Recognizing a Palestinian state at this time is the coward’s way out

First, let me state very clearly that I support the concept of two states, one Jewish and one Palestinian. I support it not because I am very excited about the prospect of one more Arab state that would most likely not tolerate Jewish citizens, but because it’s the only way to ensure that Israel remains a Jewish state. Consequently, I might be expected to root for the recognition of a Palestinian state that several countries have engaged in earlier this year, most notably, Britain, France, Canada, and Australia, but I absolutely do not.

After the antisemitic attack in Australia that killed 15 people (not including one of the attackers) and injured dozens, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese rejected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s claim that the recognition of Palestinian statehood “pours fuel” on an “antisemitic fire”. Albanese added, “overwhelmingly, most of the world recognizes a two-state solution as being the way forward in the Middle East”.

Netanyahu is probably right about this because recognizing a Palestinian state at a time when Hamas still controls most of Gaza and while it still held Israeli hostages, both alive and dead, seems like an encouragement to violence against Jews, but Albanese’s response is hypocritical for a different reason as well.

Albanese’s response implies that his recognition of a Palestinian state was progress towards a two-state solution when it certainly wasn’t. First and most obviously, appearing to encourage Palestinian violence against Jews does not create progress, on the contrary, but more importantly, recognition of a Palestinian state by Australia, Britain and many others, does not move even one inch towards the creation of a Palestinian state. Since Israel legally controls the West Bank and Gaza, only a recognition by Israel of a Palestinian state would be meaningful.

The deluge of recognitions, however, does not encourage Israel to follow suit. In fact, those recognitions have infuriated Israelis across the political spectrum. Even Yair Golan, leader of the left-wing Democrats party, strongly opposed it, as did of course Opposition Leader Yair Lapid who called the recognition “a harmful step, and a reward for terror”. Readers might remember that Lapid is certainly not an opponent of the two-state solution since he openly supported the concept during a speech at the United Nations General Assembly when he was prime minister in September 2022.

The most tragic part, however, which the Netanyahu coalition will not point out because they want nothing to do with a two-state solution, is that Albanese and other world leaders can, if they wanted it, generate progress towards a two-state solution. They can achieve that, as well as probably reduce antisemitism in their own countries, by doing something simple and that costs no money: telling the truth.

While many of the people who criticize Israel do so because they hate the idea of a Jewish state, and therefore their opinions cannot be changed, many others do so simply because they’re confused and misinformed. The world media does a terrible job of explaining the Israel-Arab conflict, as a lot of emphasis is placed on wars, deaths, and injuries while the reasons why these things are happening is rarely explained. World leaders, who undoubtedly have access to the facts, would make a big difference if they explained those facts to their citizens.

They could talk about the over three thousand years of continued Jewish history on the land of Israel and why the existence of a Jewish state that can defend itself is right and must be supported. They could explain why the Western left, an opponent of colonization and a big supporter of the rights of indigenous people in countries such as Canada and Australia, must also support the right of Jews, a deeply rooted indigenous people of the Middle East that reversed colonization by re-establishing Israel in 1948.

They could explain that the Palestinian leadership has rejected several two-state solutions which Israel accepted, including the 1947 UN partition plan which the whole Arab world rejected while the Jews accepted it, and including the Camp David peace plan which Israel accepted but that the Palestinian leadership rejected. As former US President Bill Clinton said in 2024, “All [young people in America] know that a lot more Palestinians have been killed than Israelis. And I tell them what [Palestinian leader Yasser] Arafat walked away from, and they, like, can’t believe it. Arafat walked away from a Palestinian state, with a capital in East Jerusalem, 96% of the West Bank, 4% of Israel to make up for the 4% [of the West Bank to be annexed for Israeli settlements]”. In other words, young people know that the Palestinians are suffering but they don’t know that the Palestinians could have had their own state long ago if their leadership had made different choices.

They could explain that the shift of Israeli public opinion against the two-state solution, which culminated in the election of the most right-wing government in Israeli history, has occurred because of the repeated Palestinian rejections of two-state solutions and because of decades of Palestinian terrorism.

They could explain that Israel left Gaza in 2005 after it dismantled all Israeli settlements there, but that the Palestinian reaction was not to build democratic institutions and a strong economy with all the money that was given to them. The reaction instead was to build tens of thousands of rockets, to build over 350 miles of terror tunnels, and then to attack Israel relentlessly. To many Israelis, this is the most obvious proof that many, and most likely most, Palestinians are more interested in destroying Israel than in building a state.

They could explain that the savagery of the October 7 attacks has further weakened Israeli support for a Palestinian state because more Israelis than ever before, now believe that such a state would inevitably be a terrorist state at their borders.

They could explain that a two-state solution is only possible if there is a fundamental and very visible change of Palestinian attitude towards Israel, including the dismantling of all terrorist groups and the recognition by the Palestinian leadership that Israel is the Jewish state and will continue to be the Jewish state, which means that any “return” of Palestinians to Israel, if any, would be extremely limited.

They could explain that the main obstacle to a two-state solution isn’t Israel but Palestinian terrorism and the Palestinian leadership.

They could repeat the words that Lapid said at the United Nations General Assembly, words that explain very simply and succinctly why a Palestinian state is not possible at this time: “We have only one condition: That a future Palestinian state will be a peaceful one. That it will not become another terror base from which to threaten the well-being, and the very existence of Israel. That we will have the ability to protect the security of all the citizens of Israel, at all times.”

And with all that understanding, world leaders could start putting far more pressure on the Palestinians than on Israel, i.e., the exact opposite of what they currently do.

For world leaders to say and do these things, however, they would have to accept that telling the truth about the Israel-Arab conflict may carry a political price as antisemitic voters move away from them, and more importantly, they would have to honestly care about the objective that they say they care about: the two-state solution.

All the evidence, however, shows that they don’t care to achieve a Palestinian state. They simply care to attract the votes of citizens who hate Israel.

In the difficult task of trying to help Israelis and Palestinians achieve a two-state solution, world leaders are choosing the easiest and most useless path to avoid the effort and risk that a useful path would require. In other words, they are taking the coward’s way out.