The Two-State-Solution – the obstacles and what is needed to overcome them

The Two-State-Solution – the obstacles and what is needed to overcome them

By:

Dr. Mirko Wittwar & Dr.Fariborz Saremi

The terrorist Hamas attack on Israel of October 7^th, meant to sabotage any rapprochement between Israel and the Arab world altogether, and the thus resulting Gaza war have actually produced a paradox: on the one hand, there is a degree of antipathy and distrust against Israel all over the Arab world as it has not been seen for a very long time. On the other hand, however, a topic has come on top of the international agenda which has been dead for an as long time: the so called Two-State-Solution, i. e. the idea of a peaceful coexistence of Israel and an, as yet to be created, Palestinian state, is currently one of the most frequently discussed issues of international politics. Contrary to German publicist Henryk M. Broder´s estimation immediately after Hamas´s brutal attack, who declared the Two-State-Solution dead once and for all, less than three months later there is hardly anybody in international politics who denies the necessity of creating an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. And at a closer look this does not really come as a surprise, because there is a simple reason for it: October 7^th and the thus resulting war have demonstrated that there is simply no alternative, because it is considered a generally accepted fact that otherwise the problem of anti-Israeli terrorism will perhaps never cease.

Yet, despite the general international agreement on this insight – even in Israel itself the voices in support of a lasting solution for the conflict with due regard to the interests of the Palestinian people seem to get louder, not quieter – this one fundamental question remains unanswered: how is this to be achieved? Is it even possible, given the atrocities committed by Hamas – after all in the name of the Palestinian cause, although this claim is not at all justified – and given Israel´s brutal reaction in Gaza – and one must admit that it is brutal indeed, although nobody has as yet been able to present any feasible alternative reaction?

Everybody is talking about the Two-State-Solution as if it was as easy as that: Just do it! However, things are not that easy at all, but there are certain problems to be solved beforehand, before any real negotiations about the founding of a Palestinian state which deserves the name – what currently is called the State of Palestine cannot seriously be called a state – can even start. And these problems have as yet proven to be unsolvable. They are:

• Israel´s safety problem
• The settlements problem
• The Jerusalem problem
• The (mutual) trust problem.
• The (political) leadership problem

This selection does not claim completeness, but these may be considered the most important problems, the solution of which – if they can be solved – would dwarf any remaining problems.

Israel´s safety is indeed fundamental to any other aspect of any possible solution. It can simply not be that an independent state, founded and approved by the United Nations way back in 1948, must still in our days be concerned, and for good reasons, about its existence. This defines the main condition the Palestinian society must meet: there must be an end to any threat to Israel´s existence, to any denying of Israel´s right to be. In other words: instead of more or less clandestinely supporting or justifying violent action against Israel and its citizens, the Palestinian society must be ready to make their peace with Israel. As Anwar el-Sadat had it in his speech to the Knesset in 1977: `Israel is a fait accompli!´ This approach has borne fruit, and without this basic attitude among the Palestinian society nothing will be achieved at all.

Israel´s approach to safety, on the other hand, has proven to be ineffective. The country has counted on military force alone, on walling itself in, and on disregarding the interests of the Palestinian people. October 7^th at the latest, yet also the many terrorist attacks within Israel even before, are sufficient evidence that this approach simply does not work. Israel´s long-term safety will have to rest on coexistence, and coexistence always means compromise and the acceptance of the requirements of other parties. Israel has every right to demand peace from the Palestinian people, however it will have to make offers in return.

One such offer – and this is the one which is most crucial for the Palestinian side – concerns the settlements in the West Bank. First of all, all extending or new creation of settlements must stop, and this must happen right now. Secondly, the violence exerted by militant settlers against Palestinians must be stopped immediately. As an answer to the Hamas attack of October 7^th, the Netanyahu administration has approved even further extensions of settlements. This was precisely the wrong answer, stoking up the fire instead of extinguishing it.

