National Post (National Edition)
Palestinians won’t accept two-state plan
In Paris next Sunday, 70 countries will meet to determine how to convince Israel to accept a two-state solution with the Palestinians. Good question, but there’s a better one. Why would anyone think the Palestinians would ever accept a two-state solution? Ever?
Among those with even a rudimentary knowledge about the Israel-Palestinian conflict, only the deluded could believe that Palestinians would willingly accept a Jewish state as a neighbour.
In 1937, the British, then the rulers of Palestine, proposed a partition of the land into a Jewish and an Arab state. As recommended by the Palestine Royal Commission Report, the Palestinian Arabs would get the larger share of the territory, and their land would all be contiguous, unlike the smaller Jewish territory, which would be divided into two pieces. The Arab state would also receive a grant of £2 million from the British treasury as well as a grant from the Jewish state. The League of Nations, the predecessor to the United Nations, would guarantee the borders, and also guarantee that Jews would never control the holy sites.
The Jews accepted the proposal; the Arabs refused it, their grand mufti demanding instead that all of Palestine be placed under Arab control and that most Jews be forced to leave on the grounds that “this country (cannot) assimilate the Jews now in the country.” For good measure, the Arabs then rioted against the British administration and Jewish civilians. The Arabs in Palestine didn’t want a state of their own, even one that encompassed most of the territory and provided generous financial incentives — they considered Palestine part of Greater Syria, themselves Syrian subjects and the Syrian monarch their rightful ruler. Theirs was a principled position: They couldn’t be bought; they simply wanted the Jews out. Also on principle, the Arabs two years later refused another offer for statehood proposed in a 1939 British white paper.
In 1947, the United Nations proposed another partition plan that again offered the Jews noncontiguous areas as their state, separated by a Palestinian state. The Jews agreed to the UN partition plan, and soon declared independence. The Arabs, again on principle, rejected the plan, and the Arab armies of neighbouring states then invaded the new Jewish state. The Arab position had been clearly expressed by Arab League Secretary Azzam Pasha to Jewish representative David Horowitz: “The Arab world is not in a compromising mood. It’s likely, Mr. Horowitz, that your plan is rational and logical, but the fate of nations is not decided by rational logic. Nations never concede; they fight. You won’t get anything by peaceful means or compromise.”
After Israel won territory in the 1967 Six-Day War, nothing changed. The Jews, ever desperate to cut a deal, repeatedly offered to abandon most of the land they won in exchange for a lasting peace. The Arabs, as ever, overwhelmingly stood on principle. Some senior Fatah members did argue for a two-state solution; they were assassinated.
In 2000, then president Bill Clinton, in his last year in the White House, brokered a deal between Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak that exceeded Clinton’s wildest expectations. Israel not only offered to surrender all of Gaza and 94 to 96 per cent of the West Bank, it also offered to carve out one to three per cent of Israel proper, and to give the Arabs control over much of east Jerusalem and holy sites, such as the Temple Mount, sacred to Jews. The Palestinian state would also receive US$30 billion in compensation for its refugees.
Clinton thought he had a deal, but to his dismay he discovered in the end that he had been deluding himself. “I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being,” a disappointed, even angry Clinton said. But he shouldn’t have been surprised, since Arafat had been clear, telling his translator to explain to Clinton that ‘’If he wants me to sign this deal, it means he wants to issue an open invitation to my funeral, because I will die at the hand of my own people.” Arafat wasn’t being overly melodramatic. In 1951, Jordan’s King Abdullah was assassinated because he was believed to be preparing to make peace with Israel. In 1981, after Egypt’s Anwar Sadat did make peace with Israel, he was assassinated.
For Arafat, “to end the conflict is to end himself,” U.S. chief negotiator Dennis Ross stated. The Clinton-brokered talks ended with Arafat’s outright refusal. He made no counter-offer; instead he flew back to Ramallah and launched an intifada against Israel that claimed 3,000 lives.
In 2008, peace talks again took place, this time secretly between two new leaders, Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert. The 36-meeting marathon resulted in Israel offering the Palestinians 5.8 per cent of Israel’s landmass in a swap for the settlements in the West Bank. There would be no 37th meeting. Without explanation, Abbas never followed up.
The Palestinians have never accepted a two-state solution because they have never accepted the idea of a Jewish state in their midst.
The charter of the PLO specifically rules out any division of the land. Legalities aside, hatred of Israel and denials of its legitimacy are part of the Palestinian culture, taught to children in the schools and to adults through the media. A reversal by Palestinian leaders of the understandings that the Palestinian public had absorbed since childhood would be unthinkable. They never do think it; the notion of a two-state solution that would be acceptable to the Palestinians resides only in the delusions of the Western mind.
THE PALESTINIANS HAVE NEVER ACCEPTED ... THE IDEA OF A JEWISH STATE IN THEIR MIDST.