A two-state solution is a bad idea - we need alternatives to end the conflict - opinion

The two-state solution has been repeated over and over as the only way to solve the problem of Jews and Palestinians both claiming the same land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Viewed from afar, the answer to the problem seems obvious. Split the land into two states living side by side in peace and security. Problem solved. What could go wrong?

This article is an attempt to show that a two-state solution might not be a solution at all but could actually lead to a much wider conflict.

The history of the Jews, their belief in one God, the Torah, and their attachment to the Land of Israel is a saga that can fill libraries. Despite invasions, conquests, expulsions, and the destruction of the First and Second Temples in Jerusalem, Jews have never lost or renounced their belief in God and His promise of the Land of Israel to the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It is also apparent that despite over 3,000 years of suffering, persecution, slavery, antisemitism, blood libels, Crusades, forced conversions, inquisitions, ghettos, mass murders, confiscations of property, pogroms, immigration quotas, and the systematic mass murder of six million Jews in the Holocaust, the Jews have not only miraculously survived but have returned to their biblical homeland and have resuscitated Hebrew as a spoken language. If this was not clear in 1948, it should have become crystal clear in 1967, when Israel routed all the invading Arab armies in six days, united Jerusalem once again as the eternal capital of Israel, and reclaimed the biblical homeland of Judea and Samaria. Clearly, God has not forgotten his promise to the Jews.

Under Jewish rule, barren desert has been transformed into fertile land capable of feeding millions of people. Israel has become a modern powerhouse of technological innovation, progress, and higher learning, both secular and spiritual. The State of Israel has steadfastly upheld the principles outlined in its Declaration of Independence signed in 1948. Israel is a country based on democracy, freedom of religion, justice, and equality for all its citizens. All Israeli citizens, irrespective of race, religion, gender, or beliefs, have the right to vote once they reach the age of 18. This applies to the 21% of Israeli citizens who are Muslims or Christians. Israel is a thriving democracy, with human rights and the rule of law. Israel is simply miraculous.

After 1948, Israel opened the doors for Jewish immigration from Europe and for 800,000 Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews who were expelled from Arab lands that they had lived in for thousands of years. Their native language was Arabic, and they arrived in Israel as refugees and immediately became citizens. Unfortunately, the 650,000 Palestinians who left Israel in 1948 have remained as refugees in order to pressure Israel to allow them to return and turn Israel into an Arab majority country. Israel will never commit suicide by allowing this to happen. The history of Israel after 1948 has been well documented. What is not that well known is the important role that Saudi Arabia played in shaping the Palestinian problem.

In 1902 at the age of 22, Abdul Aziz bin Saud, accompanied by 40 followers, staged a daring night march into Riyadh. They attacked the Masmak Fortress and overthrew the Al Rashid family that controlled Riyadh. The Al Rashid family were beheaded, and Abdul Aziz became the ruler of the eastern area of Arabia known as the Najd. This event marked the beginning of what was to become Saudi Arabia. The western part of Arabia, known as the Hejaz, consisting of Mecca, Medina, and Jeddah, was under the control of the Hashemites. 

At the start of World War I, the British were worried that Arab rulers would side with the Ottomans. The British promised both Abdul Aziz and the Hashemites that they would be granted a state at the end of the war if they did not support the Ottomans. Both agreed. In 1921, Abdul Aziz overthrew the Hashemites. Britain was now in a dilemma. How could they give the Hashemites a state if they no longer controlled any land in Arabia? Fortunately for Britain, in 1920 the League of Nations had granted Britain a mandate to administer Palestine and Iraq. The British found the answer to their dilemma. They renamed the area to the east of the Jordan River Transjordan, and then offered Iraq and Transjordan to the Hashemites. The Hashemites gladly accepted. Abdullah took over Transjordan, and Faisal took over Iraq. His son Faisal II was overthrown in July 1958, and that ended the short Hashemite rule over Iraq. In the case of Transjordan, the Hashemites renamed the area the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and continue to rule what is 77% of the British Mandated area of Palestine to this day.

One can speculate that had the British not offered Transjordan to the Hashemites, history might have been completely different. The mandated area of Palestine could have ended up becoming a two-state solution, with Transjordan becoming a Palestinian state, and the area to the west of the Jordan River becoming Israel. With apologies to Robert Frost, this was clearly a road not taken by the British.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the epicenter of a religious, cultural, ideological, and nationalistic conflict that goes back thousands of years. It is one of mankind’s most complex and irreconcilable problems. The existence of the State of Israel has been rejected over and over again by Arab states and the Palestinians. To gauge the depth of Palestinian opposition to Israel, it is worth recalling the words of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini, who stated that “Not even the size of a postage stamp” would be accepted by the Palestinians for a Jewish state. Since 1937, every attempt to solve the Israeli -Palestinian problem has been rejected by the Palestinians. Despite this, the world still believes in the two-state solution as the answer. From the 1920s onward, Jews began to return to the land of their forefathers and began to build a country. In contrast, Arab countries and Palestinians have never stopped trying to destroy what the Jews were building.

