OPINION:
For months now, we have been hearing from many quarters, including the Biden administration, that the only possible approach to resolving the violence caused by Hamas and supported by various enemies of Israel is a “two-state solution,” sometimes euphemistically described as “two states for two peoples.”
Who are these two peoples in need of precisely what two separate states?
It is obvious that one of the relevant “peoples” is the Jewish people, who have lived in the region for over 3,000 years and have recreated a nation that has achieved an amazing level of prosperity for its citizens, with some 7 million Jews living in a vibrant democracy.
The other “people” is more difficult to define. The term “Palestinian” is the one that is most often applied to define that other “people.” Until very recently, however, no such “people” even existed.
Indeed, until 1948, when the state of Israel was created, the term “Palestinian” was always assumed to be a reference to Jews who were returning to their traditional homeland. It was not until after 1967 that the term “Palestinian” began to be ascribed to Arabs residing, or who had at some time resided, within the bounds of an area over which the League of Nations gave a governing mandate to Britain in the aftermath of World War I.
After having been given this “Palestine mandate,” the British government took a portion of the mandatory land and called it “Transjordan.” Abdullah, an Arab tribal leader, was then installed as the leader of this new entity. The British government kept the balance of the land under its direct control.
In the midst of World War I, however, in order to secure support from the Jewish community as the Brits were fighting the Ottoman Empire, which was allied with Germany, the British government issued a formal declaration — the Balfour Declaration — announcing that it viewed with favor the creation of a Jewish homeland “in Palestine”: namely, all of the area west of the Jordan River.
In the 1930s, the British government reconsidered its decision regarding the establishment of a Jewish state. As Jews, subjected to ever more virulent antisemitism in Europe, increasingly headed toward the area, the British government found itself in a geopolitical bind, with Britain’s Arab allies objecting to the return of Jews to their ancient homeland.
The simmering conflict between the growing Jewish presence and the regional Arabs made the situation so untenable that, after World War II, the British government announced that it would withdraw from the area and turn the matter over to the new United Nations.
The U.N. voted for the creation of a Jewish state in part of mandatory Palestine and an Arab state generally to its east and in Gaza. But the Jordanians, asserting that they were the ones with rights to “Palestine,” immediately seized all of those portions to the west of the Jordan River where the new state of Israel had not asserted control and claimed those areas for itself (with Egypt seizing Gaza).
There was little worldwide objection to Jordan’s seizure, thereby tacitly acknowledging the hegemony of two states in the territory over which the British had been given a mandate — one Arab and one Jewish.
While most of the world accepted this two-state solution, many Arab nations did not. They did not want two states. They wanted the elimination of Israel; they wanted a single state — a Muslim Arab state in the entire region.
Again and again, those who rejected the existence of two states tried to destroy Israel. The most recent manifestation of that desire occurred with the horrific massacre this past Oct. 7.
The identity of the “two states” that should be referenced in the so-called two-state solution formula is actually evident: the kingdom of Jordan, the Arab Palestinian state (since already more than half of its residents today are “Palestinian” Arabs, including Queen Rania) and Israel, the Jewish Palestinian state. (Jordan may refuse to acknowledge its role as a Palestinian state due to its fear of radical Palestinians, but facts impose this unavoidable reality.)
Jordan and Israel are the only entities with governmental infrastructure adequate to provide stable government services to residents. Assuredly, the corrupt, incompetent and murderous Palestinian Authority cannot. Thus, the sole remaining issue is which areas not currently part of either existing state are to be incorporated into these states. More precisely, which of the areas in which Arabs constitute a majority in the so-called Occupied Territories (or, to put it more legally, the Disputed Territories) will come under some form of Arab sovereignty?
Two states for two peoples already exist. There is no precedent, room or need for a third state. Furthermore, the integration of any areas of the Disputed Territories into one or the other existing state needs to be carried out in lengthy incremental steps through thoughtful negotiations in order to ensure security for both states.
But the very first step must be the universal acceptance of the two existing states — Jordan, a state for the regional Arab population, including “Palestinian Arabs,” and Israel, for the regional Jewish population, for the Jewish Palestinians. Anything less is simply a nonstarter since, without it, the expressed goal of two states for two peoples cannot be achieved.
Perhaps the most important word in the two-state solution formulation is actually the word “two.” Indeed, two states are appropriate, but not three.
• Gerard Leval is a partner in the Washington office of a national law firm. He is the author of “Lobbying for Equality: Jacques Godard and the Struggle for Jewish Civil Rights During the French Revolution,” published by HUC Press.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.