Is The "Two State Solution" Viable?
Pushing A Two State Solution Is Not A Magical Solution, But Opening Pandora’s Box With All The Woe And None Of The Hope
The 90-120 Second Max Rule
Many years ago, I was preparing a presentation for a startup idea. I already had potential investors, so I thought I did not have to worry about that aspect of the grueling road. After putting weeks into the presentation and losing sleep over every word and phrase, I decided to share it with a friend who was and still is an incredibly successful high-tech guru. I knew he would give me his honest opinion.
After going through the presentation with him, he immediately said: “Gross, this is the rule. If you cannot get the point through in 90-120 seconds, don't bother. That is all you have. Maximum 2 minutes. Don’t forget the 90-120 second max rule.”
It is a lesson I have never forgotten, nor have I ever mastered. (Just look at my lengthy articles here on Substack!) My mind works on a linear basis when I write or present non-fiction. Present the point step by step, using linear logic so that most people can follow the POV.
However, in total contradiction to what I just wrote, my area of expertise in AI is the exact opposite of linear logic. And I rarely think linearly when I must deal with AI. To think linearly in AI is a death knell to any imaginative thinking and innovation.
Our lives are full of such contradictions, and so are our opinions. It is fantastic to wrap up a complex idea in one slogan or buzzword. But such a slogan or buzzword is predicated upon one factor - that others understand exactly what you mean when using that buzzword. Those using it really understand what it implies, how it came to be, what science or philosophy is behind it, and that there is one agreed-upon definition. Otherwise, the slogan or buzzword loses all meaning and becomes a point of contention.
In the world of political solutions, the slogan-buzzword combination is always used. They follow the “90-120 second max rule.” Incredibly complex problems must be transformed into a slogan-buzzword so that others can grasp it without much thought or understanding of what it implies.
Sometimes, rarely mind you, it is clear and straightforward, and one does not need volumes to have it explained. Most of these slogan-buzzword combinations are usually convoluted, have multiple meanings and definitions, and cannot find any common ground.
One such slogan-buzzword is the “Two State Solution,” as it refers to Israel and the Palestinians. (To avoid repetition, the “Two State Solution” will be referred to as TSS for this article.)
What is a “Two State Solution”?
Since the 10/7 War and the attack and massacre by Hamas, many have been calling for a TSS. As time goes on, the voices get louder and louder. So first, let us understand what the TSS really means. In a nutshell, this is how Wikipedia will define it:
The two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict envisions an independent State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel in the region west of the Jordan River. The major points of contention are the boundaries of the two states (though most proposals are based on the 1967 lines), the status of Jerusalem, the Israeli settlements, and the right of return of Palestinian refugees.1
Why use Wikipedia? I am following the rule of simple may be best. But don’t worry. We will dig deep into this in a bit. Let us lay out all the points in that one small paragraph.
“An independent State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel in the region west of the Jordan River.” This sounds benign until you hit the word “alongside.” The implication here is that the Palestinians will accept a “State” of Israel, and Israel will accept a “Palestinian” State. Many PMs of Israel offered this solution to the Palestinians. It was rejected. And as you will see, it is still rejected. Why? Because it demands a straightforward declaration. The Palestinians recognize the “State of Israel.” This they were not then, nor are they currently willing to do. And after 10/7, the overwhelming populace in Israel does not believe this is the time to talk about a TTS - not at least in this generation.
“The status of Jerusalem” - In four simple words, this may be the most explosive topic within that paragraph. When Jordan had control of the old city of Jerusalem, it was almost impossible for Jews to live there. When Israel had control of the old city of Jerusalem, Arabs lived there, did business there, and owned land there. A majority of the Israeli populace, based upon events since the Oslo Accords, would never consider allowing control of Jerusalem in foreign hands. When Jordan had control, the Westen Wall and the area of the Temple Mount were forbidden to Jews. With special permission, Jews could get to the Western Wall. When Israel has control, the Al-Asqa Mosque is open to Arabs to pray there, even if we must close down the area to Jews who wish to go there. Make no mistake. This is a subject that is not going to be solved with a slogan or buzzword.
“The Israeli settlements” - Another explosive topic based on the lexicon you wish to use. Are they settlements? Are they towns and cities? Are they part of Israel, “Judea and Samaria,” or are they on the “West Bank”? And just how many people do you intend to displace? What is the plan? Why do those settlements not belong within Israel? Many Israelis would say, “World, you are lucky we did not take over the entire old city of Jerusalem right after the 6-Day War, instead of letting it be.” Here, it is all in a lexicon. Meanings of words and slogans. Understanding the implications. Acknowledging the rights of one group over another. That is some hairy business right there.
