Why is there no Palestinian state?
When Jesus the Jew walked the laneways and pathways of Jerusalem, he saw neither mosque nor church, for the religions they represented had not yet come into existence.
Ron Weiser
On the other hand, the Jewish People have an unbroken connection to the Land of Israel, unlike any other, for over 3,000 years.
The Israel of today is the 3rd Jewish Commonwealth and on the very same land.
You dig the soil and find pottery from Davidic times, coins from Bar Kochba and 2,000-year-old scrolls written in a script remarkably like the one that today advertises ice cream at the corner shop.
Israel became a nation around 1300 BCE, two thousand years before the rise of Islam.
The people of modern-day Israel share the same language and culture, shaped by the Jewish heritage and religion passed through generations, starting with the founding father, Abraham.
It is simply astounding that anyone can get away with the notion that the Jewish People are not indigenous to Israel.
Yet that is one of the main myths or misrepresentations that we face today.
Another is the notion that the concept of ‘2 states’ has not become a reality because of some Israeli rejectionism.
Untrue.
The only reason there is no Palestinian state today is because they, the Palestinians, are not willing to pay the price. A Jewish state alongside it.
Let’s go back to basics.
Repetition is necessary.
After almost 400 years of Ottoman rule that ended with World War 1 and saw the establishment of the British Mandate, the resolution of Jewish and Arab aspirations was passed by the United Nations on the 29th of November 1947 in the original ‘2 state solution’.
The Jewish people accepted.
The Arab people rejected the very idea of 2 states and started a war to destroy the Jewish state.
They continued their position of 1921 when the Palestine Arab Executive Committee stated – “Either us or the Zionists. There is no room for both.”
The war of 1947 to 1949 between Israel and the various Arab armies ended in an armistice. The lines of this armistice became known as the Green Line. An armistice line, not a border.
Till another war started by Arab armies in 1967, Israel did not hold or have any control over or anything to do with Gaza or Judea/Samaria/West Bank or Jerusalem.
What did the Arab world do with those areas? Nothing.
The PLO – Palestine Liberation Organisation – was formed in 1964. What was it formed to ‘liberate’? Areas they already had?!
Of course not.
Pro-Palestinian chants of ‘75 years of occupation’ and ‘from the river to the sea’ are not about anything more or less than yet another rejection of any ‘2 state’ idea.
In June of 1967, Israel offered a ‘2 state solution’ in return for peace, but in August of the same year, the Arab League gave its infamous three no’s. No to negotiation, no to recognition and no to peace.
Since then, Israel has been in a bind called ‘Catch ‘67’ – wanting to cede territory but without confidence in it being safe to do so.
On numerous occasions, Israel has offered detailed maps of what a ‘2-state solution’ might look like.
Notably in 2000 when Arafat rejected Prime Minister Barak’s and President Clinton’s ‘2 state’ proposal.
And in 2008 when Mahmoud Abbas walked away from Prime Minister Olmert’s offer at Annapolis.
Israel wants separation from the Palestinians for demographic reasons, but on the other cannot do so because of reasons of security.
Israel left Gaza in 2005 and October the 7th demonstrates the results.
A slaughter of historic proportions which Hamas promises to repeat and repeat given the opportunity, G-d forbid.
The other Palestinian leadership, the Palestinian Authority, is corrupt, unpopular amongst the Palestinians, has a history of rejecting any ‘2 state’ proposal and continues its policies of Holocaust denial and payments to the families of anyone who murders Jews.
It is an absurd notion that Israel can trust that her security will be ensured by the current Palestinian Authority in some sort of utopian post-war Gaza.
Any serious person who speaks about the Palestinian Authority ruling Gaza after the war, and that goes for President Biden down, recognises this.
Albeit not loudly nor clearly enough.
Even Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong understands this.
On the 4th of November, in an article in The Guardian, she wrote: “And a reformed, legitimate Palestinian Authority that disavows violence.”
That is a sentence deep in content, with real clarity about the current Palestinian Authority as it is – the one she says needs to change.
The problem is that it becomes meaningless when translated into any actual policy.
Like the joint statement by Australia, Canada and New Zealand just over a week ago which “condemned Hamas’ attack on Israel on 7 October and the heinous acts of violence perpetrated in those attacks, including sexual violence”.
Prime Minister Albanese said that Australia supports the creation of a sustainable ceasefire in the Gaza Strip but that Hamas must give up its weapons.
“Hamas must release all hostages, stop using Palestinian civilians as human shields and lay down its arms”.
Followed only hours later by Australia voting in favour of a United Nations resolution that called for “an immediate humanitarian ceasefire,” without a single one of the earlier statement’s conditions being met.
Were such a ceasefire to occur, it would only benefit Hamas, prolong the war and increase the number of deaths of Israelis and Palestinians.
Israel’s allies know and understand the situation exactly. That is not the central issue for Israel in terms of world opinion.
The two key problems are: ‘experts’ in the media generally and social media particularly, parroting myths about the conflict; and then the disconnect between even those who do understand that these are fallacies, but disregard any such knowledge when it comes to making policy for reasons of expedience and with large doses of antisemitism thrown in.
Indigeneity, the history of ‘2 state’ rejectionism and what an immediate ceasefire without preconditions means, are just three very wide-ranging areas in which we need to redouble our efforts.
Am Yisrael Chai.
Ron Weiser is the Honorary Life Member ZFA Executive and Honorary Life President, State Zionist Council of NSW
Great article Ron – but must take issue with you on this statement:
“After almost 400 years of Ottoman rule that ended with World War 1 and saw the establishment of the British Mandate, the resolution of Jewish and Arab aspirations was passed by the United Nations on the 29th of November 1947 in the original ‘2 state solution’.”
The Mandate covered land on both sides of the Jordan River and under article 25 of the Mandate a Jewish National Home was only to occur in the 22% of that territory that was located west of the Jordan River. Reconstituting the Jewish National Home in the remaining 78% located east of the Jordan River – Transjordan or Transjordanie – was postponed or withheld.
In 1946 Transjordan was granted independence by Great Britain in breach of both article 25 and article 5 of the Mandate without regard to Jewish aspirations in that territory which had seen two and a half of the twelve Tribes of Israel settle there after the exodus from Egypt. It became known as “The Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan” – changing its name to “The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan” after its unification with Judea and Samaria in 1950.
The 1947 UN Partition Resolution was therefore only dealing with the Mandate territory from the River to the Sea – not the entire territory comprised in the Mandate.
The seeds for the original ‘2 state solution’ in Palestine between Jews and Arabs had in effect been sown in 1922 not 1947.
Jordan comprises 78% of former Palestine and cannot shirk its role in ending the Jewish-Arab conflict.
Today there is a solution emanating from Saudi Arabia in 2022 calling for the merger of Jordan and part of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) into one territorial unit to be called “The Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine” based on this statement:
“Jordanians and Palestinians are as similar as any people can be. They are Sunni Arabs from the same neighborhood. Merging them will not create any long-term ethnic or sectarian fault lines.”
What do you think of negotiations between Israel and Jordan being commenced to try and achieve this Saudi-based solution?