Liam Hehir recently stated in his article The necessity for Palestinian Statehood that “the apparent rejection of a two-state solution by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is cause for apprehension”. My view is that although Hehir is (strictly speaking) correct that Netanyahu has rejected a two-state solution (and indeed I detest Netanyahu) this lacks important context.
The Palestinians have already been offered a state
What a disturbingly high proportion of people do not appear to realise is that the Palestinians have been offered their own state on multiple occasions, and refused. At the Camp David summit in 2000 Yasser Arafat was offered more than 90% of the West Bank, $30 billion in compensation for land lost in 1967, East Jerusalem as its capital, and control of the Temple Mount. He refused.
Mosab Hassan Yousef provides interesting insights about the peace process
Mosab Hassan Yousef, a high ranking Shin Bet spy within Hamas, said in his autobiography that Arafat would not have agreed to any peace deal as he was not acting in good faith. Although Arafat publicly condemned violence against civilians, Yousef (who knew Arafat personally) said that was to elicit Western humanitarian aid. In fact Yousef gave evidence before the UN Security Council that Arafat used that same aid to secretly fund suicide bombings against Israeli civilians whilst he was also simultaneously purporting to negotiate in good faith for a two-state solution.
Most Palestinians agreed with Arafat’s decision, while Israel was willing to make huge concessions
Yousef also says that the vast majority of Palestinians agreed with Arafat’s decision as the concept of a two-state solution and allowing Israel to exist in peace was simply anathema in Palestinian society. He also says that his Shin Bet handlers were amazed at the enormity of how much their government was willing to concede in a good faith effort at peace.
Arafat caused a cynicism about the peace process in Israel
Israeli society is divided between the right wing (which is cynical about the peace process) and the left wing (which seeks a two-state solution). It is perhaps little wonder in the wake of negotiations with Arafat that in the 2000s the Israeli government became increasingly right wing and engaged in policies detrimental to future peace negotiations, such as building settlements in the West Bank.
The issue of settlements in the West Bank is complicated
I am emphatically not endorsing settlements in the West Bank. Israeli expansionism causes alarm to and radicalises Palestinian civilians. However, I also recognise that the settlements have defensive value given Jerusalem’s geographical vulnerability to attack from the east, and when Arafat’s absolute disinterest in peace became apparent at the turn of the century I can sympathise with (albeit not agree with) Israel’s desire for security.
I vehemently disagree with current Israeli policy
I could not disagree more strongly with Israel’s war in Gaza and with the mass murder of Palestinian civilians and with (for example) the erection of menorahs within Gaza causing the perception that it is a religious war of conquest with the intention of driving out Palestinians from the land entirely (i.e. ethnic cleansing). The fact that Israel cut off all food and water into the area (despite having now lifted that restriction due to American pressure) should horrify any person with a functioning conscience. In that sense Netanyahu has certainly rejected a two-state solution.
Hehir’s statement about Netanyahu’s resistance to a two-state solution is nevertheless misleading
In view of the history outlined above however, I think Hehir’s statement that “the apparent rejection of a two-state solution by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is cause for apprehension” is deeply misleading. It is certainly the case that Netanyahu has rejected the possibility of a Palestinian state. But Hehir’s statement does not provide the context to that, or lay the responsibility for Israeli foreign policy in this area squarely where it belongs, i.e. with Yasser Arafat and others who have rejected peace.
In the wake of October 7, how can anyone expect Israel to agree to a Palestinian state?
In any event, following the mass rape, torture and murder of Jewish civilians on October 7 2023 Israel will never offer the Palestinians a state again in our lifetimes. Why? Because they could immediately elect Hamas, as Gaza did when Israel withdrew in 2006. A Hamas-controlled East Jerusalem with no geographical buffer zone to shield Jews in West Jerusalem from repeats of October 7 is simply out of the question.
I despair at the ever increasing loss of civility in current dialogue. You head up your otherwise thoughtful piece in terms labelling the author of the article you criticise an “idiot”. That’s rude and I’ll- mannered
Liked the article. If the Palestinians wanted peace, there would be peace.