The main Israeli argument against any withdrawal of settlements in the West Bank has always been that for a small country such as Israel it is simply impossible to take back and reintegrate several hundreds of thousands of settlers who are meanwhile living on occupied territory. However, this argument ignores the fact that by far most of these numbers live in only a few large settlement blocks, most of which are in the close vicinity of Jerusalem, are actually Jerusalem suburbs. On the other hand, by far most of the settlements scattered all over the West Bank and thus over the territory of a future Palestinian state – and these are the real obstacle – are no more than small, sometimes tiny agglomerations of houses, sometimes just accommodation containers or even caravans. As concerns the large blocks, which host the mainstay of the settlers, the past negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian side about the settlements issue did produce results and feasible solutions. The idea is a land swap: Israel will keep the large settlement blocks and may even annex their territory – in the end this would end up as kind of an enlargement of Jerusalem – while giving part of its territory to a future Palestinian state in return. On this there has been basic agreement, and only the details were left to be decided. What will remain then are only the scattered small and tiny settlements, whose inhabitants do not make large numbers and can easily be reintegrated into Israel. On this, agreement has already been achieved, and all that has to be done is to return to it and take up the threads from there. Israel has in the past proven that it is basically ready to withdraw settlements, such as those in Gaza Strip and Sinai.

Jerusalem is a much bigger and more complicated problem. In practical terms, none of the two parties really needs the city as its capital – Israel could easily be administered from Tel Aviv, and a Palestinian state could be as easily administered from Hebron or Ramallah. For both sides the significance of Jerusalem is merely symbolic, yet the symbolic value weighs heavily: for Islam, which is the religion of the vast majority of the Palestinians, Jerusalem is the place from where Muhammad rose to heaven, which makes the city the third-holiest place of the Islamic world. For Jewry, on the other hand, Jerusalem is the City, for which there is no replacement whatsoever.

From this there comes the idea of Jerusalem as the joint capital of both states, Israel and the Palestinian one. This has become the core of all current proposals of a Two-State-Solution. However, all these proposals share one great flaw: none of them, neither the famous, so called Road Map presented by the so called Middle East Quartet (USA, Russia, United Nations, EU) in 2002, nor the so called Saudi Initiative, nor any other proposal does give but the slightest hint at what this is supposed to look like – how is Jerusalem supposed to be the joint capital of two different states? There is only one detailed, facts-based proposal to this effect, presented by the Geneva Initiative, an NGO made up of representatives of both the Israeli and the Palestinian civil society. Elsewhere[1] an analysis of this proposal is presented, and it is made clear what it would mean: the complete, Berlin Wall-style division of Jerusalem (actually a threefold division – West Jerusalem, East Jerusalem, and the Old City), resulting in a plethora of unsolvable urban planning, security and administrative problems which would be likely to cause much more trouble than they could ever solve, plus the end of Jerusalem as an urban entity – although the proposal is certainly realistic in so far as no other way of Jerusalem functioning as a `joint´ capital can be seen, it  is simply not feasible. From this there concludes that the idea of Jerusalem as the joint capital of Israel and a Palestinian state is nothing than fiction, indeed a dead duck which should be abandoned immediately.

If this is so, then there must be a decision, and it will have to be a tough one: as already said, for the Islamic world and thus the Palestinians Jerusalem is a place of great symbolic value, but for Jewry and thus for Israel it is the City. Thus, there is no way of Israel ever giving up on Jerusalem, and thus the Palestinians will have to do without Jerusalem. On the other hand, it is a good yet never asked question if perhaps the idea of dividing Jerusalem once again (after 1948-1967) is one most important reason for Israel´s as yet stubborn resistance against the creation of a Palestinian state. This is the bitter pill the Palestinians will have to swallow, simply for reasons of feasibility.

If, then, a Palestinian state is ever to be created, Israel must be convinced that it will not pose any threat, while the Palestinians, on the other hand, must be as convinced that Israel will be a benevolent and supportive neighbour who will neither interfere with this state´s internal affairs nor cling to the idea – which is supported by a considerable (right-wing) share of the Israeli society – that after all the territory of such a state is ancient Jewish territory, thus in the long run undermining the integrity of a Palestinian state. This is a matter of mutual trust, and currently there is almost no trust at all on both sides, even less so after what happened on October 7^th and Israel´s crackdown not only on Gaza but also on the West Bank.

