John Bolton argues that the two-state solution is dead for now.
Let’s start by recognizing that trying to create a Palestinian Authority from the old PLO has failed and that any two-state solution based on the PA is stillborn. Hamas has killed the idea, and even the Holy Land is good for only one resurrection. Instead, we should look to a “three-state” approach, where Gaza is returned to Egyptian control and the West Bank in some configuration reverts to Jordanian sovereignty. Among many anomalies, today’s conflict lies within the boundaries of three states nominally at peace. Having the two Arab states re-extend their prior political authority is an authentic way to extend the zone of peace and, more important, build on governments that are providing peace and stability in their own countries. “International observers” or the like cannot come close to what is necessary; we need real states with real security forces.
Bolton doesn’t really see this possibility as likely, but argues.
For Palestinians, admitting the obvious failure of the PA, and the consequences of their selection of Hamas, means accepting reality, however unpleasant. But it is precisely Palestinians who would most benefit from stability. The PA — weakened, corrupt and discredited — is not a state by any realistic assessment, nor will it become one accepted by Israel as long as Hamas or terrorism generally remains a major political force among Palestinians.
The reason that trusting Arafat and empowering Hamas didn’t work goes back to the basic ideology of Palestinian nationalism. It never was primarily about creating a state, but about destroying another one. Boltion’s argument implicitly points this out. There was no major agitation for a Palestinian state before 1967. Well there was, but it wasn’t in Judea, Samaria or Gaza. The first two were occupied by Jordan and the last by Egypt. The goal was to found Palestine on the state Israel in the borders it accepted at the end of its war of Independence.
In order to justify this change, the world’s diplomats became preoccupied with “occupation” that not only defined the potential borders for a Palestinians state, but served to make Israel the bad guy for denying the Palestinians what no one else had ever granted them in the past. So Israel was supposed to accommodate terrorists – because their terror was justified – and allow terror movements to have a state or else be declared illegitimate. The moral inversion implicit in creating a Palestinian state is enormous. And of course expecting a movement dedicated to destruction to become constructive required the triumph of hope over experience.
Boltion’s suggestion may go nowhere but it’s still a reminder of what once was.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
Bolton’s idea is a good one but founders on a number of rocks, one of which is Egypt extending control to Gaza. How much clearer can the Arab states, with the exception of Jordan: they don’t want the Palestinians, they detest the Palestinians, they care about the Palestinians only as a stick to beat Israel.
If the Palestinians came around to this realization a peace process might start getting somewhere. It could happen, but I say “could happen” in the sense that it “could happen” that Lucy Lawless is about to ring my doorbell.
I despair of correcting the record, but the two-state solution is the only one; it’s the three-state (or four-state) solution that’s dead: Transjordan, Israel, and the PA thingee (and maybe a Gaza thingee), too.
Wish it weren’t so. I think that a two-state solution would have some promise. And it would certainly put the problem of the Arabs of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza on a doorstep where it properly belongs.
The record can’t be corrected, at least not short term.
But the folly of pursuing diplomacy with a “community” devoted to genocide can surely come to an end.
Israel needs to stop treating wtih anyone concerning the Palestinians.
Even, perhaps most importantly and especially, the United States.