Prime Minister Yair Lapid has recently announced his vision at the United Nations for solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – the two-state solution.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
While many lauded Lapid, including President Joe Biden, a policy recommendation based on an illusion is unlikely to succeed. The idea that Jewish and Arab states will coexist peacefully is widespread in contemporary academic and political circles but ignores the reality on the ground.
Unfortunately, a stable and peaceful outcome per the two-state solution is unlikely to emerge soon for two reasons: the Palestinian Arab and the Zionist national movements are not close to reaching a historic compromise, and the Palestinians have proven themselves unable to build a state.
The two are too far apart when it comes to the core issues – Jerusalem, refugees, and borders – and bridging the differences appears impossible. Israel's positions have hardened since the outbreak of the Second Intifada in 2000 and the intermittent Palestinian terror after the Gaza Strip became a launching pad for thousands of missiles aimed at Israeli civilians after 2007.
At this juncture, Palestinian society, under the spell of a nationalist and Islamic ethos, is unable to reach a compromise with the Zionist movement. Recent polls (March 2022) show that two-thirds of the Palestinians say Israel is an apartheid state, and 73% believe the Koran contains a prophecy about the demise of the State of Israel. The current Palestinian education system and official media incite hatred of Jews, who are blamed for all Palestinian misfortunes.
Indeed, Palestinian rejectionism won the day whenever a concrete partition was on the agenda, such as the one offered by former Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 2000 or the one proposed by former premier Ehud Olmert in 2007. Even the "moderate" Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas rejects the idea that Israel should be a Jewish state. Any Palestinian state will be dissatisfied with its borders and intent on using force to attain its goals.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
Finally, the two dueling societies still have the energy to battle and, more significantly, to absorb the anguish required to achieve their respective political objectives. Nationalism inspires people to endure pain and hardship during national wars. Often, societal exhaustion – rather than an opportunity for an optimal compromise – ends protracted ethnic conflict. If pain is the most influential factor on the learning curve of societies, it seems that Israelis and Palestinians have not suffered enough to settle.
The sober realization that a Palestinian state will not live peacefully next to Israel refutes the first assumption of the two-state solution paradigm.
The second assumption of the two-state solution postulates that the Palestinian national movement would accomplish this goal, given the opportunity to build a state. This assumption is also divorced from the current political reality.
The system's primary failure lay in the area most critical to state-building – a monopoly over the use of force. Indeed, the PA lost control of Gaza to Hamas and has continuous difficulties dismantling militias in the territory under its formal control. Noteworthy is that even Hamas has failed to acquire a monopoly over the use of force in Gaza, allowing armed organizations and clans to exist.
The expectations that the Palestinians will build a modern state soon, even with Western assistance, are naive. It took centuries to build nation-states in Europe. Except for Egypt, a historical entity possessing a level of political cohesion, attempts at state-building in the Middle East have only partially succeeded. Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Iraq, Somalia and Yemen are all examples of political entities grappling with the problem of establishing central authority and modernity.
Unfortunately, not every protracted conflict has an immediately available solution. In the absence of a negotiated agreement, conflict management is the appropriate strategy for dealing with the Israel-Palestinian Arab dispute.
Such a strategy aims to minimize the cost of armed conflict and preserve freedom of political maneuvering. Its goal is also to buy time, hoping the future may bring better alternatives. The lack of a clear end goal is not inspiring, yet this may be the best way to deal with a complex situation.
Featured on jiss.org.il., this article was first published by jpost.com.
