A Response to right-wing Zionists’ opposition to a Palestinian state

This article discusses the main criticisms of Israeli parties ranging from the Zionist center to the far right. It follows the presentation in my TOI blog of the Knesset’s criticism of the creation of a Palestinian state. I will not present the criticisms of the messianic settlers because it would be difficult to have a constructive dialogue. My critique represents the view of a liberal Zionist who supports the Two-State Solution (2SS).

1.“The Two-State Solution lacks realism. How can we transfer some 500,000 settlers from the West Bank and some 200,000 from East Jerusalem without creating a civil war?“

 This question is in fact the most complex to resolve in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The forced transfer in 2005 of 8,500 extremist religious settlers from Gaza was indeed a difficult but successful undertaking even though it reinforced the rise of the messianic far right.

What about the 700,000? Today, many settlers are armed and a good number of IDF soldiers and officers from the occupied territories are supporters of the extremist settlers. How can we ask them to evacuate their own families or their neighbors from the settlements? This is not obvious. It will also be necessary to take into account  the extremist Zionist rabbis that encourage soldiers to refuse orders from the army or even to oppose them, this land being, in their eyes, the property of the Jewish people, a divine gift that no one can return. . The prime minister who wants to make the decision to evacuate these territories will be faced with a real nightmare, putting his very existence in danger, just like Yitzhak Rabin.

According to Shaul Arieli[1], an Israeli expert and academic involved in peace negotiations in 2000 and 2007, an optimal border between Israel and Palestine based on land swaps on a scale of four percent, leaving approximately 80 percent of Israelis living in large blocks just beyond the Green Line under Israeli sovereignty, is feasible. This would include Jewish holy sites and predominantly Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem as well as kibbutzim along the border with Gaza. The remaining 20 percent of settlers scattered in small communities in the West Bank, about 90,000 people, would have to choose between moving to Israel with generous incentives or living under a sovereign Palestinian government. It is highly likely that messianic settlers who represent a large majority of settlers will violently oppose any attempt to expel them. Only an Israeli government supported by a strong majority of the population, including a majority of Jews, would be capable of using force to expel the settlers. Unfortunately, we are far from this situation.

2. “Netanyahu claims that a normalization deal with Saudi Arabia is possible without committing to recognizing a Palestinian state. Is this possible?“

Before the October 7 attack, Israel had engaged in preliminary discussions with Saudi Arabia through the US based on the promise that Israel would engage in a vague recognition process of Palestine. The Palestinian Authority (PA) also participated in these discussions, a reversal, having opposed the Abraham Accords in 2020. Saudi Arabia hoped in return for a defense agreement with the US and access to its civilian nuclear technology. The war in Gaza does not appear to have deterred Saudi Arabia, according to US officials. Such an agreement with Israel would pave the way for normalization between Israel and the majority of moderate Muslim countries, more definite security cooperation between Israel, the United States and moderate Arab countries in the region including the new Palestinian state resulting in the increased isolation of Iran. Given that the war in Gaza prevents further talks between Israel and Saudi Arabia, a future Harris or Trump administration could reinitiate talks in 2025.

As long as Hamas survives as a political and military force, it will be impossible to budge an Israeli government, whether right or center. Even US sanctions would not move Israel unless these sanctions are military and severe, an unlikely move in the short term. In the past, US presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, have voted on numerous UN Security Council resolutions condemning Israel and applied military sanctions which have proven effective in forcing a significant change in Israel’s attitude.

3.“Managing the conflict” and therefore the status quo is preferable to any political solution“.

The management of the conflict has not brought security to Israelis. Instead, it has provoked several wars in Gaza, including the largest pogrom since the Holocaust, and a surge in violence in the West Bank.

Israel has never been so isolated internationally following the war in Gaza and the accusations of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). Israel and its leaders are also vilified in the Western media and the massive demonstrations resulting in violent anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic actions around the world. Many states friendly to Israel, including the US, have imposed any sort of arms embargo. For the first time, many settlers, settlements and military personnel were sanctioned by the US, the European Union (EU), Canada or Australia.

