Israel and Palestine, in favor of the two-state solution
The project that Israel and Iran so vehemently reject is worth revisiting, even if it means making painful concessions when the conflict ends
Israel and Iran are sworn enemies. The former perceives the Islamic Republic as an existential threat, and the latter revels in anti-Israeli rhetoric. So many may have been surprised that Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian declared at the Doha Forum that the two agree on one thing: the rejection of the two-state solution for Palestine. Precisely the formula that, given the drift of the war in Gaza, several international leaders — Joe Biden, Xi Jinping, Emmanuel Macron, and Pedro Sánchez among them — are dusting off from the trunk of memories.
It is well-known that opposites attract. In this case, only formally, because the reason why extremists on both sides oppose a Palestinian state on an equal footing with the Israeli state (U.N. Resolution 181) could not be more different. While the Jewish supremacists who support Benjamin Netanyahu’s government want an exclusive state for the chosen people, the Iranian Islamist rulers and their Palestinian partners dream of driving the Jews into the sea. They propose, as Amir-Abdollahian has recalled, a referendum to determine the fate of Palestine, but in which “only the descendants of those who lived in that territory before 1948″ (when Jews represented barely a third of the population) would vote. In other words, back to square one, as if nothing had happened in 75 years.
Many people are wondering today if there isn’t some solution to the problem. In the almost four decades that I have been following the conflict I have read all kinds of suggestions. From the maximalist winner-take-all to an idyllic bi-national state that recognizes multiple identities (in addition to Jews and Palestinians, Muslims and Christians, there are Druze, Bedouins, and other minorities), to various federation formulas. On paper, anything is possible. The reality is different.
Although some proposals have more merit than others, they all clash with the fact of two peoples claiming a single land. This requires both to make painful concessions, as was seen when Israelis and Palestinians accepted the Oslo Accords of 1993 (in which Palestine was reduced to 22% of its historical territory). The assassination of one of its pillars, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (at the hands of a Jewish extremist), in 1995 put an end to that attempt. Since then, Israeli hawks have made sure to make a viable Palestinian state impossible (through settlements, yes, but also with the invaluable help of a corrupt Palestinian National Authority), giving wings to the hatred of Islamist groups such as Hamas. And, needless to say, with the complicity of their Western allies.
It is pointless to discuss which came first, the chicken or the egg. The urgency of the calamitous humanitarian situation in Gaza calls for drastic decisions rather than far-sightedness. The idea of two states rings hollow today in the face of a territory ravaged by bombs and subjected to a blockade of food, health services, and communications. After years of paying lip service to it, its Western backers lack credibility. The imbalance between a full-fledged Israeli state and an aspiring Palestinian state without resources, infrastructure, or even recognition from the other side, seems insurmountable. Mutual wounds and mistrust, even the hatred that has encouraged violence, make it difficult to sit down and talk. But what is the alternative? An apartheid regime? Genocide?
Simply because extremists on both sides reject the two-state solution it would be worth the effort of revisiting the project. It will not be easy. But first they will have to silence the guns.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition
