DAVID PRICE: A last chance for two states?
EDITOR'S NOTE: David Price represented North Carolina's Fourth Congressional District for a total of 17 terms. He chaired the House Democracy Partnership, which works to strengthen parliaments in emerging democracies. He also served on the State and Foreign Operations appropriations subcommittee and helped lead numerous efforts in Congress to promote peace in the Middle East.
Two-state diplomacy in the Middle East has improbably been given a new lease on life by the Israel-Hamas war, the continuing possibility of Saudi Arabia and Israel normalizing their relationship, and the efforts of the Biden administration to put the pieces of the puzzle together.
The initial reaction from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however, has been a peremptory public rejection of the idea of a Palestinian state. This should have surprised no one. While sometimes equivocating in public, Netanyahu has often given private assurances that a two-state solution would never be implemented on his watch. His actions and inactions since he first assumed power in 1996 have borne out this determination.
Much has also been written in recent weeks about Netanyahu’s enabling of Hamas ever since it gained control over Gaza in 2007. He has allowed funds to flow into its coffers from Qatar and other sources, confident that short and destructive military operations could keep the Gaza problem under control, obviating the need for a long-term political solution.
The horrific attacks by Hamas on communities in southern Israel have exposed the folly of Netanyahu’s cynical game. Along with Israeli’s massive retaliatory bombing campaign in Gaza, they have raised questions with increasing urgency about the post-conflict status of Gaza. Israel justifiably is determined to remove Hamas from power, but outside of far-right circles its leaders have no desire to occupy and govern Gaza themselves.
What of the Palestinian Authority? Suggestions are increasingly being made that with strengthened leadership and internal reforms, the PA might be the best available choice to administer Gaza post-conflict, thus unifying governance of the Palestinian Territories.
Netanyahu, however, has consistently attempted to delegitimate the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank. While depending on the PA for security cooperation, Netanyahu’s governments have withheld tax revenues, imposed onerous restrictions in the name of security, and given cover to land grabs and anti-Palestinian violence by settlers – weakening and discrediting the more moderate Palestinian leaders. Netanyahu has then often been heard to complain that he has no “partner for peace,” having done his best to ensure precisely that outcome.
Netanyahu portrays the PA as hardly better than Hamas. “I will not allow for Hamastan to be switched with Fatahstan,” he declared, referring to Fatah, the party that controls the PA. Netanyahu wants to erase from historical memory that the PA has ever been willing to negotiate a two-state solution with Israel.
He does, of course, hope to resume the pre-war talks with Saudi Arabia about joining the Abraham Accords and normalizing its relationship with Israel. In this he is not alone – Saudi normalization would be welcomed across Israeli society. But in ruling out both a Palestinian state and cooperation with the PA, Netanyahu puts those talks in extreme jeopardy.
Before the Gaza war, questions were often raised about the Saudis’ commitment to the Palestinian cause. They seemed more interested in gaining US weapons, security assurances and cooperation in developing a civilian nuclear program than in movement toward a Palestinian state. Yet now the Palestinian component of a deal is impossible to ignore.
Last month the Saudi Foreign Minister explicitly conditioned normalization and participation in Gaza reconstruction on establishing a credible pathway to a Palestinian state. Normalization, he said, requires regional stability, and “stability will [only] come through the resolving [of] the Palestinian issue.”
The Biden administration, in what analyst Thomas Friedman perceives as an incipient “Biden doctrine,” has insisted that two-state diplomacy be revived as part of any post-Gaza Abraham agreement. A wider war could still make any resumption of talks impossible. And the two-state idea itself has been on life support, as Israeli settlements in the West Bank have proliferated. “One state” proposals have gained popularity among both Israeli and Palestinians, albeit with radically different ideas of what the concept entails.
Constructive talks would require a new government in Israel – Netanyahu has virtually disqualified himself and his far-right ministers have made careers of marginalizing and demonizing Palestinians. Talks would also require refurbished leadership among Palestinians, determination to press the Palestinian issue by Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, and a resolute, resourceful, engaged United States.
Does this amount to an impossible alignment of forces? Perhaps. But the two-state idea is still uniquely promising in enabling Israel to retain its Jewish and democratic character, securing long-denied freedom and self-determination for the Palestinians, and achieving regional peace and stability.
Indeed, the Abraham Accords will require Palestinian statehood to succeed. And now it appears that they may reciprocally offer the last, best hope for two-state diplomacy. The leverage offered by Saudi normalization could be enough to dislodge the issue. It is hard to imagine any other force with that potential, although American diplomacy must help all parties see and seize a uniquely promising moment.
Capitol Broadcasting Company's Opinion Section seeks a broad range of comments and letters to the editor. Our Comments beside each opinion column offer the opportunity to engage in a dialogue about this article. In addition, we invite you to write a letter to the editor about this or any other opinion articles. Here are some tips on submissions >> SUBMIT A LETTER TO THE EDITOR