What will happen if there is a two-state solution?

Let us now assume a hypothetical situation in which the Palestinians and the Israelis have agreed to a two-state solution, and their leaders have been nominated for Nobel Peace Prizes. What happens after the celebrations are over?

The first thing that would probably happen is that Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and any other country that has Palestinian refugees would demand that all Palestinian refugees should return to their newly declared State of Palestine. The problem is that the Palestinian Authority has already stated that all Palestinian refugees should return to Israel, and that none of them will be welcome in Palestine. Israel would argue that it is absurd to think that Israel should accept Palestinian refugees when they have their own Palestinian state. This is a catch 22 situation of significant importance. 

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that a State of Palestine would be anything other than a failed state similar to Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, and Libya. Up to now, the Americans and Europeans have poured billions into the Palestinians, with absolutely nothing beneficial in return. The attack by Russia on Ukraine has changed priorities. No matter the cost, America and Europe have pledged to help Ukraine in its war with Russia. In reality, they cannot afford what they are promising. They are financing the war by deficit spending. The need to cut aid to the Palestinians will inevitably arise. The Palestinians will then find themselves in an extremely perilous financial situation and will look for help from wherever they can find it.

One can assume that every state has a right to enter into agreements and to seek help. President Assad invited Russia and Iran to come to Syria and help him retain power. They both gladly took up the offer. Military personnel and equipment poured into Syria from Russia and Iran. All UN Security Council resolutions critical of Syria were vetoed by Russia. Assad had his “get out of jail free card.” His army killed hundreds of thousands of Syrians, and approximately five million people became refugees, who fled mainly to Turkey. No one referred to those massacred as “innocent civilians,” and no special UN agency such as UNWRA was established for Syrian refugees. Obviously, Palestinians and Syrians are not the same.

Let us assume that included in the hypothetical two-state agreement are clauses that state that the Palestinians are prohibited from inviting foreign military personnel into the State of Palestine. Unfortunately, there are numerous signed international agreements that were not worth the paper they were written on. For example, Hitler signed a non-aggression pact with Stalin. We all know how that turned out. The British government issued the Balfour Declaration which stated that Britain would use its best endeavors to support a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. Today we know what their best endeavors consisted of. America signed and then withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement. The list goes on and on.

The point is that no matter what was signed, the Palestinians will not abide by what they agreed to. The State of Palestine will in all likelihood invite Russia, China, and Iran to come to its assistance. Within a short period of time, one or all three will have armed military personnel and equipment in the State of Palestine. The UN will be totally paralyzed, as both Russia and China have veto powers at the Security Council. A Palestinian state that ends up with Russian, Chinese, or Iranian troops looking down at Ben-Gurion Airport will not bring peace to the region. On the contrary, it is a recipe that could lead to a much wider conflict among the superpowers.

The Palestinian conflict will not end without a change in the mullahs’ control of Iran and their fanatical obsession with the elimination of the State of Israel. As long as they are in power, they will finance, arm, and inflame Islamic terrorist groups to attack Israel. Creating a Palestinian state will give Iran another area from which its proxies will be able to attack Israel. It will not bring peace to the Middle East.

There are 22 Arab states and only one tiny Jewish state in the Middle East. A permanent solution to the Palestinian problem is not a two-state solution that splits Israel but rather a solution that involves ending the mullahs’ rule in Iran and involving each Arab state in contributing to permanently ending the Palestinian refugee problem. Once this occurs, the Abraham Accords will blossom into the engine that has the potential to improve the lives of millions of Arabs throughout the Middle East. Israel has the expertise to make deserts bloom and to end starvation in the Middle East. Israel has basically solved many of the problems that are found in the Middle East. Joining the Abraham Accords is a win-win situation for all. What Israel cannot be expected to do is to support a Palestinian state that has the destruction of Israel as its main aim. 

It is time for the world to reconsider the idea of a two-state solution and to recognize that at this point in time, it is not only an oxymoron but also institutional insanity. There are better alternatives to the two-state solution. It is time to think out of the box. ■

The writer, who was born in South Africa, is an accountant who lives in Ra’anana with his Israeli-born wife.