One state, where everyone has equal rights and the rights of minorities are protected is the only possible solution at this point. The settlers have made a two state solution impossible. Go look at your own map and tell me that this is a serious suggestion.
Good post. One thing that I think is misunderstood by casual left commentators is that in Israel and Palestine combined there are ~7 million Palestinians and ~7 million Jews (at Israel's founding this was different), this is just not like South Africa or Rhodesia. Even if you include everyone of Palestinian descent that would only equate to ~14 million according to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (a probably inflated number, realistically there are probably less than 10 million Palestinians who would be more Palestinian than Israeli because it includes both Palestinian Jews and other minorities like the Druze who have good relations with the Jews).
Why is Ra'am "the most important political party for Palestinian citizens of Israel" while Hadash-Ta'al, a vocal proponent of the two-state solution, isn't? Ra'am became palatable to Netanyahu (and hence to Bennett, once the Kahanists sunk Bibi's hope of forming a government) because they were narrow and parochial – you could buy their votes for some assistance to Bedouin villages in the same way you could buy UTJ votes with money for Yeshivas.
Hadash and Taal aren't as parochial, but they're vocally pro-peace, which is what you ultimately need, and they've proven very willing to work with the Jewish parties. And if we ever see peace, I expect they (or their successor parties) will play a big role.
Want to share some somewhat critical feedback, but first a note of appreciation: your blog is my favorite thing on the internet.
I think you could have greatly improved this post by actually detailing Israeli offers in the 90's. That's the crucial point that most of your followers will find novel. You do not really defend the assertion that their offers were not generous. I happen to think you are wrong. For those curious in reading about what happened at Camp David, the debate between Dennis Ross (pro-Israel) and Robert Malley (pro-Palestine) in NYBooks about Camp David is invaluable: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2002/06/27/camp-david-and-aftercontinued/.
I like how you highlighted Israel as similar to Belgium and the Netherlands, who happen to have the world’s friendliest and most pointless settlement/border issues in Baarle-Hertog. If even Belgium isn’t willing to give up their settlements, the signs aren’t good for Israel, but the stakes are a bit higher for Israel/Palestine so hopefully that motivates everyone to find a solution.
The problem that Matthew is failing to address is that Gaza has taken on a much different character, is still physically separated, and may not be possible for Fatah to govern.
Especially given past armed conflict between the PA and Hamas in Gaza, there is no clear path to political legitimacy in Gaza for the PA. Which seems like a good reason to start talking about a three state solution.
If the citizens of Gaza and the West Bank wanted to have a single Palestinian State with agreed upon border that do not involve eliminating Israel, that would be great. Popular polling in Gaza, with all its limitations does not show that Fatah has the support needed to govern Gaza.
The issues of borders and final lines all mostly concern the West Bank. So why not conduct negotiations for the West Bank only? Creating a viable and thriving Palestinian state in the West Bank may given Gazans the incentive to ameliorare their support for Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. there seems to be little disputed about what the borders with the Gaza Strip will be. The issue is whether Israel can be secure with constant attacks from Gaza and the PA is in no position to be able to guarantee that there will be.
So establish a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank as soon as possible. Tabling the status of a separate state in Gaza for the future. Any future state in Gaza can handle negotitations for a merger with an existing Palestinian state in the West Bank on its own terms. Israel does not have to be a part of that.
Also wanted to post this podcast by Ezra Klein which has a thorough review of the Palestinian-Israeli peace process and what stands out to me in this is also what Matthew fails to address which is the lack of political legitimacy in the eyes of Palestinians, which is now an even starker problem in Gaza, as I have alluded:
Is it at all surprising that Israel has soured on a 2-state solution (at least one that is implemented any time soon), since the result of a genuine attempt to reach a solution on that basis was met with an intifada?
A one state solution is less complicated than all the hoops you are jumping through here to somehow salvage the two state solution which “facts on the ground” e.g, settlers, have removed.
Everyone had equal rights, it’s a democracy and violent criminals are put in jail. Over a million Arab Israelis live just fine there. There is no reason a few million more cannot. It won’t be an ethnostate, but so what.
Good article. I'll note that I believe it's a US-centric thing (or a twitter thing) to think that talking about a two state solution is cringe and the wrong way to go - as you lay out, almost anyone serious thinks it's the right approach.
I do find a few aspects of this analysis not particularly convincing:
1. You state that Israel is "less reasonable" than it thinks it is, because eral deals were never really on the table. I don't think that's accurate. The 1990s and early 2000s *did* see semi-serious movement in the direction of peace. I agree that there was a lot of internal division on this, of course the tragic assasination of Rabin being the prime example of this.
