The two-state solution: Why does this discredited non-starter still dominate liberal thinking?
For decades, it was commonplace for the foreign policy establishment to say: “Everyone knows what the solution in the Middle East is.” That solution was wo states — Israel and a Palestinian entity.
Then someone, I forget who it was, asked this question: If everyone has known for decades that the Middle East solution is two states, why hasn’t this solution come to pass? The answer was obvious: This wasn’t the solution because the Palestinians didn’t want it and, increasingly, neither did the Israelis.
It’s been a good while since I’ve heard the “everyone knows” language. However, the dream of a “two-state solution” remains the cornerstone of liberal thinking about the Middle East. The only reason we’ve heard less about it in recent years is because liberal Democrats finally realized, after decades of banging their heads against the wall, that they couldn’t “solve” the Israeli-Palestine impasse, and therefore decided to “pivot” away from the region.
But after October 7, 2023, they were forced to pivot back. And so, sure enough, they again have trotted out the two-state solution.
Under any rational analysis, however, the events of October 7 conclusively demolish any claim that there’s a viable two-state solution.
Gaza was a de facto Palestinian state, though it was not officially recognized as one. Gaza had its own government — supported financially by the international community and militarily by Iran — and there was no Israeli presence in that territory.
Hamas ran the show and there’s no evidence that the Gazans, who elected Hamas years ago, were unhappy about this. In any case, Hamas’ rule was reality in this de facto state.
October 7 was the consequence of Gaza’s independence. Hamas, unconstrained, invaded Israel and committed the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. If Israel had maintained a presence in Gaza, as it has in the West Bank, Hamas could not have pulled off its butchery.
Can it be more obvious that a Palestinian state on the West Bank would leave Israel exposed to another October 7? I don’t see how.
Hamas at least as popular on the West Bank as it is in Gaza. And Hamas would become all the more popular if that territory gained the status of a state as a result of the October 7 massacre and its aftermath. The Palestinians would build statues honoring the “martyrs” who pulled off October 7 and then resisted the Israeli counterattack.
Flush with its success in having won Palestinian statehood, there’s every reason to believe Hamas would take the logical next step — to try and destroy the state of Israel. Its charter commits the terrorist outfit to this mission and the October 7 massacre confirms that it’s deadly serious about this objective. Indeed, Hamas leaders vow to keep attacking Israel until the Jewish state is destroyed.
The next chance it gets, Hamas will embark on another October 7-style attack. The only way to prevent the West Bank from being the source of this mission is for Israel to keep controlling that territory.
As for Gaza, I don’t think anyone knows for sure what the best solution is. (I favor many more months of hunting down Hamas fighters, destroying tunnels, and finding weapons, and, after that, maintaining a military presence,. But the decision should be up to the Israelis). But everyone knows, or should know, what the solution isn’t. The solution can’t be a return to the pre-October 7 status quo. Nor can it be the creation of a Palestinian state on the West Bank.
Indeed, neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis want a two-state solution. For the Palestinians, this solution wouldn’t solve much because their ambition is the abolition of Israel (Palestine from the river to the sea). For the Israelis, a two-state solution would exacerbate, rather than solve, their entirely legitimate security concerns.
Why, then, is the Biden administration pressing for a Palestinian state? I’m not sure.
One reason might be force of habit (or superstition, as Noah Rothman says). The two-state solution is the only page in the liberal playbook, both here and among our European allies.
Another reason might be to pacify the Democrats’ increasingly anti-Israeli base. Having alienated that base due to its support for Israel’s invasion of Gaza, the White House feels it must do something to keep this base on its side, or to win it back. (Even Biden’s own staffers are protesting against Biden’s alleged softness on Israel.)
One way is to urge Israeli restraint in the war effort. Whether Israel has heeded Biden’s calls is an open question. Whether these calls have mollified the anti-Israeli base is not: It hasn’t.
Calling for the creation of a Palestinian state won’t either — not unless, against all odds, one comes into being and maybe not even then. However, Team Biden has to try something, so it has pulled out the two-state solution.
The downside for Team Biden is that it makes the president look foolish and ineffective. But when has looking foolish and ineffective deterred this administration?
I have often wondered these things myself. How can someone like Tom Friedman genuinely believe that it is Israel and the settlements that is preventing a solution? He's not stupid. I don't believe he hates Israel (like say Peter Beinart). It must be that he is insane. To me insanity means a complete break with reality. He, Blinken others simply don't see the reality that 30 years of Palestinian self rule and education has turned the entire population into a Jew hating death cult that will never live peacefully with Israel. When Blinken referred to "the peaceful aspirations of the Palestinian people" I almost spit out my coffee. He is either lying or he is also insane. No one aware of reality could possibly think this. I don't know why they come up with this. The only one who even slightly acknowledged reality was W. Bush who wouldn't support a Palestinian state "compromised by terror." For everyone else its like the Palestinians don't actually exist. Even Trump who did some good things for Israel acted like a deal just needed the right deal maker. It's nuts.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, for calling out this enduring absurdity!
I think it's simple: the "two-state solution" is a pleasant narrative liberals cannot live without. They live by narratives, not by reality. They need to keep this one alive, whether it's any more plausible than purple sky. It's what their base wants to hear, so they keep saying it, with the cynical understanding that it will never come to pass, and even it destabilizes the region, they will be able to say they tried to be on the "right side of history."
But it is not the only fantasy that the foreign policy establishment has entertained, inexplicably, for decades.