Trust, once lost, is always extremely difficult to regain and thus requires extraordinary steps to rebuild it again. Since the atrocities of October 7^th at the latest and Israel´s reaction to them there is no trust at all between Israel and the Palestinian side. One indispensable precondition for rebuilding trust on the Israeli side would certainly be a complete halt to all terrorist attacks on Israeli territory or citizens wherever they may be – inside Israel or on foreign soil. However, the terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the likes will do whatever they can to undermine the building of trust and will consequently attempt to continue their attacks, precisely to prevent the Israeli society from having trust in the Palestinian side as a whole. It is the task of the Palestinians – official representatives and civil society – to convincingly distance themselves from such manoeuvres and to make clear that they do not support them. Which concrete steps to this effect might be convincing is to be decided among the involved parties, however certainly it will have to include tough measures by the Palestinian security forces, either on their own or in concert with Israeli forces. Up to here, such measures have been lacking, and this is one reason out of several ones why there is so little trust in the Palestinians among the Israeli society.

Israel, on the other hand, will have to contribute its share. Also from Israel there must be clear signals that this time they are serious about the creation of a Palestinian state. To this effect, not only the suppressive measures in the West Bank will have to be reduced to just what is necessary for security purposes, but what is also needed is something which elsewhere has been called the `Grand Gesture´[2]: a gesture which clearly signals that Israel is aware of and admits that also its own hands are stained – in the course of its decades-long  fight for security also Israel has committed deeds for which there is no excuse, even if basically these served defensive purposes. Again, the nature of this gesture – what may be offered and what may be accepted – will have to be decided by those involved, not by outside parties. However, an example from history may give a hint: Anwar el-Sadat´s visit to Jerusalem and his speech to the Knesset, when he unmistakably offered peace and recognition, in a way which could not be reasonably rejected.

This requires political leadership – after all, it is the task of political leadership to steer societies towards certain goals. Unfortunately, what the leaderships on both sides have been doing so far – except for brief intervals – is almost the opposite of what is needed. The Israeli governments of the recent past, mostly under the Premiership of Benjamin Netanyahu, have been doing nothing to support any rapprochement but have, on the contrary, even added fuel to the fire, by increasing the pressure on the Palestinian civil society in the West Bank, by establishing or enlarging ever more Israeli settlements on territory originally earmarked for a Palestinian state and, worst of all, by tolerating, to say the least, violence, even murder committed by settlers against Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank.

However, the fault is not Israel´s alone. Right since the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank this institution has proven to be either incapable or even unwilling to quell terrorist action against Israel and its citizens, not least in the context of the so called Second Intifada, the atrocities of which caused a degree of mental damage – indeed trauma – among the Israeli society which cannot be underestimated and has further contributed to alienating the Israeli society from the idea of peaceful coexistence with a Palestinian state. And in the current situation – after October 7^th, 2023 – the tone from the side of representatives of the Palestinian society has become even worse and more hostile, not better and oriented at reconciliation. It is indeed striking to which lengths representatives of the Palestinian society – from the administration, from official civil society institutions such as the Palestinian Red Crescent, from intellectuals both in the West Bank and abroad – have gone to not condemn or distance themselves from the atrocities committed on October 7^th. Instead, what is heard is downplaying, belittling, even openly denying what has been done to innocent people, while constantly weighing these atrocities against the fate of the Palestinians, both currently and over the past 75 years. This is the opposite of reconciliation, and it is no wonder that the Israeli people cannot dissolve themselves from the idea that anything Palestinian poses imminent threat. The personnel currently representing the Palestinian side, this must be said, is inadequate to the task. These people are obviously no trustworthy negotiation partners.