But there was a period of time where the Israeli left really did have more power, and really did try to push towards peace. As far as I understand, there was no political ability or will on the side of the Palestinians to make such a deal. And let's not forget, a big part of the swing toward the right is tied to the intifada and terror attacks that started happening, partly as Hamas's response to the peace process.
Also, while this was done for internal political reasons, Israel did in fact disengage from Gaza in 2005 and remove settlers, which was another opportunity for Palestinians to choose to make something of that land, instead of "turning to violence" (which is an oversimplification but essentially true - they elected Hamas which used a lot of resources to wage war).
2. You imply that security is easier now, but that strikes me as wrong, or at least presupposes a few things. For sure, if there's a process whereby a peace agreement is reached that is acceptable to all parties, including Hamas and/or its "successors", and that ends in a two state solution, that would probably lead to more safety. In other words, if the Palestinians decide *not* to pursue violence, it will be safer for Israel, which I think is true no matter what deal is reached (or if no deal is reached).
But October 7th was a very vivid proof that security with Gaza, even given the blockade and massive investment in security, has gotten harder. It's not at all clear that Hamas can't continue generating similar attacks more often now.
I take your point that there is probably no Palestinian grand strategy of "first let's get a state, then we can launch an attack on Israel". But in realistic ways of arriving at a two state solution deal, there could still be bad actors on the Palestinian side that do attempt to continue fighting, and they could do this with or without the government. They may also be able to influence the government to fight Israel.
In other words, I think the two state solution has glaring security problems and that Israelis are right to be very nervous about any such deal.
(This analysis of the article aside, I personally think the two state solution is the obvious thing that both sides should be pursuing, and that Israel definitely has a moral obligation as the stronger party to pursue peace vigourously.)
I don’t know why we’re supposed to be for ethnic states in this one weird place when I’m for a universalism in literally every other place in the world.
It’s hard to have a rah rah attitude about this they’re claiming for two evils or one and I just can’t feel much sympathy for we want to be the special ones in a special spot when everywhere should be open to anyone.
I was just writing about this down below. I generally agree with you that nations should not work to preserve an ethnic majority, because we’re both on the American left. But in fact, our viewpoint is wildly unpopular and radical across the entire world (maybe not Canada). America is already extremely unusual in our openness to immigration, and I think even here, our white majority wants to maintain that status.
I would actually argue that this is another example of holding Israel to a wildly different standard than other countries. When we hear about Australia’s hostility to immigration, or Europe, or Japan’s we cluck our tongues, but I don’t think any of us are outraged by it. We just pat ourselves on the back for being more open minded.
I think this all sounds beautiful, but ignores the fact that the Hamas leaders are bloodthirsty barbarians that execute the elderly on Facebook and cut the heads off babies. Then they call home to brag to their mothers about this. How do you negotiate a two state solution with them? They say that they wish to do Oct 7 over and over again. And they then say that they would like to do this to the USA. It is truly bizarre to me that anyone in the USA sides with these people. I think the only way a 2 state solution happens is if the grown ups in the room break the fighting 4 year olds apart and imposes our solution on them. Anyone who has had kids knows how this feels.
Suppose a two state solution happens...which country would you like to live in?
Israel has tried for years to respond tit for tat with them and it hasn't worked. I am not sure demolishing all of Gaza will work either, but it is a novel approach for them.
You can make an argument that this is always the approach of guerrilla groups, and sometimes it works. The IRA tried a two-pronged strategy of violence and politics.
However, I can’t help but think that the barbarity of the 10/7 attack was designed to preclude the possibility of negotiation. None of us would tolerate living forty miles from 30,000-strong fighting force that hammered nails into our daughters’ vaginas. Maybe we wouldn’t support carpet bombing Gaza. On the hand, maybe we might.
By the same token, if my city was losing 1% of its population every two months to a vengeful neighbor, I probably would hate them with every fiber of my being.
Matt, you probably won't see this, but I think it makes a world of difference if you refer to Mansour Abbas as a political leader of "Arab Israelis" rather than "Palestinians living in Israel"
Most Arab Israelis do not identify as Palestinians and it's bad for solving the conflict if they are seen as just Palestinians who happen to live in Israel rather than a religious minority group that is a part of Israel.
It is similar to if I described you as an Israeli American instead of a Jewish American
Random question: what was the Palestinian reaction to suddenly becoming Jordanian and/or Egyptian after 1948? Did they consider that an illegal occupation of their land?
One state, where everyone has equal rights and the rights of minorities are protected is the only possible solution at this point. The settlers have made a two state solution impossible. Go look at your own map and tell me that this is a serious suggestion.
Average Zionist since 1890 : "It's us vs the World, we gotta do what's best for us"
(most of) The World 2023: "It's all of us against Israel, so they should do what we want".
