Hamas is not interested in a two-state solution.
That simple fact can be gleaned by looking through the terrorist organization’s foundational documents, by listening to what its leaders have been saying for a generation, and by judging it on its actions.
The October 7 atrocities were not meant to further a two-state reality but, rather, to trigger a process that would bring about the eradication of Israel. Hamas does not want a Palestinian state living alongside Israel; it wants a Palestinian state “from the river to the sea” in place of Israel.
How ironic, therefore, that its October 7 orgy of murder, rape, mutilation, plunder, and kidnapping placed the two-state solution squarely back on the international agenda, in large part because US President Joe Biden has put it there.
Along with Biden’s unprecedented support for Israel from October 7 – support seen in tremendously supportive speeches right afterward, his visit here, the dispatching of aircraft carrier strike forces to the Eastern Mediterranean, an airlift of military supplies, and strong moral and diplomatic support – he has also dangled the two-state solution once again as the only viable solution to solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Is a two-state solution a good idea?
In a November 18 editorial in The Washington Post, Biden wrote, “This much is clear: A two-state solution is the only way to ensure the long-term security of both the Israeli and Palestinian people. Though right now it may seem like that future has never been further away, this crisis has made it more imperative than ever.”
Biden wrote that Gaza must never again be used as a platform for terrorism, and “there must be no forcible displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, no reoccupation, no siege or blockade, and no reduction in territory.“As we strive for peace, Gaza and the West Bank should be reunited under a single governance structure, ultimately under a revitalized Palestinian Authority, as we all work toward a two-state solution,” he wrote.
US Vice President Kamala Harris reiterated all those points almost word for word in a speech in Dubai on Saturday – a clear indication the president’s op-ed is the administration’s policy blueprint for the day after the war in Gaza ends.
How ironic it is that Hamas, ideologically opposed to a two-state solution, and whose terrorism since the Oslo Accords in 1993 was meant to thwart its actualization, has now brought back to the forefront this idea – one that largely faded away in recent years given realities on the ground and the political climate in the region.
Ironic and, for many Israelis, downright incomprehensible.
Consider, for example, the results of this Israel Democracy Institute poll taken between November 27 and 30. Asked whether Israel should agree or not agree to pursue a two-state solution to continue to receive American assistance, 52% of 600 Hebrew-speakers (as opposed to Arabic speakers) said it should not agree, 35% that it should agree, and 13% did not know. And that was when the question was formulated in a rather odd way that made it seem that US aid to Israel would be dependent on Israel agreeing to the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Yet even then, a majority of Israeli Jews said this is not something that the country should pursue.
As Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer said Sunday in an ABC interview, “I know that everybody is racing forward right now to try to establish a Palestinian state. The people of Israel don’t even understand that, because we just suffered the equivalent of 20 9/11s. And I think the last thing you want to do is send a message to any terror group that the way you’re going to achieve some sort of aim is to perpetrate a massive terror attack.”
Reeling from the worst day for the Jewish people since the Holocaust, with hundreds of thousands of the country’s sons and daughters fighting – sometimes in face-to-face battles – a Nazi-like enemy, Dermer made clear that the Israeli people are presently not in any mood to entertain notions of a united West Bank-Gaza Palestinian state on its borders.
And Israeli mood matters.
Past failed diplomatic efforts have shown that, too often, the Israeli mood is ignored.
While Israelis pay too much attention to what they are thinking – often believing that if we just agree among ourselves on a solution, then everyone else around the world, including the Arabs, will fall into line – the world and various US administrations often do not pay enough attention to the prevalent mood in Israel, mistakenly believing that solutions can be foisted upon the Israeli public.
But if a Palestinian state is ever to be established, the Israeli people are going to have to agree to it. Even with all the pressure in the world, all the statements from world leaders, it is the Israelis themselves who will have to concur.
Right now, after a savage pogrom launched from an area that for all intents and purposes has been an independent Palestinian entity since Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, the idea that the Israeli public is going to agree to establish any Palestinian state on its borders is an awful misreading of the Israeli public’s mood.
MORE THAN that, pursuing this goal at this time might be the political lifeboat that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seeks and needs.
Netanyahu made clear in a press conference on Saturday night that – despite what some may think and others might hope – he has no intention of stepping down as a result of the calamity that took place on his watch. No Golda Meir is he. Meir resigned in April 1974, some six months after the Yom Kippur War took the country unprepared and surprised.
Netanyahu made this clear by dodging a direct question on the matter and also by a spirited response he gave to another question about coalition funds going to the haredi parties. His defense of that widely unpopular step – one that passed in the Knesset on Wednesday – signaled that he was intent on keeping the haredi parties in his coalition happy and his coalition intact.
Tellingly, at this press conference Netanyahu publicly and unequivocally also rejected comments Harris said just hours earlier about wanting to ultimately get a revitalized PA in charge in Gaza. Netanyahu said clearly that this is not something he could ever agree to and that Israel will not ignore or whitewash the PA’s enormous failings.“We recognize all the bad things that come from the PA, and we don’t ignore them,” he said.
Among the “bad things” he mentioned were that the PA pays terrorists in jail for killing or trying to kill Jews; that they educate Palestinian children toward a hatred of Israel and Jews and a desire to bring about Israel’s disappearance; that PA President Mahmoud Abbas has yet to express any remorse for the October 7 massacre; and that PA leader Jibril Rajoub said that he hopes to see what happened on October 7 unfold from the West Bank as well.
Netanyahu said that the creation of the PA under the Oslo Accords was a “horrible mistake” that took the most hostile elements within the Arab world and Palestinian society and transplanted them into the heart of Israel.“One thing I will not do,” he said, is take this “flawed thing” and put it in control of Gaza.
Acknowledging that this is “what some of our best friends recommend,” Netanyahu said “I think differently.” Regarding the PA, Netanyahu said, “It doesn’t fight terrorism, it funds terror; it doesn’t educate toward peace, it educates toward Israel’s disappearance. That is not the entity that needs to take control of Gaza.”
He reiterated this as well at another press conference on Tuesday, saying that Gaza needs to be demilitarized, and that the only way to ensure that is for Israel to retain overall security control of Gaza the day after the war.
While on the surface this all seemed to be the expression of stark differences with the US regarding a postwar vision of what will happen in Gaza – and it was – it was also something more: an indication of how Netanyahu believes he can survive politically after the war – by adamantly opposing the PA taking control of Gaza and by opposing the establishment of a Palestinian state.
And, in this, he seems to be tapping into the mood of the country.
While the US has an over-romanticized view of the PA – believing that if it is just revamped or “revitalized,” whatever that means, it will be able to govern effectively – Israelis have no confidence in that body. Netanyahu’s characterization of the PA as a corrupt, terrorist-supporting entity led by an antisemite is something that resonates with the public.
One might think that with a war raging in Gaza, Netanyahu would – in his public statements to his countrymen – want to minimize policy differences with the Americans over postwar visions.
Yet one would only think that if one did not realize that Netanyahu is a keen political animal. With his strong opposition to the PA in Gaza and to a Palestinian state, Netanyahu is both tapping into and reflecting the prevalent Israeli mood, hoping that by doing this he may have found the issue that will somehow allow him to remain in power.
But while he understands the public sentiment on this issue, Netanyahu may very well be missing the prevalent mood on another: the seething anger at him and the government over the events of October 7, a fury that even his popular opposition to a Palestinian state and the PA may not be able to overcome.