The Late Great Two-State Solution

The Late Great Two-State Solution

Tom Gilbreath

Officially, at least, most nations still say they support a “two-state solution” as the answer to conflicts between Israel and the Palestinians. But you don’t hear much about it these days. In practical terms — at least for the moment — most have abandoned it. The key is that the Palestinians themselves have made it clear that they don’t want it. They want one nation called Palestine with no Jews and no Israel — “from the river to the sea.”

 

At a 2024 campaign rally for then-Vice President Kamala Harris, former President Bill Clinton spoke of America’s “historic obligation to try to keep Israel from being destroyed.” He reminded the audience of the peace initiative that marked the final year of his administration. That summer, President Clinton invited Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and PLO Chairman Yassar Arafat to join him for a summit at Camp David.

 

The former president told the Michigan crowd, “The only time Yasser Arafat didn’t tell me the truth was when he promised he was going to accept the peace deal that we had worked out. It would have given the Palestinians a state in 96 percent of the West Bank and 4 percent of Israel, and they got to choose where the 4 percent of Israel was. So they would have the effect of the same land of all the West Bank. They would have a capital in East Jerusalem… and two of the four quadrants of the Old City of Jerusalem. [This was] confirmed by the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and his cabinet. And they [the Palestinians] said, ‘No.’”

 

When he told the story on other occasions, the former president emphasized that he was there, “in the room.” He said Arafat turned down what he had previously agreed to, and he made no counteroffer. 

 

Stop and think about what Israel was willing to give up. Imagine Abraham Lincoln offering to split Washington DC, giving half to the Confederacy in a bid to end the Civil War. Imagine him saying to the Confederates, “You can have Southern DC for your capital, and we will keep the north.” It’s unthinkable — yet that's how far Israel was willing to go for peace in 2000. Arafat and the Palestinians initially agreed to the plan, then suddenly changed their minds.

 

Some say they turned down this sweetheart deal because Israel caved on so much. They speculate that it might have looked to the Palestinians like Israel had become a soft touch and, with added pressure, would be willing to relinquish still more. So, instead of presenting a counteroffer at the negotiating table, Arafat went home and instigated the violence now known as the Second Intifada.

 

But President Clinton sees it differently. At the 2024 rally, he went on to say, “I think part of it is that Hamas did not care about a Homeland for the Palestinians. They wanted to kill Israelis and make Israel uninhabitable.”

 

That’s a remarkable accusation, but he had good reason to see violence as their motive. That is how they behaved in the decades before the 2000 peace talks, and since then, the violence has only grown. In his book, Palestinianism: The Newest Attack on Peace, Human Rights, and Democracy, Alan Dershowitz wrote, “While Israel seeks to preserve its state, the new Palestinianism seeks to destroy that state.”

 

Bible prophecy says Israel will experience a time of peace following its treaty with the Antichrist. But that won’t last long. Otherwise, the Bible warns that conflict will surround Israel until the time of the Lord’s Second Coming. That does not mean Christians should stop working and praying for peace now. After all, Jesus gave a special blessing to peacemakers, and even a peace of short duration, if done carefully, can alleviate suffering. But no one should be surprised that long-term peace continues to slip through our fingers.