Not sure what ganging up on Israel is supposed to achieve, other than to reinforce the country's founding philosophy.
Bridging this gap seems hard. The UN unanimously condemning Hamas would be low hanging fruit for starters.
Good post. One thing that I think is misunderstood by casual left commentators is that in Israel and Palestine combined there are ~7 million Palestinians and ~7 million Jews (at Israel's founding this was different), this is just not like South Africa or Rhodesia. Even if you include everyone of Palestinian descent that would only equate to ~14 million according to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (a probably inflated number, realistically there are probably less than 10 million Palestinians who would be more Palestinian than Israeli because it includes both Palestinian Jews and other minorities like the Druze who have good relations with the Jews).
One thing I would note about "denser than Japan" is that more than 70% of Japan is mountains.
Why is Ra'am "the most important political party for Palestinian citizens of Israel" while Hadash-Ta'al, a vocal proponent of the two-state solution, isn't? Ra'am became palatable to Netanyahu (and hence to Bennett, once the Kahanists sunk Bibi's hope of forming a government) because they were narrow and parochial – you could buy their votes for some assistance to Bedouin villages in the same way you could buy UTJ votes with money for Yeshivas.
Hadash and Taal aren't as parochial, but they're vocally pro-peace, which is what you ultimately need, and they've proven very willing to work with the Jewish parties. And if we ever see peace, I expect they (or their successor parties) will play a big role.
(I agree that Balad is pretty much useless.)
Want to share some somewhat critical feedback, but first a note of appreciation: your blog is my favorite thing on the internet.
I think you could have greatly improved this post by actually detailing Israeli offers in the 90's. That's the crucial point that most of your followers will find novel. You do not really defend the assertion that their offers were not generous. I happen to think you are wrong. For those curious in reading about what happened at Camp David, the debate between Dennis Ross (pro-Israel) and Robert Malley (pro-Palestine) in NYBooks about Camp David is invaluable: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2002/06/27/camp-david-and-aftercontinued/.
I like how you highlighted Israel as similar to Belgium and the Netherlands, who happen to have the world’s friendliest and most pointless settlement/border issues in Baarle-Hertog. If even Belgium isn’t willing to give up their settlements, the signs aren’t good for Israel, but the stakes are a bit higher for Israel/Palestine so hopefully that motivates everyone to find a solution.
This is a great post.
The problem that Matthew is failing to address is that Gaza has taken on a much different character, is still physically separated, and may not be possible for Fatah to govern.
Especially given past armed conflict between the PA and Hamas in Gaza, there is no clear path to political legitimacy in Gaza for the PA. Which seems like a good reason to start talking about a three state solution.
If the citizens of Gaza and the West Bank wanted to have a single Palestinian State with agreed upon border that do not involve eliminating Israel, that would be great. Popular polling in Gaza, with all its limitations does not show that Fatah has the support needed to govern Gaza.
The issues of borders and final lines all mostly concern the West Bank. So why not conduct negotiations for the West Bank only? Creating a viable and thriving Palestinian state in the West Bank may given Gazans the incentive to ameliorare their support for Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. there seems to be little disputed about what the borders with the Gaza Strip will be. The issue is whether Israel can be secure with constant attacks from Gaza and the PA is in no position to be able to guarantee that there will be.
So establish a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank as soon as possible. Tabling the status of a separate state in Gaza for the future. Any future state in Gaza can handle negotitations for a merger with an existing Palestinian state in the West Bank on its own terms. Israel does not have to be a part of that.
Also wanted to post this podcast by Ezra Klein which has a thorough review of the Palestinian-Israeli peace process and what stands out to me in this is also what Matthew fails to address which is the lack of political legitimacy in the eyes of Palestinians, which is now an even starker problem in Gaza, as I have alluded:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ezra-klein-show/id1548604447?i=1000635528181
Is it at all surprising that Israel has soured on a 2-state solution (at least one that is implemented any time soon), since the result of a genuine attempt to reach a solution on that basis was met with an intifada?
A one state solution is less complicated than all the hoops you are jumping through here to somehow salvage the two state solution which “facts on the ground” e.g, settlers, have removed.
Everyone had equal rights, it’s a democracy and violent criminals are put in jail. Over a million Arab Israelis live just fine there. There is no reason a few million more cannot. It won’t be an ethnostate, but so what.
Good article. I'll note that I believe it's a US-centric thing (or a twitter thing) to think that talking about a two state solution is cringe and the wrong way to go - as you lay out, almost anyone serious thinks it's the right approach.
