The long-standing platitude that peace can only come to Israel and Palestinian Arabs through the creation of a Palestinian state seems alive and well.
Thus, at the September session of the United Nations General Assembly currently in progress, French president Emanuel Macron promoted its creation, saying that, “There is no other credible alternative to the solution of two states living side by side in peace and security, with Jerusalem as their capital.”
Notably, in this context, President Macron also referred to what he called the “legitimate rights of the Palestinians to achieve sustainable peace.” Even President Donald Trump has recently stated that he is open to discuss Palestinian statehood.
Accordingly, when an international leader promotes a Palestinian state as well as the notion that Palestinians Arabs seek a sustainable peace, it is timely to recall why creating a Palestinian state under prevailing conditions would actually be harmful to the cause of peace.
The most compelling reason against establishing a Palestinian state is that neither the Palestinian leadership nor society seek a sovereign state peacefully neighboring Israel. No perusal of Palestinian Arabs’ statements (at least in Arabic, among themselves), sermons, and speeches indicates the slightest desire for such a state. The emphasis, rather, is on diverse forms of eliminating Israel, as unfortunately it has always been.
Every genuine effort at peacemaking in the past century has foundered on Palestinian and wider Arab refusal: the 1937 Peel Commission partition plan; the 1947 United Nations General Assembly partition plan; the 2000 Camp David negotiation and the 2000-2001 Clinton parameters; the 2008 Olmert peace offer; and the 2014 Obama proposal all came to nought based on Palestinian Arab rejection – the last three having proposed full Palestinian statehood on over 90% of the territory of Judea/Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza, with a capital in the eastern half of Jerusalem.
Leave a Reply