Despite these harsh, violent and even hateful criticisms, for most Israelis the status quo is preferable as a low-risk scenario because they do not wish to take the higher risk of a 2SS.

Managing the conflict is no longer a viable option. Israel and the Palestinians need courageous, visionary and pragmatic leaders, yet to be found, to reach a solution based on painful compromises while preserving Israel’s security interests and providing Palestinians with dignity, security and the right to self-determination. This solution, less risky today if Hamas is put out of the game, will not happen tomorrow and without difficulty, but there is a window of opportunity on which the friends of Israel and Palestinians will have to work.

4. “After October 7, the Israelis still want to separate from the Palestinians, but do not believe it is possible to reach a bilateral agreement with them. “

Certain opinion leaders such as former Israeli minister and peace negotiator, Shlomo Ben Ami, has  proposed a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank. Israelis and Palestinians want to separate from each other, but the main political solutions to the conflict do not appeal to them. Overall, distrust is probably the greatest obstacle to peace. There is also widespread distrust among Israelis and Palestinians toward their own leaders, the leaders of the other side, and the people of the other side. As a result, there is great skepticism that an agreement can be reached and that either party will honor its terms. A majority of Palestinians are suspicious of Israel’s willingness to accept a 2SS and are opposed to it, even if the population of Gaza has become more optimistic about this solution and is increasingly suspicious of Hamas.

Bilateral peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan have a proven record of peace, security and stability, unlike Israel’s unilateral withdrawals from Gaza in 2005, which helped Hamas take power, and from Lebanon in 2000, which helped turn Hezbollah into a threat in northern Israel. It is remarkable that following the war in Gaza, not a single Arab country withdrew from the Abraham Accords. It is no longer true that the Arabs want to throw the Jews into the sea.

Why does the Israeli right insist on a losing approach when the winning formula has proven itself with its former enemies? If, as I hope: Hamas is weakened politically and militarily so that it no longer represents a threat to Israel; Israel accepts a realistic horizon for a 2SS; and the PA agrees to be reformed to ensure an effective fight against terrorism, then Israel’s allies, with the support of moderate Sunni countries, would be ready to help rebuild Gaza and create strong security bridges among them in order to protect themselves against the Shiite threat. To maximize the chances of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal, moderate Arab states led by the US should participate in multilateral negotiations to provide solid guarantees and minimize short-term political calculations on both sides. Many credible experts agree that Palestinian leaders from Arafat to Abbas let realistic peace offers from Israel and the US slip away in 2000, 2007 and possibly in 2015. As for Netanyahu and the Israeli right, they did everything to prevent peace with the Palestinians.

5. “Netanyahu’s autonomy plan is the only realistic plan the Palestinians can accept”

Netanyahu’s autonomy plan for the Palestinians, which appears similar to Trump’s failed 2020 plan that called for the annexation of 30 percent of the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) with territory swaps, is unrealistic. The autonomy plan would include the annexation of Area C, in whole or in part comprising 60 percent to 30 percent of the West Bank, Israeli control of the OPT borders and protection of Israeli settlements which currently surround 200 distinct Palestinian areas. In this scenario, Israel’s international borders would increase from 350 km to 4,000 km[2]. This would constitute a security, diplomatic and budgetary nightmare for Israel.

The previous autonomy peace plan proposed by Trump in 2020 was rejected by the PA, the Arab League, the EU and ignored by the Biden Administration. Given the strong international support for a Palestinian state, the unfavorable decisions of international courts against Israel, the massive civilian casualties among the population of Gaza and the anger of most of the western and Muslim population towards Israel, why would the PA and moderate Arab states accept a plan they rejected a few years ago?

[1]   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gkhdGY7SSQ

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gkhdGY7SSQ