“The right of return of Palestinian refugees” - Israel asks this all the time. Why is there not one Arab country, not one, willing to take in the people from Gaza? Why don’t Jordan, Egypt, Qatar, Turkey, and all the rest take in their people? They do not take them in because it would seriously destabilize the current regimes. Jordan had this happen and ended up with “Black September.” Egypt had this happen quite a few times. They finally woke up and realized these were not just people from Gaza looking for a home. They are looking to take over and conquer at any cost. And the solution is to get Israel to handle it? The answer is that these people claim what we consider part of our land. Based on what rights? Based on what source? Are they refugees in 2024 because they were forced to be by Israel or because they were forced to be by the Arab states and the various terrorist networks, including Hamas? What makes a refugee a refugee in this case?
It is incredible how much can be explained in one short paragraph, isn’t it? There is a danger in slogans and buzzwords. They often fail to explain the underlying problems, ideas, and difficulties.
So, TSS is not as simple as it sounds. It is not just parking oneself on a piece of land and saying all is good now. Ahh, but it gets so much more complicated.
The Magic Solution or Pandora’s Box?
The primary question is if the TSS is a magic solution to all the woes of the Middle East or if it is opening another Pandora's Box. If you have no “skin in the game,” as it were, the initial reaction probably would be, “Hell, yes. A TSS is the way to go. Get this over with already. Sit down like adults and draw the lines on the map and that is that.”
That answer is predicated upon a myriad of factors. However, instead of getting into a voluminous list, let us just concentrate on three factors.
Will the “State of Israel” be recognized as an official entity by the Palestinians and all other partners who are terrorist organizations today?
And just as important, will it cease the warfare and fighting?
Is there any chance that Israel, the majority of its populace, post 10/7, will even consider such a proposition?
The answer to all three of those questions is “no.”
Undoubtedly, you can pull out articles from the well-written Haaretz Newspaper and some Israeli news stations that will tell you there is support for a TSS. What you must remember is these represent the left in Israel, and since 10/7, that left has shrunk a great deal. You cannot approach this on a cerebral, intellectual sphere. This is what no one has understood, both in Israel and the world. This is not an argument over who can make use of the dictionary and thesaurus in the best manner. It is not cerebral and floating in the air. A TSS touches every single nerve ending on both sides. A TSS is not a magic solution. It will open up a Pandora’s box of conflict and even more war. It will rip open scabs that will not be healed. Again, this is not some slogan or buzzword to throw around so politicians can feel good about themselves.
And as you will see in the last part of this piece, the Palestinian-Gaza-Hamas side utterly rejects the TSS.
Let Us Jump To Current Affairs With A TSS
UN chief: refusal to accept two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians 'unacceptable'
Yet the world insists. There only way forward is a TSS. If you type “two-state solution” into Google or Bing or whatever search engine you use, you will find page upon page of articles about the TSS worldwide. And the overwhelming world opinion is to start this process. One cannot argue with that truth.
The Jerusalem Post carried this piece. The key word there is “threatens,” the question is why the Jerusalem Post would use such a term.
Borrell threatens Israel on a two-state solution, as EU begins road map talks
“I don’t think we should talk about the Middle East peace process anymore,” Borrell told reporters after the meeting. “We should start talking specifically about the two-state-solution implementation process.”
“Peace is a very general objective,” he said. “Everyone agrees on the need for peace. No one would say they are against peace. But here we are not talking about peace in general. Here we are talking about peace via a specific process.”
Now, the conversation should be about how to implement a two-state solution, Borrell said.
“That is what we are trying to achieve, [and] not everyone agrees on that,” he said. “Some are in favor; some are against... If Israel doesn’t want that solution, it will be difficult for them to take part in discussions to build that solution. But that doesn’t stop everyone else from doing that.”
The message is clear. If Israel does not want to take part in these talks, then who cares? Us big boys, the smart ones, the objective ones - will figure this out for you. But the real message here is: “Israel does not have to be in charge of its own destiny. We will do it for you, Israel. Your destiny is in our hands.”
And this from the Times Of Israel:
Germany backs 2-state solution, calls for urgent humanitarian pause to Gaza fighting
A two-state solution to allow for peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians is the “only solution” to the current conflict, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock says before heading into an EU foreign ministers’ meeting.
“All those who say they don’t want to hear about such a solution have not brought any alternative,” she adds, while also calling for an urgent “humanitarian pause” to the war raging in the Gaza Strip.
