One message that emerged loudly and clearly from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s UN speech last Friday was that recognition of a Palestinian state by a vast majority of the world’s states is, inter alia, the fruit of antisemitism.
Since the rise of modern Zionism, and the frequently violent conflict between Jews and Arabs over the designated fate of Palestine/the Land of Israel, the two-state solution was one of the possible frameworks proposed.
Over the years, this envisioned keeping the territory united as a single state, partition into two nation states, and including it in some sort of wider regional, federal political structure.
Of the three options, the first two were the most frequently mentioned. A single state would be a bi-national state in which Jews and Arabs would enjoy equal national rights irrespective of their respective numbers, or a unitary state in which one nation would be predominant and the other subservient. Partition meant the establishment of two unitary states, living side by side.
Partition plans over the years
The first partition plan was the 1936 plan proposed by the Peel Commission Report. Before the State of Israel was established in 1948, the Zionist leadership invariably opted for partition whenever the issue was raised, because that seemed to be the only viable option at the time. The State of Israel was established on the basis of the 1947 UN partition plan.
The main opponents of the idea were the Revisionists, most vocally by Menachem Begin’s Herut Party, whose anthem stated: “Two banks has the River Jordan – one is ours, and so is the other,” meaning that not only is the Land of Israel west of the Jordan River not to be divided – both banks of the river should constitute part of the Jewish state.
The Oslo Accords of 1993-95 between Israel and the PLO were based on the two-state idea, even though this was nowhere explicitly stated to be their final goal. Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on one’s political views, the process was cut short by the fault of both sides.
As a result, the two-state solution lost most of its support in Israel. The Palestinians, who initially were unwilling to consider such a solution, turned more partial to it, at least as a temporary tactical ploy.
Notably, today’s pro-Palestinian demonstrations abroad rarely, if ever, mention the two-state solution, but rather a Palestinian state from the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea.
It should also be noted that as Israel has become more national-religious, so the premise that God promised the whole of the Land of Israel to the Jews – which by definition excludes a two-state solution – has gained ground. However, it is not clear what percentage of the Jewish population in Israel holds this belief as a basic premise.
Furthermore, we do not really know how many of the UN’s 159 states – both members and non-members that currently recognize the state of Palestine (which does not effectively exist) – support the two-state solution, or advocate a Palestine that replaces the State of Israel.
Israeli perception of Palestinian state recognition
However, it is a fact that most Israelis today perceive the flood of recognitions of Palestine as a threat, even if just a theoretical threat, to their state’s existence. Consequently, Netanyahu had no qualms about stating that all the leaders of the states that recently succumbed to recognizing Palestine are affected by antisemitism, one way or another.
While it cannot be denied that there has been a rapid outbreak of open antisemitism around the world in the last year, it is far-fetched to conclude that leaders like France’s President Emmanuel Macron and the UK’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer are antisemites, or as Netanyahu stated in his speech “buckled under the pressure of a biased media, radical Islamist constituencies, and antisemitic mobs.”
In fact, it is unclear whether the unbearable situation that has developed in the Gaza Strip since the beginning of the Israel-Hamas War is the invention of a “biased media,” or the deliberate handiwork of the IDF and other Israeli forces.
The reality described is of the massive destruction of both public and private buildings and infrastructures, massive displacement or movement of hundreds of thousands of homeless civilians from one tent camp to another, widespread malnutrition and hunger, and drastic shortages of basic commodities.
Some world leaders have actually called upon Israel to change its modus operandi in the Gaza Strip and actively seek to end the war – frequently adding that all the hostages must be freed by Hamas as a precondition – or else they will recognize the state of Palestine.
This seems to suggest that at least part of the new “pro-Palestinians” are more concerned with the Israeli activities in the Gaza Strip than with hatred of Jews in general, and Israeli Jews, in particular.
Though Netanyahu does not deny that Israel is fighting a vicious war that is designed to bring about a “complete victory” over Hamas, he stresses that Hamas is to blame for many of the resulting horrific consequences, and remains vague about how he personally perceives the future of the Gaza Strip.
The fact that Netanyahu seemed to welcome US President Donald Trump’s bizarre “Middle East Riviera” project for the Gaza Strip, which he proposed soon after his return to the White House, increased the international suspicion of Netanyahu’s motives.
The same applies to Netanyahu’s apparent ambivalence in the face of statements by some of his central coalition partners, who do not conceal their desire to bring about a ”voluntary” transfer of most of the Palestinian population from the Gaza Strip, which they want annexed to Israel and settled by Jews.
Perhaps, by the end of today, after a critical meeting in Washington, DC, between Trump and Netanyahu, we shall be wiser about where Israel will be heading in the foreseeable future. We shall find out whether or not the two-year Gaza war will come to an end, with some sort of constructive solution to the situation in this miserable territory.
If it does, will this further delay a permanent solution to the Palestinian issue as a whole, or rather raise the issue of a Palestinian state to more practical levels – something that we shall find very difficult to ignore?
Most important, from the Israeli perspective, is whether Israel will manage to extricate itself from the international isolation that our government has managed to bring upon us. Hopefully, we shall be wiser later today.
The writer has written journalistic and academic articles, as well as several books, on international relations, Zionism, Israeli politics, and parliamentarism. From 1994-2010, she worked in the Knesset Library and the Knesset Research and Information Center.