The two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict has been around for so long that people have practically forgotten what the problem was for which this this “solution” was conceived.
It surely must be clear by now that this solution is not only not going to solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict, it is in fact a prime mover of said conflict. It is blindingly obvious that any Palestinian state established in the foreseeable future is going to be yet another failed Arab state. Just look at Gaza with its terrorist thugocracy for one example. And look at the Palestinian kleptocracy on the “West Bank” for another. Why on earth should Israel agree to such a dangerous scenario without anything tangible in return? The West is busy invading and bombing to smithereens other failed Muslim states such as Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc., and let us not mention the killing fields of Yemen and the dangerous instability in Lebanon. So why create another likely war-zone which, given its anti-Israel bias, the West will not permit Israel to invade or simply respond to in self-defence. See the Gaza wars of 2009, 2012 and 2014 for glaring examples.
So it was refreshing indeed to hear President Donald Trump’s special envoy and son-in-law Jared Kushner assert that the settlements need not be frozen in order to end the conflict. Such a simple statement but how revolutionary!
According to al-Hayat, Abbas requested the US pressure Israel to freeze Jewish building in Judea and Samaria either fully or partially. This, Abbas said, is one of the preconditions necessary for peace talks.
Kushner, together with US Special Middle East Envoy Jason Greenblatt, told Abbas they have no intention of requesting Israel freeze building. This, they explained is for two reasons: First, the talks must be held without preconditions. Second, Israel has compromised much for the sake of the PA, but the PA has not taken steps to build confidence and has, in fact, acted in the opposite manner.
They also told Abbas that even though they believe the two-state solution is ideal, talks must be held without preconditions and the exact borders should be negotiated between the two sides.
Many people have criticised Kushner for being inexperienced and ignorant, but his attitude here belies such claims. Maybe his lack of experience is exactly what was needed in order to see the situation clearly for once.
Similarly it was so heartening for peace-process-weary Israelis to hear from State Department spokesman Heather Nauert that the Two State solution is not the obligatory path to follow.
Before meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv, Trump’s son-in-law and top adviser, Jared Kushner, said that the president “is very committed to achieving a solution here that will be able to bring prosperity and peace to all people in the area.”
He did not, however, give any public indication that Washington believed that solution needed to be a two-state one.
The Trump administration is resisting pressure to clarify its stance on a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, amid warnings from Palestinian leaders that their patience is running thin.
When asked at a press briefing why the US was hesitant to commit to the two-state solution, State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert replied on Wednesday: “We are not going to state what the outcome has to be – it has to be workable to both sides.
And I think, really, that’s the best view as to not really bias one side over the other, to make sure that they can work through it.”
This announcement flew somewhat under the radar and didn’t make the huge headlines it deserved. This is an astounding change of direction for the State Department and the American Administration, and while the Palestinians may huff and fume, this is exactly what is needed to shake them up out of their complacency and out of their conviction that if they only wait long enough, Israel will be pressured by the West to make yet more concessions for nothing.
As for the threats of violence and mayhem from the Palestinians, it has long been proven that terrorist attacks rise whenever a “peace process” is taking place, as Evelyn Gordon writes:
According to the official statistics, more than 3,100 Israelis have been killed in terror attacks since Israel’s establishment in 1948. The press releases don’t offer any breakdown of this statistic, but more detailed information is available on the Foreign Ministry’s website. Those numbers (located here for 1949-99 and here since 2000) show that terrorists killed 1,176 Israelis from 1949 through 1992, a period of 44 years. But since 1994, they’ve killed another 1,538 people–a significantly larger number of victims in a period just over half as long.
Needless to say, this isn’t what a “peace process” is supposed to look like. Peace deals are supposed to produce peace, not to double the number of casualties. Moreover, these casualty figures show that the Palestinians have blatantly violated the one promise they made Israel in both the original Oslo Accord and every subsequent accord–an end to Palestinian terror.
Conversely terrorist attacks drop whenever Israel takes a strong stand, whether against further concessions or against the terrorists themselves, their sources of funding and their support systems.
All the more reason to object to peace-processing do-gooders who arrive on jaunts to the Middle East either to burnish their reputations, leave a “legacy” when they leave office, or to distract from domestic woes.
One of the better arguments that I read against the principle of the two-state solution was in this Harry’s Place comment by Jurek Molnar:
It’s high time that new ideas for resolving the conflict are conceived.