Even Haaretz from the left in Israel had this to say:
Israel and the U.S. Are Engaging in a Bogus Debate Over the Two-state Solution
The attention the U.S. is paying to the prospect of a Palestinian state alongside Israel is part of a ploy orchestrated by Netanyahu, who is back to his old tricks. A two-state solution cannot come now, and the Biden administration knows it…
If you're new to politics in the Middle East and happen to be following the heated exchange between the U.S. and Israel, you might be grossly misled to believe that an abstract entity called "a Palestinian state" is imminent and that the two countries are locked in a substantive debate over the feasibility, contours and features of such a place.
Not even close. The U.S. is miscalculating by constantly bringing up the subject and the Israeli prime minister is having a field day over the issue, for his own political reasons.
The renewed reemergence and rekindling of the concept of an Israeli-Palestinian agreement resulting in the formation of a Palestinian state in most of the West Bank and Gaza is completely artificial and nothing more than grand posturing and a rhetorical hot potato untethered from political realities. A two-state solution may very well be the best possible and durable solution, certainly preferable to a one binational state or the untenable status quo, but we are far from it.
This is the PDF of the article in Haaretz if you want to read the whole piece.
This is happening. The world wants Israel to trust its collective wisdom - when they cannot even get the IRC to give Israel a list of hostages! The world thinks it is sophisticated enough, and the EU and UN think it is strong enough to impose such an agreement upon Israel when not one of its glorified institutions has been able to bring about the return of civilian hostages. The myth of world wisdom and strength is gone like the wind in light of that simple fact. And this conglomeration of politicians is what you want Israel to trust in negotiations with a partner who wants to destroy it?
This Is Not A Netanyahu Creation - It Goes Way Beyond Him Or Any Individual
I can hear the screams coming. It is all Netanyahu’s fault. Blame him! Well, you can hate him or love him. I do not particularly care. What you cannot do is lay the problem of the TSS on Netanyahu’s shoulders. He did not create this, nor was he even in politics when it began. But he is a PM now and has powerful reasons for opposing it.
Israel-Gaza: EU foreign ministers call for “two-state solution” after Netanyahu’s latest remarks
This is how the Washington Post reported it.
What Netanyahu sees from the river to the sea
Arab governments indicated that they would only invest in rebuilding and stabilizing Gaza after the war — which has seen more than 25,000 Palestinians killed and much of the territory flattened — if Israel engages in a meaningful political process with the Palestinians. The White House, too, at least pays lip service to the “aspirations of the Palestinian people” and wants postwar Gaza to be administered by the Palestinian Authority as part of a broader rapprochement that revives the prospect of a two-state solution and further integrates Israel into its Arab neighborhood.
In private, senior Biden officials have pushed this plan to Israeli and Arab counterparts. On a Friday phone call with Netanyahu, President Biden reportedly floated the idea of a two-state solution where Israel’s security would be “guaranteed” — a recognition of Netanyahu’s long-standing suspicion of the threat any independent Palestinian entity poses to Israel. When a reporter on Friday asked whether the two-state solution was an impossibility under Netanyahu’s watch, Biden replied, “No, it’s not.”
It didn’t take Netanyahu long to contradict Biden. “I will not compromise on full Israeli security control over the entire area west of [the river] Jordan — and this is irreconcilable with a Palestinian state,” he wrote on social media Saturday, nipping Biden’s hopeful talk in the bud.
Haaretz on the left sees it from their eyes:
Netanyahu Is Running Out of Lies
The two sources of pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – to make a call on a hostage deal and the U.S.' 'day after' plan for Gaza – are becoming unbearable. And they are about to converge on him.
This is not a Netanyahu-created problem. He may very well be responsible, among others, for the security failures on 10/7. He may have to pay that ultimate price, along with many others. But he is not responsible for all the Palestinian woes. I am not defending him. The TSS is more significant than him or any one person.
What is clear is the world has forgotten 10/7. To them, it is, at best, an anomaly at worst, just another attack on Israel (or Jews). It is not indicative of anything of import to this discussion. What is important is that Israel finally reacted, and now Gaza is in ruins. What is being forgotten is not just the collective trauma of 10/7, not just the fact that 132 hostages are still in Gaza with no light at the end of the tunnel, but that this is the type of trauma that Israel and Jews worldwide have already lived through. The old cliche comes to mind: “Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me.”
A Collage Of Opinions
On Carnegie Europe’s website, indeed not a site that is siding with Israel, the following appears:
Judy Asks: Is the Two-State Solution Feasible?
