Israeli Newspaper: Two states based on false assumptions

May 26, 2009

Most Israeli newspapers are liberal, more left wing than the American media, if you can believe it. So when a newspaper publishes an editorial saying the two-state solution is based on erroneous assumptions, its time to take note. 

Here is Monday's editorial from Yediot Ahronot, which outlines these false assumptions which has become the basis for the "two states for two peoples" principle and American faith in it: 

1. The establishment of a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders is the substance of the Palestinians' national aspirations. A small, truncated state, the establishment of which would require them to agree to the end of the conflict and its claims is the Palestinians' nightmare, not their national dream.  Three times they could have had such a state (1937, 1947 and 2000), and three times they rejected it. 

2. The gap between the Israeli and Palestinian position is bridgeable.  The reality is otherwise.  The maximum that the Israeli Government – any government – will be able to offer the Palestinians and still survive politically is far from the minimum that the Palestinian administration – any administration – will be able to agree to and survive politically. 

3. Egypt and Jordan want to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and will, therefore, render assistance. The reality is opposite: Both Egypt and Jordan prefer the continuation of the existing situation in which the conflict continues and they can continue blaming Israel.  As long as the conflict goes on, the Egyptians have the ultimate excuse to all of their troubles in the region.  For the Jordanians, a Palestinian state on their border, under (it is reasonable to assume) a Hamas administration, would be the end of the Hashemite monarchy.  

4. A permanent settlement would bring stability and security to the region. The exact opposite.  There is no chance that a small, truncated Palestinian state would be viable.  The frustration that would be created in such a situation, certainly in Gaza, with Israel lacking defensible borders is a clear foundation for instability.  

5. There is a chance now that we cannot miss.  If we compare the current situation to that which prevailed in 2000, the clear conclusion is that the chance to reach an agreement then was far greater than it is now – and it did not happen.  Is it possible today to reach an agreement in Judea and Samaria, to say nothing of Gaza, when Hamas is the dominant Palestinian movement?  

6. Progress on the Palestinian issue is essential in order to aid the Arab countries against Iran. What does one have to do with the other?  The Arab countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt) have a supreme interest in blocking Iran, with or without the Palestinian issue.  

7. There is only one solution to the conflict. Says who? When, either here or in the US, was a deep study ever done on all the possibilities?  One can easily point to alternative solutions that would also free the Palestinians from Israeli control."  The author believes that the chances to conclude a permanent agreement, now, based on the "two state" solution are no greater than they were at Oslo, Camp David or Annapolis and declares, "One hopes that the almost assured failure will not have negative repercussions in other areas, such as stopping Iran or US-Israeli relations."