In the abstract, a two-state solution makes a great deal of sense. These are two ancient peoples with longtime historical and religious claims to the same patch of land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This was the compromise solution offered by the United Nations in 1947, quickly accepted by the Jewish leadership who would found the state of Israel and just as quickly rejected by Palestinian Arabs and the neighboring Arab states. For the past 78 years, this concept has been supported by the United States, China, Russia, the European Union, the African Union and most Latin American and Asian countries.
In other words, the entire world supports a two-state solution, with the notable and troublesome exception of the two states themselves. I might think that it’s a good idea for congressional Republicans and Democrats to take a long weekend camping trip together to resolve the budget stalemate, or that the Lakers and Dodgers should agree to trade of LeBron James for Shohei Ohtani, but unless the two involved and impacted parties want to do it, there’s a fairly small chance of it happening.
That’s why it’s so confounding to watch France, Great Britain, Canada and other sometimes stalwart U.S. allies formally recognize a Palestinian state. They know that there is no possibility of such a state existing in the near-to-medium future. They know that given the choice between a corrupt Palestinian Authority, a homicidal Hamas, an unwilling Arab League and a mythical homegrown alternative, there is no one to run a Palestinian state. There is also the inconvenient reality that Israel and Hamas continue a war that shows no sign of ending, so even this fictional leaderless state could not exist until the fighting is done.
But let’s pretend that the war has ended, a credible leadership team has emerged and the terrorist threat that has been omnipresent for decades has magically disappeared. The fact still remains that the Israeli people’s ambivalence toward a Palestinian state has understandably hardened into fervent opposition since the Oct. 7 Hamas mass kidnappings and murders. The fact remains that every Palestinian leader has turned down every proposal ever offered for a two-state solution. The fact also remains that the Palestinian people have so little trust in the 85-year-old Abbas, who will soon mark the 20th anniversary of his original promise to hold still-unheld elections, that they would almost certainly revolt if he were sufficiently brave and visionary to accept such an offer. Which he is not.
And again, let’s remember that neither the Israelis or Palestinians want a two-state solution.
Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer and the other Western leaders who made this proposal know all this. They know that calling for a Palestinian state has as much likelihood of success as proposing a U.N. mission to Jupiter. So what was their real goal?
While each of these leaders’ pronouncements on the Middle East are geopolitically preposterous, when it comes to the domestic politics of their own countries, all of them are depressingly realistic. They all recognize the growing global opposition to Israel’s prosecution of the war against their attackers. So rather than investing the political capital to explain to their constituents why a Jewish state feels the need to defend itself against ceaseless terrorist attacks or the time and energy to pressure Hamas back to the negotiating table to disarm, free the hostages and actually help end the war, it is much easier to posture on behalf of a make-believe solution.
Let’s not be ingenues. These are politicians with significant problems to face in their respective countries. It is undeniably easier for them to attempt to pacify angry voters with meaningless pomposity than to either confront difficult domestic challenges or engage more seriously on the world stage. We should also remember that all of them are doing far more than the U.S. to assist Ukraine in its war with Russia.)
But they also must understand that their empty gesture is emboldening Hamas, extending the war and endangering innocent Israelis. Perhaps they also understand how embarrassed they should be.
Dan Schnur is the U.S. Politics Editor for the Jewish Journal. He teaches courses in politics, communications, and leadership at UC Berkeley, USC and Pepperdine. He hosts the monthly webinar “The Dan Schnur Political Report” for the Los Angeles World Affairs Council & Town Hall. Follow Dan’s work at www.danschnurpolitics.com.