I would love to put the entire article here, but here are some excerpts from both sides:
MURIEL ASSEBURGSENIOR FELLOW IN THE AFRICA AND MIDDLE EAST DIVISION AT THE GERMAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL AND SECURITY AFFAIRS (SWP)
Yet, the atrocities committed by Hamas and other militants on October 7, the unprecedented death toll and destruction caused by the war in Gaza, and the high risk of regional and international conflagration all underline that there cannot be lasting stability in the Middle East without an agreement that speaks to the security needs, national aspirations, and human dignity of both Israelis and Palestinians.
This realization should help focus relevant actors’ minds—above all in the United States, Europe, and Arab states—to finally join forces and push first for an arrangement for Gaza and then for a settlement of the Palestine question. Indeed, a separation into two states looks like the only format available as a binational state with equal rights has become even more unlikely than it was before.
CAROLINE DE GRUYTEREUROPEAN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT FOR NRC HANDELSBLAD
The two-state solution is the only possible road to peace between Israelis and Palestinians. For Israel, living in one state is unacceptable—one day, with current birthrates, Jews could be outnumbered there. This is why Israel invested in the Oslo peace process in the 1990s, which gave snippets of Palestine gradual autonomy. They never got to independence. One reason for this is continued Israel settlement building and military “zoning” in the West Bank. Palestinian villages are scattered all over, cordoned off from each other.
MARTIN EHLCHIEF ANALYST AT HOSPODÁŘSKÉ NOVINY
Currently, one month after the massacre of Hamas, the two-state solution does not look like a viable option. If the road in this direction was complicated before October 7, right now it looks endless with infinite possible turns into darkness ahead.
However, it is the only long-term option for the whole Middle East. That would require not only goodwill from both sides but also structural changes of the political system—on the Palestinian side, mostly. The viability of such an option would be possible only under the condition of (more or less) democratic rule which is based on the search for compromises.
RUNO MAÇÃESAUTHOR AND FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT FOR THE NEW STATESMAN
I don’t believe a two-state solution is possible anymore, desirable as it would be. About half a million Israeli settlers live in the West Bank. The Palestinian population is being expelled from their homes as we speak and settlers are increasingly running the Israeli government. A two-state solution would always depend on a balance of power between the two sides and Israel now feels so powerful it no longer needs to compromise.
What I witnessed in my last visit to the West Bank a year ago were the heights of despair. Unfortunately, a one-state solution is also impossible. After the brutal attacks from Hamas last month, the scenario of a final expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza and even the West Bank is looming. We may have entered the last throes of the Palestinian national dream.
MARWAN MUASHERVICE PRESIDENT FOR STUDIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST PROGRAM AT THE CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE
A two-state solution exists only in theory. In practice, it died long ago.
JOEL PETERSPROFESSOR OF GOVERNMENT AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AT VIRGINIA TECH, UNITED STATES
With the memory of the Hamas attacks of October 7 still fresh, with the fate of the Israeli hostages unresolved, and with Israel’s military assault on Gaza still ongoing, the idea of the two-state solution seems fanciful today. It will take time for the scars to heal. But at some point, politics and reason will have to replace emotion and anger.
LUIGI SCAZZIERISENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW AT THE CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN REFORM
A two-state solution is hard to imagine. The roughly 700,000 settlers in the West Bank, the tilt to the hard right in Israeli politics, and the Palestinians’ lack of a unified leadership pose formidable obstacles.
TESSA SZYSZKOWITZCURATOR AT THE BRUNO KREISKY FORUM FOR INTERNATIONAL DIALOGUE, VIENNA
In 1993, leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Yassir Arafat embraced the two-state solution, as did Israel’s then prime minister Yitzhak Rabin. The Oslo Accords were signed and in 1994 the Nobel peace prize was awarded to Rabin, Arafat, and Shimon Peres, who was the brain behind the historic agreement. The idea—a state each for Israelis and Palestinians—was the first plan that made it seem like a solution for an endless, costly conflict between two peoples claiming the same land could be found by mutual agreement.
But embracing it was not enough. The implemention failed. Thirty years later there is little hope for the two-state solution. A part of the Palestinian society, Hamas in Gaza, is entrenched in violence.
As you can see, even those favoring a TSS have little hope for it. Either they will blame it on the current Israeli and Palestinian governments, or they will blame it on the culture. Let me ask this loaded question. What will the world say if Netanyahu leaves, and by a democratic process of elections, an even more right-wing government gets elected? What will they say then?
But you know what? Everything I have written above is moot and void. Why? Take a look and read below.
What Do Hamas & The Palestinians Say About All This?
