 26, 1979, with, among other things, Israel phasing in a withdrawal from the Sinai, including evacuating her settlements there, a decision that led to huge public protests in Israel.
The Palestinians refused to negotiate autonomy and Arab nations punished Egypt by severing ties and suspending Cairo from the Arab League.
“The essential challenge is the underlying notion that
the Palestinians bear no responsibility whatsoever for their predicament because the very concept of a Jewish state in Israel remains the original sin.”
Jonathan A. Greenblatt | September 23, 2016.
1998 The Wye River Memorandum
With a stalemate in the Middle East between the Palestinians and Israel, the U.S. under President Bill Clinton, tried to broker a new peace deal. Bibi Netanyahu and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat came to Wye River, Maryland in October (15-23) of 1998. The new signed agreement (October 23, 1998) essentially restored old Israeli promises like a safe passage corridor between West Bank and Gaza, the PLO abandoning the anti-Israel provisions in its Charter, and arms limitations. Wye promised to give Palestinians partial or total control over two-fifths of the West Bank, but phased withdrawals by Israel was contingent on Palestinian actions –
“Upon completion of each phase of the Palestinian commitments, Israel will transfer a specified percentage of land to the Palestinians within the context of the "further redeployments" as stated in previous agreements.” (Wye River Memorandum)
The Palestinians failed in their efforts. None of the established deadlines were met. Another opportunity squandered. In Israel, though the Wye agreement was initially popular (74%), Netanyahu’s political foes in the Knesset were successful in a non-confidence vote, which prompted a general election in May, 1999. Ehud Barak (Labor), a retired general, became the new prime minister.
2000 Camp David Summit With Clinton’s presidency winding down, he made a further attempt to secure an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, inviting Barak and Arafat to Maryland. The summit took place between 11 and 25 July of 2000. Arafat was offered a proposal that would see 92% of the West Bank and all of Gaza under Palestinian control; the remaining 8% provided with territorial compensation and eastern Jerusalem at the Palestinian capital. Still no agreement was reached. Arafat walked away from the table, incapable of formulating clear objectives or defining a strategy in a counter proposal to the Israelis.
President Clinton laid the blame squarely on Arafat, saying, “I regret that in 2000, Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being.” Even Nabil Amr, a former ambassador to the USSR and Egypt, and former minister in the Palestinian National Authority, accused Arafat of spoiling the talks. Four years later, Amr would lose his right leg, a victim of Arafat’s gunman looking to stifle Amr’s public criticism of him.
That three consecutive Israeli leaders, Barak, Sharon and Olmert wanted to hand over permanent
control of territory to the Palestinians –
is ignored in the media bias towards Israel.
2001 Taba Peace Proposal
Ehud Barak searched to find a way forward with Palestinians in the summer of 2000, but things were going nowhere, even as a second Intifada broke out. When the prime minister called for a general election for February 6, 2001, polls showed an increasing margin of victory for Barak’s political opponent, former General Ariel Sharon – who threatened to use military force against the Arabs. Sharon would indeed become the new prime minister from 2001-2006.
Three weeks before Israel’s elections, the Israelis and Palestinians agreed to a negotiating session in Taba, an Egyptian resort in the Sinai. Some 28 negotiators and professional staff were present for the talks held January 21st to the 26th. The focus was on borders (including the question of settlements), Jerusalem, security and refugees.
What is fascinating here is that what had been for Barak an unshakeable dogma – Jerusalem as Israel’s “eternal capital” … was revised, with both parties accepting that the city of Jerusalem would be the capital of two states: Jerusalem, capital of Israel and Al-Quds (East Jerusalem), capital of the State of Palestine. 2 In line with Security Council Resolution 242, Israel agreed that the lines of June 4, 1967, would been the basis for drawing all final borders AND a proposal to return 94% of the West Bank. The Palestinian delegation wanted 100%.
In the end, it was too little, too late. Time ran out. Ariel Sharon (Likud) became the new prime minister (2001-2006) of Israel, winning 62.5% of the vote, larger than any presidential candidate in history. Taba was dead. An opportunity missed – again!
Why was an independent Palestinian State not established between 1948 and 1967, when Egypt controlled Gaza, and Jordan controlled the West Bank? After all, the 50’s saw the independence of other Arab states like Morocco, Libya and Algeria.
2008 Olmert Peace Proposal
Between 2006 and 2008, 36 negotiating sessions occurred between Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president. On September 16, 2008, Olmert presented a comprehensive plan for peace to Abbas, again, startling for its proposals on Jerusalem and the West Bank.