I do find a few aspects of this analysis not particularly convincing:
1. You state that Israel is "less reasonable" than it thinks it is, because eral deals were never really on the table. I don't think that's accurate. The 1990s and early 2000s *did* see semi-serious movement in the direction of peace. I agree that there was a lot of internal division on this, of course the tragic assasination of Rabin being the prime example of this.
But there was a period of time where the Israeli left really did have more power, and really did try to push towards peace. As far as I understand, there was no political ability or will on the side of the Palestinians to make such a deal. And let's not forget, a big part of the swing toward the right is tied to the intifada and terror attacks that started happening, partly as Hamas's response to the peace process.
Also, while this was done for internal political reasons, Israel did in fact disengage from Gaza in 2005 and remove settlers, which was another opportunity for Palestinians to choose to make something of that land, instead of "turning to violence" (which is an oversimplification but essentially true - they elected Hamas which used a lot of resources to wage war).
2. You imply that security is easier now, but that strikes me as wrong, or at least presupposes a few things. For sure, if there's a process whereby a peace agreement is reached that is acceptable to all parties, including Hamas and/or its "successors", and that ends in a two state solution, that would probably lead to more safety. In other words, if the Palestinians decide *not* to pursue violence, it will be safer for Israel, which I think is true no matter what deal is reached (or if no deal is reached).
But October 7th was a very vivid proof that security with Gaza, even given the blockade and massive investment in security, has gotten harder. It's not at all clear that Hamas can't continue generating similar attacks more often now.
I take your point that there is probably no Palestinian grand strategy of "first let's get a state, then we can launch an attack on Israel". But in realistic ways of arriving at a two state solution deal, there could still be bad actors on the Palestinian side that do attempt to continue fighting, and they could do this with or without the government. They may also be able to influence the government to fight Israel.
In other words, I think the two state solution has glaring security problems and that Israelis are right to be very nervous about any such deal.
(This analysis of the article aside, I personally think the two state solution is the obvious thing that both sides should be pursuing, and that Israel definitely has a moral obligation as the stronger party to pursue peace vigourously.)
I don’t know why we’re supposed to be for ethnic states in this one weird place when I’m for a universalism in literally every other place in the world.
It’s hard to have a rah rah attitude about this they’re claiming for two evils or one and I just can’t feel much sympathy for we want to be the special ones in a special spot when everywhere should be open to anyone.
I was just writing about this down below. I generally agree with you that nations should not work to preserve an ethnic majority, because we’re both on the American left. But in fact, our viewpoint is wildly unpopular and radical across the entire world (maybe not Canada). America is already extremely unusual in our openness to immigration, and I think even here, our white majority wants to maintain that status.
I would actually argue that this is another example of holding Israel to a wildly different standard than other countries. When we hear about Australia’s hostility to immigration, or Europe, or Japan’s we cluck our tongues, but I don’t think any of us are outraged by it. We just pat ourselves on the back for being more open minded.
I think this all sounds beautiful, but ignores the fact that the Hamas leaders are bloodthirsty barbarians that execute the elderly on Facebook and cut the heads off babies. Then they call home to brag to their mothers about this. How do you negotiate a two state solution with them? They say that they wish to do Oct 7 over and over again. And they then say that they would like to do this to the USA. It is truly bizarre to me that anyone in the USA sides with these people. I think the only way a 2 state solution happens is if the grown ups in the room break the fighting 4 year olds apart and imposes our solution on them. Anyone who has had kids knows how this feels.
Suppose a two state solution happens...which country would you like to live in?
Israel has tried for years to respond tit for tat with them and it hasn't worked. I am not sure demolishing all of Gaza will work either, but it is a novel approach for them.
You can make an argument that this is always the approach of guerrilla groups, and sometimes it works. The IRA tried a two-pronged strategy of violence and politics.
However, I can’t help but think that the barbarity of the 10/7 attack was designed to preclude the possibility of negotiation. None of us would tolerate living forty miles from 30,000-strong fighting force that hammered nails into our daughters’ vaginas. Maybe we wouldn’t support carpet bombing Gaza. On the hand, maybe we might.
By the same token, if my city was losing 1% of its population every two months to a vengeful neighbor, I probably would hate them with every fiber of my being.
Matt, you probably won't see this, but I think it makes a world of difference if you refer to Mansour Abbas as a political leader of "Arab Israelis" rather than "Palestinians living in Israel"
Most Arab Israelis do not identify as Palestinians and it's bad for solving the conflict if they are seen as just Palestinians who happen to live in Israel rather than a religious minority group that is a part of Israel.
It is similar to if I described you as an Israeli American instead of a Jewish American
Not cringe - it’s the only possible workable solution. Your column does a great job of explaining why.
Random question: what was the Palestinian reaction to suddenly becoming Jordanian and/or Egyptian after 1948? Did they consider that an illegal occupation of their land?