Why a two-state solution is obsolete.

Jan 07, 2015, 05:45PM | Rachel Avraham

The international community constantly stresses that the only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a two state for two peoples’ solution. They argue that demographically, Israel cannot remain a Jewish and democratic state if the West Bank is annexed, while the status quo is unsustainable because the Palestinians remain stateless and will eventually need a country to call their own. However, the statesmen who stress these points, from Obama to Hollande to Cameron, don’t understand that the present dynamics in the Middle East make a two state solution almost impossible to implement.

In the wake of the Arab Spring, radical Islam is on the ascent across the Middle East. Huge chunks of Syria and Iraq are controlled by the Islamic State terror organization that has become infamous for massacring, beheading, raping, torturing, and imposing a strict version of Islamic sharia law that makes medieval Islam look progressive in comparison. Hezbollah, a Shia terrorist organization, dominates Lebanon, while Hamas controls Gaza and Islamist groups are fighting against the Egyptian government in the Sinai. Meanwhile, the Iranian regime is developing nuclear weapons and seeks to export their extremist interpretation of Islam across the world.

Given these regional developments, it is impossible for Israel to unilaterally evacuate from the entire West Bank without creating another Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, or Iraq within rocket range of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and other major Israeli population centers. Furthermore, without the Jordan Valley and the Judean Mountains, Israel will be exposed to threats from the east, namely Islamic State and the Iranian axis, alongside domestic terror threats.

This is especially the case given that the majority of the population in the West Bank supports Hamas coming to power. Furthermore, even if the authoritarian regime of Abu Mazen within the Palestinian Authority managed to maintain power despite the rise of radical Islam in the Middle East, this won’t prevent violence erupting along Israel’s borders. The regime of Abu Mazen continues to incite violence against Israel and will likely continue their struggle against the Jewish state via a position of strength rather than seek peace should Israel withdraw unilaterally. Fatah will not work to prevent terror against Israel even if Israel withdraws from all territories within the green line. Additionally, given the gaps between the two sides, the chances for Israel to withdraw with a successful peace agreement that maintains Israel’s security is slim.

Furthermore, the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank won’t solve the issue of the Palestinians remaining stateless. PA Ambassador to Lebanon Abdullah Abdullah told the Daily Star that Palestinian refugees won’t be granted citizenship in any Palestinian state created based on the 1967 borders and Abu Mazen himself turned down Sisi’s offer to receive Sinai land to settle the Palestinian refugees in with full human rights. Therefore, the only Palestinians that would receive citizenship rights are the ones who aren’t refugees and even these Palestinians at best will become citizens of a failed state dominated by violence, tribal conflicts, and other tensions rather than a democracy that respects human rights, women’s rights, gay rights, and minority rights .

As the Hamas and Fatah leaderships remain as divided as ever, the chances that the two can be reconciled to govern a single united country that won’t be dominated by internal strife and political corruption are slim. Hamas seeks Israel’s annihilation and the establishment of an Islamist state in its place. Fatah also doesn’t want Israel to exist, but they want a secular Palestinian state and are a bit more pragmatic in their confrontation with Israel. Both Fatah and Hamas are anti-democratic and corrupt, without offering their people much hope for the future to the point that some Palestinians would rather live under Israeli rule than under either of them.

It is true that the Palestinian people cannot remain stateless forever. Furthermore, Hamas ruling Gaza and the corrupt Palestinian Authority controlling huge chunks of the West Bank, with an Israeli presence in the rest without offering those Palestinians much of a future, is also not sustainable. It is also true from a demographic perspective; Israel cannot annex the entire West Bank without risking the character of the State of Israel as a Jewish demographic state.

Given this situation, the only feasible solution in an era when radical Islam is on the ascent is not the unworkable two-state solution that ignores the realities on the ground, but to promote Mordechai Kedar’s eight state solution. Kedar’s solution weakens the corrupt Hamas and Fatah movements in favor of Palestinian tribes that know how to get along with each other and live in peace within a traditional framework. Israel would still annex all areas that are critical for her security and grant the Palestinians living there citizenship rights. But Gaza, the Arab part of Hebron, Jenin, Nablus, Tulkarem, Ramallah, Jericho, and Qalqilyah would become independent city states ruled by the local Palestinian tribes that dominate those localities. The Palestinian refugees would be granted citizenship and equal human rights where they are located presently.

“In the Middle East, borders were largely determined by European colonial powers, usually according to their own interests,” Kedar stated. “This led to the establishment of states that were conglomerates of disparate tribes and groups that had no history of peaceful coexistence before they were granted independence. What resulted was the establishment of countries, such as Syria, Iraq and Yemen, in which tension and instability were the norm. This can be contrasted with the social and political stability that characterizes the United Arab Emirates, which consist of nation-states configured from single, traditional tribes that built their power base on the foundation of traditional tribal affiliations.”

“Since the imposition of Western ideas and forms of government upon tribal nations has failed miserably, perhaps the time has come to consider a different solution that can preserve some of the objectives of democratic systems while at the same time respecting local traditions and the cultural authority of local tribes,” Kedar emphasized. He noted that Palestinians in Gaza and from competing tribes within the West Bank are so culturally different that they rarely marry among each other. The Arabic spoken in Gaza is not the same Arabic people speak in the West Bank.

Therefore, by breaking them up into homogenous city states, not only is such a solution better for Israel’s security but it is also beneficial for the Palestinians themselves, because it enables peace and stability as well as the development of “greater democratic development, as the various subgroups within the culture would find self expression within their own politically unique areas.” Kedar stresses that the success or failure of a country is not based on its size, but on its system of governance. The small Greek city states of antiquity were infinitely more successful than a huge country like Sudan is today. Therefore, it is preferable for the Palestinians themselves to have eight small successful homogenous countries with less land than one territorially disconnected failed state.