Condoleezza Rice, in her memoir “No Higher Honor” recounts being called to a private meeting with Olmert, where the prime minister said that in his plan there will be two capitals: “one for us in West Jerusalem and one for the Palestinians in East Jerusalem.” Rice writes: “Am I really hearing this? I wondered. Is the Israeli prime minister saying that he'll divide Jerusalem and put an international body in charge of the Holy sites?”
Ten years later, in an interview the Chief Palestinian negotiator gave on official Palestinian Authority television (December, 2018), Seab Erekat said “I heard Olmert say that he offered [Abbas] 100 percent of the West Bank territory. This is true. I’ll testify to this.” Later, when Associated Press journalist Mark Lavie heard about Erekat’s interview and admission, he tried to run the story through AP, but the news bureau refused: “The conflict was Israel’s fault; the Palestinians and the Arab world were blameless.” Amazing!
In the end, Mahmoud Abbas, the successor to Arafat, did what he did with Bill Clinton’s 2000-2001 peace deal: rejection through silence – literally. Abbas had told Olmert he needed his experts to review a map before signing an agreement. This was not true – and the ‘Palestine Papers,’ 1600 previously secret documents obtained by Al Jazeera proved it, for while apologists keep repeating the false narrative that Abbas needed to study the Israeli map, Abbas already had a very detailed map of the proposal in his possession. The Palestinians never returned the next day nor ever communicated again their intentions. Just silence – just as Arafat had done 8 years earlier.
Here was a sitting prime minister of Israel [Olmert] agreeing to a comprehensive peace plan that
would establish a Palestinian state on land that
was equal to 100% of the West Bank and Gaza –
but Abbas wouldn’t bother to show up.
There remain countless other examples of political, state-wide and global initiatives to try and bring lasting peace to the contentious issue of Palestinian Statehood and Israel’s right to live in peace as well – like Oslo I (1993), Oslo II (1995), John Kerry’s 2014 “Contours for Peace,” even Donald Trump’s 2019 “Deal of the Century” – all have tried and failed.
I realize that reviewing Middle Eastern events here is not everyone’s cup of tea. Fair enough. Still, history of the region more than proposes that ‘much’ of the time Palestinian leadership blunders along, forestalling their own nation, for the purpose of eradicating another. Sometimes it is difficult to determine if those elected by Palestinians to oversee the interests of Palestinians, are out to help their communities or merely rob them for personal aggrandizement. I mean, billionaire Hamas leaders are terrible optics, even in the propaganda war.
To date, Hamas officer Khaled Mashal, remains intransigent over the suffering of his people. Living in luxury in Qatar, he recently said on MEMRI TV: “We have nothing to do with the two-state solution. We reject this notion, because it means you would get a promise for a [Palestinian] state, yet you are required to recognize the legitimacy of the other state, which is the Zionist entity. This is unacceptable.” 3
The Hamas leadership is driving ordinary Palestinians into the hell they have created. Hoarding humanitarian aid intended for their citizens, then selling it to them, while syphoning billions from generous donors for tunnels and rockets, their innate hatred is clouding a vision of a homeland and a prosperous future. When Mousa Abu Marzouk, a member of Hamas’ Political Bureau, living in luxury in Qatar, was asked how is it that there are so many tunnels for Hamas but no bomb shelters for Palestinians, he replied: “It is the responsibility of the United Nations to protect them.” (Russia Today TV, October 27, 2023).
Their consistent legacy is one of religious ideological leaders and failed historic peace initiatives, making a ‘Two-State Solution’ impossible ... and a lasting solution unattainable!
Later, in Part Two, we will consider what the Scriptures say about a ‘Two-State Solution.’ In the meantime, of one thing we can be certain – short memories and a mindless ignorance of history prove that there are no “both sides” when marchers shout “From the river to the sea.” “OnlySaying...”
1. According to the New York Post (Nov. 7, 20232), Hamas’ three top leaders, Ismail Haniyeh ($4 B), Moussa Abu Marzuk ($ 3B) and Khaled Mashal ($4 B), have a combined net worth of $11 Billion, living an excessively opulent lifestyle in Qatar while their people suffer in poverty.
2. ‘Al-Quds’ is Arabic for Jerusalem.
3. “Senior Hamas Officer Openly Rejects Two-State Solution, Calls for Israel’s Demise.” New York Post, January 22, 2024.
Comments