Above is a 3-minute video with Khaled Mashal, and below is the caption text. Please read it. The bold is mine.
Khaled Mashal (born 28 May 1956) is a Palestinian political leader and former head of the Hamas militant organization.2
People are talking now about the "two-state solution."
And that is why they are saying now that the war, which began on Oct. 7th, opened up a channel to a new diplomatic vision.
By saying this, they are returning to their old "merchandise" - the two-state solution.
I would like to say two things about the two-state solution:
First of all, we have nothing to do with the two-state solution. It is an unacceptable term because it means you have some promised state" while you are required to acknowledge another state, the Zionist entity, and recognize its legitimacy, and that is unacceptable.
We ask for liberation and ending the occupation, and we want our independence and our country. This is my enemy. I don't want him.
What is our country?
A Palestinian country.
For me, the position of Hamas, as well as the majority of the Palestinian people, especially after October 7th, there's a renewal of the dream and hope:
Palestine - from the river to the sea, from the north to the south. Why should the Palestinians agree to a fifth of Palestine and accept it as the final solution?
A fifth of Palestine is the 1967 borders.
The 1967 borders. The 67' borders are 21%, a fifth of Palestine, so no.
So, you are telling me that after Oct. 7th, we won't agree to 67' borders. Do we want Palestine from the river to the sea?
No. The situation is as such: Our Palestinian project, to which the vast majority of Palestinians agree, even those who have a different opinion and are forced to say it due to political circumstances, but the thing most of the Palestinians agree to is that we must not give up our right of Palestine, from the river to the sea and from Rosh Hanikra to Eilat, or Aqaba Bay.
That is, our Palestinian right existence is both modern and ancient, while the Zionist entity has been occupying us since 1948. Our existence is both modern and ancient, while our existence is both modern and ancient, while Hamas and the leading Palestinian forces for a while now.
But Hamas and the leaders have declared in the 2017 document, "The Political Document," that Hamas, to create common grounds with the influential Palestinian and Arab position, will agree to a state with 67' borders with Jerusalem as its capital with complete independence and right of return, without acknowledging the Zionist entity.
This is a position designed to allow Palestinian and Arab consent at this stage, but without giving up any part of our rights or land and without acknowledging Israel.
To educate you on what Khaled Mashal is saying regarding the 2017 document.
The 2017 Hamas charter presented the Palestinian state being based on the 1967 borders. The text says "Hamas considers the establishment of a Palestinian state, sovereign and complete, on the basis of the June 4, 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital and the provision for all the refugees to return to their homeland." This is in contrast to Hamas' 1988 charter, which previously called for a Palestinian state on all of Mandatory Palestine. Nevertheless, even in the 2017 charter, Hamas did not recognize Israel.3
In other words, in simple terms, Hamas does not and will never recognize Israel. They lay claim to the entire country. But in the face of the public, to convince the world they are being fair and playing nice, they will use the 2017 document to get the first step toward what they want.
Please don’t believe me. Read the text.
The “90-120 Second Max Rule” does not exist here. You cannot hide behind slogans and buzzwords such as a “Two State Solution” and think all sides will accept this. You cannot go ahead and tell Israel - “Well, if you don’t agree with us, we will shove your destiny down your throats.” You will never be able to get Hamas and their brokers to agree that the “State of Israel” is a legitimate entity. And you will not convince Israel just to put aside 10/7 and all the ramifications and ask Israel to sit quietly and wait until Hamas is good and ready to return the hostages and behave.
You will also never be able to convince even one Arab state, just one, to take in the people of Gaza. They know precisely what they will be in for if they do such a thing. They will never agree to it. And to ask Qatar who is housing the Hamas leadership to play a role in these “destiny talks” is about as ludicrous an idea as one can think of. Impartiality does not come to mind at this point.
So to all the cerebral politicians, grabbing onto the “Two State Solution” for political gain. You do not have a “Magic Solution.” Israel tried it again and again. From Oslo to Ehud Olmert. They all tried it. And you wonder why Netanyahu refuses to allow those who perpetrated and supported the 10/7 attacks to sit on our doorstep? No. This is not just Netanyahu. This is an entire state whose destiny is at stake.
You are opening Pandora’s Box with all the woe and none of the hope by pushing a “Two State Solution.”
And you know what happens immediately after you open that box, right?
One need not be a prophet to say, “Pushing the TSS will not end well.”
Two-state solution. (2024, January 23). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution
Khaled Mashal. (2023, December 28). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_Mashal
Ibid, Notation #1
As long as the Palestinians want all Jews dead there is no negotiating.