By Noah Rothman
Monday,
January 22,2024
A
fine line distinguishes admirable consistency from blinkered thick-headedness.
The Biden administration’s indefatigable commitment to advocating in support of
a “two-state solution” in the Middle East long ago ceased to be the former and
now verges on the latter.
Within
weeks of the October 7 massacre, Secretary of State Antony Blinken recommitted to lobbying for the establishment of an
internationally recognized Palestinian state as the only true pathway to
“durable peace and stability.” Even as reality in the region shifts beneath his
feet, Blinken hasn’t changed his tune. “If you take a regional approach, and if
you pursue integration with security, with a Palestinian state, all of a
sudden, you have a region that’s come together in ways that answer the most
profound questions that Israel has tried to answer for years,” Blinken
told a World Economic Forum audience at their embarrassing
annual spectacle in Davos.
At
a certain point, a rational observer must withdraw charitable assumptions about
the fallacies that have motivated Blinken to cling to this unimaginative
approach to statecraft. His advocacy likely contributed to Israeli prime
minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s unequivocal rejection of a two-state process — a
rejection that was framed in the international press as a recklessly
provocative act of defiance.
But Netanyahu didn’t incept this international row into existence — he
responded to it. The Israeli prime minister articulated the consensus view in
Israel on the viability of a two-state process amid an ongoing existential war
against a terrorist outfit in Gaza. Even if Netanyahu’s remarks were intended
for a domestic audience, the Biden administration’s lobbying provided the
platform for this politicking.
But
as to the international media’s account of this controversy, you could be
forgiven for thinking that Washington and Jerusalem were the only parties to
it. The competing and, oftentimes, conflicting Palestinian factions seem just
as eager to reject Blinken’s terms.
It
shouldn’t need to be said given its empirically observable bloodlust, but Hamas
has no interest in a two-state solution if Israel is one of those two states.
“I
believe that the dream and the hope for Palestine from the River to the Sea and
from the north to the south has been renewed,” said founding Hamas politburo
member Khaled Mashal in a recent interview publicized by the Middle East watchdog group MEMRI.
“This
has also become a slogan chanted in the U.S. and in Western capital cities by
the American and Western public,” he added of the encouragement the youthful
activist class has recently provided to Hamas. “The Palestinian consensus—or
almost a consensus—is that we will not give up on our right to Palestine in its
entirety, from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea and from Rosh
Hanikra to Eilat or the Gulf of Aqaba.”
Okay,
so neither Israel nor the Biden administration has a partner in Hamas. That is
to be expected. What about the more responsible Palestinian factions? The
Fatah-led Palestinian Authority has flatly rejected an offer to assume post-war control of
Gaza — an offer no one made them, but which served as an opportunity to
articulate its desire to extract material concessions from the West.
With
whom are Blinken and Netanyahu supposed to negotiate a Palestinian state into
existence? How are we even having a conversation about a two-state solution
when the Palestinian territories are about as separate as geopolitical entities
can be? These are geographically non-contiguous territories with distinct
governments, economies, and foreign policies. They have radically divergent
relations with their neighbors, up to and including the fact that one of these
proto-statelets is at war with Israel and the other is not.
Holding
fast to the delusion of a “two-state solution” in this environment looks to the
neutral observer less like statesmanship and more like superstition. Blinken
believes declaring statehood into existence by fiat will somehow remake the
governing entities in the Palestinian territories into responsible actors.
Rather, it’s the other way around.
No comments:
Post a Comment