Who Supports a Two-State Solution? You’d Be Surprised

Vice President Kamala Harris has echoed President Joe Biden in calling for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As Harris told Dana Bash in her CNN interview: “I remain committed since I’ve been on October 8 to what we must do to work toward a two-state solution where Israel is secure and in equal measure the Palestinians have security and self-determination and dignity.”

Harris and Biden are pilloried for that position by former President Donald Trump’s supporters and some Jewish Democrats who see it as an indication a Harris administration would be hostile to Israel.

And what about Trump’s position?

In his recent Time interview, Trump said, “There was a time when I thought two states could work. Now I think two states is going to be very, very tough. I think it’s going to be much tougher to get. I also think you have fewer people that liked the idea. You had a lot of people that liked the idea four years ago. Today, you have far fewer people that like that idea.”

That’s hardly a repudiation of the idea. What some people forget is that when he was president, his “Deal of the Century” was a two-state solution.

The historical fact is that most recent American presidents have supported a two-state solution. Because of Palestinian rejectionism, each president’s approach has failed.

Before and immediately after the 1973 War, a Palestinian state wasn’t on the agenda. The focus was entirely on peace between Israel and the Arab states who had waged war against the Jewish state.

President Richard Nixon’s Secretary of State William Rogers’s plan was aimed at producing an agreement that would have required Israel to withdraw from territories it captured in 1967, but they would be re-occupied by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Rogers’ only reference to the Palestinians was in the context of the refugee problem. “There can be no lasting peace without a just settlement of the problem of those Palestinians,” he said, without offering a solution other than to resolve it “as part of the overall settlement.”

In 1977, President Jimmy Carter was also concerned about the refugees. By this time, King Hussein had given up his claim to the West Bank, and the focus of diplomacy shifted toward an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. The obstacle then as now was the Palestinians’ refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist (Yasser Arafat’s later “recognition” was superseded by Palestinian actions and statements). Carter said that if the Palestinians recognized Israel, “There has to be a homeland provided for the Palestinian refugees who have suffered for many, many years.”

Later, when Carter mediated the peace talks between Israel and Egypt, establishing a Palestinian state was not on the table. The Camp David framework proposed autonomy for Gaza and the West Bank but fell short of addressing full Palestinian independence. Without a representative Palestinian leadership willing to recognize Israel, the question of Palestinian statehood was effectively sidelined. For Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, the fate of the Palestinians was less important than the benefits he expected to derive from an agreement with Israel; hence, the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty doesn’t mention them at all.

Ronald Reagan also had a peace plan. It was prepared behind Israel’s back to please those Arab states who had accepted PLO evacuees from Beirut after the first Lebanon war and virtue signaling U.S. interest in a solution to the Palestinian issue. Reagan, long before President Barack Obama, called for an immediate settlement freeze and said the United States would “not support annexation or permanent control by Israel.” The plan also declared, “The United States will not support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.” Reagan concluded that “self-government by the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza in association with Jordan offers the best chance for a durable, just and lasting peace.” He failed to recognize that Jordan had abandoned its interest in the West Bank albatross.

George H.W. Bush never explicitly supported a Palestinian state but was unambiguously opposed to the Israeli right’s vision. As Secretary of State James Baker bluntly told AIPAC’s Policy Conference, “now is the time to lay aside, once and for all, the unrealistic vision of a Greater Israel.” Bush also called for an end to settlement construction. “Throughout the Middle East, we seek a stable and enduring settlement,” Bush said. “We’ve not defined what this means; indeed, I make these points with no map showing where the final borders are to be drawn. Nevertheless, we believe territorial compromise is essential for peace.”

Bill Clinton was the first president to state explicitly: “There can be no genuine resolution to the conflict without a sovereign, viable Palestinian state that accommodates Israelis’ security requirements and the demographic realities.” He presented a map outlining the final borders of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, which Prime Minister Ehud Barak was ready to accept. However, Yasser Arafat rejected the deal, squandering what may have been the Palestinians’ last, best opportunity for statehood.

Despite Clinton’s failure, George W. Bush outlined a new Middle East peace plan with the same intended result. “There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967,” he said. “An agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people.” Leaving no doubt, he also said, “My vision is two states, living side by side in peace and security.” Bush called for a settlement freeze and for the Palestinians to democratize and cease terror. The Palestinians’ failure to meet these obligations ensured the Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict ran into a ditch.

President Barack Obama insisted, “The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.” Obama focused on a settlement freeze that raised Palestinian expectations and soured relations with Israel. Despite the president’s support for their goal, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas refused to negotiate directly with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the initiative led by Secretary of State John Kerry foundered as all those before had on Palestinian terror and rejectionism.

Donald Trump boasted that he would end the conflict when he came into office. He, too, told Netanyahu to “hold back on settlements for a little bit.” His ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, president of the Friends of Bet El settlement, testified to Congress in his confirmation hearing that he would support pursuing a two-state solution. Trump’s peace plan ultimately recognized the principle of two states for two people. It contained the most detailed plan for the creation of a demilitarized Palestinian state in all of Gaza and approximately 70% of the West Bank.

President Biden is the only president in decades who has not proposed a peace plan, and Hamas ended any chance for one on October 7. Still, Biden has repeatedly stated his support for a Palestinian state. In an interview before ending his reelection campaign, he said that Muslim and Arab Americans should vote for him because he would ensure a two-state solution in the region.

Harris’s support for a two-state solution is consistent with the positions of nearly every president. Even those who didn’t explicitly support a Palestinian state expected Israel to withdraw from most of the disputed territories, stop building settlements, and allow the Palestinians a form of self-government. Those views have never been popular in the pro-Israel community. Still, only Jimmy Carter was punished for them, receiving the lowest percentage of the Jewish vote of any Democrat since the establishment of Israel.