Soccer Dad

Status quo ante-1967

John Bolton argues that the two-state solution is dead for now.

Let's start by recognizing that trying to create a Palestinian Authority from the old PLO has failed and that any two-state solution based on the PA is stillborn. Hamas has killed the idea, and even the Holy Land is good for only one resurrection. Instead, we should look to a "three-state" approach, where Gaza is returned to Egyptian control and the West Bank in some configuration reverts to Jordanian sovereignty. Among many anomalies, today's conflict lies within the boundaries of three states nominally at peace. Having the two Arab states re-extend their prior political authority is an authentic way to extend the zone of peace and, more important, build on governments that are providing peace and stability in their own countries. "International observers" or the like cannot come close to what is necessary; we need real states with real security forces.

Bolton doesn't really see this possibility as likely, but argues.

For Palestinians, admitting the obvious failure of the PA, and the consequences of their selection of Hamas, means accepting reality, however unpleasant. But it is precisely Palestinians who would most benefit from stability. The PA -- weakened, corrupt and discredited -- is not a state by any realistic assessment, nor will it become one accepted by Israel as long as Hamas or terrorism generally remains a major political force among Palestinians.

The reason that trusting Arafat and empowering Hamas didn't work goes back to the basic ideology of Palestinian nationalism. It never was primarily about creating a state, but about destroying another one. Boltion's argument implicitly points this out. There was no major agitation for a Palestinian state before 1967. Well there was, but it wasn't in Judea, Samaria or Gaza. The first two were occupied by Jordan and the last by Egypt. The goal was to found Palestine on the state Israel in the borders it accepted at the end of its war of Independence.

In order to justify this change, the world's diplomats became preoccupied with "occupation" that not only defined the potential borders for a Palestinians state, but served to make Israel the bad guy for denying the Palestinians what no one else had ever granted them in the past. So Israel was supposed to accommodate terrorists - because their terror was justified - and allow terror movements to have a state or else be declared illegitimate. The moral inversion implicit in creating a Palestinian state is enormous. And of course expecting a movement dedicated to destruction to become constructive required the triumph of hope over experience.

Boltion's suggestion may go nowhere but it's still a reminder of what once was.

Crossposted on Yourish.