Political and social leadership, on the other hand, is not the same as the people themselves, as what is generally called civil society. Thus, what is needed on both sides is a fresh attempt at leadership, at leadership which might steer both societies into the right direction – towards and not away from each other. In Israel it seems as if the days of Netanyahu and his right-wing-extremist coalition partners are numbered, and there are good chances that this may lead to a complete reassessment of Israel´s attitude towards the Palestinian issue. And indeed there are some early signs: Although Benjamin Netanyahu himself has just recently determinedly ruled out any possibility of a Two-State-Solution – now and forever – not to mention his right-wing extremist coalition partners, Israel´s President, Isaac Herzog, has commented in much more nuanced ways. He ruled out such a possibility `for the time being´, not fundamentally. `For the time being´ is simply a correct description of the situation – under the current circumstances this is indeed impossible. But once the government in Israel will have changed – and this may be expected with certainty and in the not too far away future – and once the smoke of war has cleared, the pack will be reshuffled. Netanyahu and his policy of confrontation and alienation – not only against the Palestinians but also against half, if not more, of the Israeli society – has proven to be inefficient to such a degree that the whole attitude it is based on has become dubious, if not discredited. This will provide any new government with more leeway in its attitude towards the Palestinian side.

As concerns the Palestinian side, one will have to build up from scratch. The current PA, made of Fatah/PLO, is either too weak or too much obsessed by decades-long hatred to be trusted when it comes to preventing future terrorist attacks on Israel – and this would be an indispensable precondition for any reconciliation and eventually a Palestinian state. It is striking that Israel´s Minister of Defence, Yoav Galant, has just in recent days sketched reaching back to the Palestinian civil society as a possible way of recruiting a Palestinian self-administration in the Gaza Strip. It thus seems as if in Israel at least some leading figures have come to the conclusion that rejecting – for good reasons – any future role of the current PA in Palestinian self-rule – whatever it may look like in detail – does not necessarily mean that there cannot be any partner for peace on the Palestinian side but that such partners can be found if serious attempts are made.

All the above sketched problems can basically be solved. However, this requires good will and almost superhuman effort on both sides. The prize to be won is worth such efforts. But it will take time. The international pressure currently exerted on Israel in particular is actually not helpful but may even stiffen (Israeli) resistance against any attempt at creating a Two-States-Solution, a reaction which, given the current circumstances, is wrong but all too understandable. The role of the outside world in this conflict must be moderation, not pressure. It seems as if the US government as well as the governments of some other Western states, such as Germany or the United Kingdom, have basically understood what is needed. However, even their attempts look somewhat clumsy and not really thought-out. This is no wonder given the fact that here two issues are colliding: that what is needed will take time on the one hand and the fact that there is no time to be lost on the other.

And one more thing must be admitted: the one indispensable precondition for a solution based on peaceful coexistence is the destruction of Hamas – at least as a military power in the Gaza Strip – and perhaps even of Hezbollah in Lebanon. The latter, however, is backed by Iran, which further complicates the situation because it involves yet another outside player pursuing its own ambitions. The current crisis has demonstrated that neither Hezbollah nor Iran are ready for compromise, not to mention Hamas. All attempts at placating Hezbollah and Iran have as yet been futile – just these days proven by Iran´s piracy act against a tanker near the Oman coast. The conclusion from this must be drawn: what is needed is tough language towards these actors, no attempts at placating anymore. For the moment it does not seem as if Iran and Hezbollah really want war, so, if nothing else works, war must be threatened. This may well happen behind closed doors, so that they will not lose face – the goal is not humiliation but making these players give up on their anti-Israel intentions. However, if not even this works, what will be needed is no longer words, however strong they may be, but action. It may well be that there must be escalation before there is reconciliation.

Dr. Mirko Wittwar

e-mail: MirkoWittwar@aol.com

Dr.Fariborz Saremi

Strategic analyst,

member of the Hamburg branch of foreign and security policy

of the German CDU Party and

Coordinator of the Iranian National Unity Movement – Hamburg

e-mail: fari-saremi@gmx.de

++49/171/6012866