An alternative to the two-state solution

Resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is not possible because the dispute is not over tangibles—territory, economic benefits, etc.—but intangibles: identity, nationalism and religion. That is why all attempts to end the conflict by making compromises have failed. Both sides see the struggle as existential.

Ironically, a solution can be found in the concept of sovereignty. As a political concept, sovereignty means the ability of a nation-state to exercise its authority over territory it legitimately controls based on the right of its residents to self-determination. Local groups may contest the right of the sovereign to rule over them, but this must be done within the architecture of sovereignty and democracy. Hostile forces and entities cannot be allowed.

Legally, questions of sovereignty over disputed territory must have a basis in law. For the territory that was called “Palestine,” this means a return to the original plan of the League of Nations for creating sovereign states. Any proposed solution must be consistent with that plan because, as the recognized sovereign power, its actions create laws and reality. The legitimacy of all states in the region depends on that fundamental power.

Following World War I and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the League of Nations authorized British and French Mandates to replace the defunct Ottoman rulers. They planned to create states based on the major populations in the area. This resulted in the creation of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, while Egypt was already well-defined.

The British recognized Eretz Yisrael (Palestine) as the “National Homeland of the Jewish People,” but it also wanted to give something equivalent to its Arab residents. Therefore, in 1922, Britain carved out a state for them, which was called Transjordan, later changed to Jordan, and installed a prominent Saudi Arabian tribe, the Hashemites, as its rulers.

All of the powers and authority of the League of Nations were incorporated into the United Nations in 1945 and therefore are the basis of international law. When the State of Israel was declared in 1948, it was accepted by the United Nations, the United States and most of the international community based on lines drawn by the British Mandate.

The plan was interrupted, however, when five Arab states attacked Israel, intent on its destruction. During the war, Egypt seized the Gaza Strip and Jordan took Judea and Samaria, as well as eastern Jerusalem; Syria claimed the Golan Heights. During the war, hundreds of thousands of Arabs fled, and most became refugees; UNRWA was established to provide camps for them in Lebanon and the areas conquered by Arab armies. No Arab state was willing to accept them as citizens except Transjordan. An armistice was agreed to in 1949 and lasted until 1967, when Israel recovered the areas it had lost.

After the 1967 war, the United Nations asked a private Swiss organization, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), for its opinion on the status of the territories Israel had conquered. The ICRC declared that these areas were “occupied Palestinian territories,” and that Israel had violated international law—the Fourth Geneva Convention. Its decision was accepted by the United Nations and most of the international community. The ICRC, however, had no legal basis for its decision; its deliberations remain secret.

Although Israel signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, most Arab states and all terrorist organizations, such as the PLO, the Muslim Brotherhood (the parent organization of Hamas) and others, are opposed to any acceptance of Israel. They demand political self-determination (a state), “liberation” (from Israel), the “right of return” to Israel (to reclaim abandoned properties) and Israel’s destruction.

Israel sought to end the conflict by recognizing the legitimacy of the PLO and establishing the Palestinian Authority based on the Oslo Accords. Not only did this fail, but it also led to waves of suicide attacks led by the P.A., during which some 1,000 Israelis were murdered. Hamas continued this terrorism when it took over the Gaza Strip in 2007 and built an army, which it used on Oct. 7, 2023, to massacre 1,200 Israelis and kidnap more than 200 people, taking them hostage for days, months, even years. Another intifada is planned for Judea and Samaria led by the P.A., Hamas and other terrorist organizations.

A “two-state solution”—the creation of a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza—is not an option, since such a state would be controlled by terrorist organizations and Iran.

Clearly, “Palestinian self-determination” cannot be realized within the current structure of the Middle East, because Arab Palestinians have consistently rejected any two-state solution. Except for Jordan, in which most of its population is Palestinian, Arab countries refuse to accept Palestinians as citizens to perpetuate the conflict.

Israeli sovereignty and Arab Zionism are the answer.

Arab Palestinians who live in Judea, Samaria, eastern Jerusalem and Gaza can integrate and become part of Israeli society while retaining a separate identity. Their integration must be based on loyalty to the state, support for security—ours and theirs—and trust. All forms of bigotry and Jew-hatred by Muslim leaders must be banned.

This plan provides an alternative to a two-state solution and replaces rejection with acceptance, despair with hope. Ironically, the best alternative to a destructive Palestinian state is a constructive Israeli state with full sovereignty in all areas of Eretz Yisrael. Our future is also theirs.

Get the latest updates in our WhatsApp group.