If Palestinians elect a leader in their upcoming democratic elections who asks for a two-state solution as an alternative to the unlimited right of return, I have confidence Israeli politics would shift far to the left. Palestinians have the power to persuade Israelis a sovereign neighboring Palestinian state would not attack Israel to liberate the remainder of occupied Palestine.
You don't need to agree that Israel has a right to exist or anything silly like that. Just make it clear you prefer sovereignty to achieving justice through war. I.e. whatever Jordan has. A cold peace. That's good enough. Just not Hamas.
Right but no one ever would. Relinquishing the right of return and declaring an end to hostilities (not just a “hudna”) simply isn’t something any leader can do and survive.
"On Gaza, the coalition and the opposition find rare agreement: there will be no Israeli withdrawal before Hamas disarms."
"For Palestinians, there are no good options. Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank cannot vote in this election, yet its outcome will help determine whether settlements expand, whether annexation advances, what happens to Gaza, and whether any path toward Palestinian statehood stays open. An election in which they have no say will determine their fate."
So what you're saying is that if the 2 million Gazans succeed at disarming Hamas then Israel is far more likely to withdraw? Seems like a good option to me. Either they have agency or they don't.
A great article overall. I have a few comments and disagreements:
1) “The first camp sees the very idea of a Palestinian state as a threat and says so plainly.”
This is certainly true of the contemporary Likud, but the party has been inconsistent on this issue in the past. Netanyahu, like any good politician, has contradicted himself. On multiple occasions, he has said that he could accept a Palestinian state at some point in the future, provided that it would not pose a threat to Israel, only to later contradict himself and categorically oppose Palestinian statehood. In recent years, Netanyahu has become consistent in his categorical opposition to Palestinian statehood.
The Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) parties, Shas and UTJ, don’t hold particularly strong views one way or the other on Palestinian statehood. They seem to take whichever position is necessary to remain in the governing coalition. Shas once supported the Oslo Accords when it was in coalition with Rabin’s Labor Party. The party leadership consulted its rabbinic authorities, who permitted ceding portions of the Land of Israel if doing so was necessary for peace and security. Currently, Shas and UTJ are joined at the hip with Likud, so whether they might support a Palestinian state is largely a moot point.
Ben-Gvir and Smotrich’s parties don’t oppose Palestinian statehood because they see it as a security threat. From a Palestinian perspective, their position is much worse. While Likud opposes Palestinian statehood for pragmatic reasons, they oppose it on principle: they believe that every inch of the land is Jewish and would not cede territory even if doing so were necessary to protect the State of Israel.
2) I agree that none of the opposition-bloc parties are pushing for the immediate establishment of a Palestinian state, but I think you are unfairly flattening the distinctions between them. Supporters of a two-state solution know that they are currently in the minority, so there is little reason to push for something that would both be politically divisive and could not realistically happen in the short term.
– Eisenkot’s Yashar opposes a Palestinian state on security grounds and because he considers it politically unfeasible, as you say.
– Lapid’s Yesh Atid has consistently supported a Palestinian state but has made it a low priority. He has joined with Bennett despite their differences because they believe national unity is necessary during this period of crisis. Lapid has not abandoned his support for a two-state solution; he has simply sidelined the issue for the next government.
– Bennett has repeatedly ruled out a two-state solution and has in the past favored Palestinian autonomy under Israeli sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza.
– Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu is missing from the article. He has consistently supported a Palestinian state as a means of maintaining a Jewish majority in Israel. He, too, has deprioritized the issue, but he has not abandoned his support for it.
– The Democrat supports a Palestinian state as a long-term goal. On Palestinian recognition, they have taken a position similar to that of the Israeli left and much of the West for decades: that recognition should come as part of negotiations and a concrete plan for creating a de facto Palestinian state.
3) It’s a strange thing: no other national movement, to my knowledge, has sought recognition of statehood without first having a functioning state to recognize. It’s as if they think recognition magically creates a state. As of now, the State of Palestine is little more than a legal fiction.
4) Ra’am has also deprioritized Palestinian statehood. I don’t understand why it gets a pass on that when you criticize Yesh Atid and the Democrats so harshly for doing essentially the same thing.
5) You’re correct that Bennett and Eisenkot probably don’t support freezing or reversing settlement growth, but they would likely oppose the illegal outposts and may not approve new settlements. Golan, on the other hand, would probably support a construction freeze and may, along with Ra’am, require such a concession in coalition negotiations.
If Palestinians elect a leader in their upcoming democratic elections who asks for a two-state solution as an alternative to the unlimited right of return, I have confidence Israeli politics would shift far to the left. Palestinians have the power to persuade Israelis a sovereign neighboring Palestinian state would not attack Israel to liberate the remainder of occupied Palestine.
You don't need to agree that Israel has a right to exist or anything silly like that. Just make it clear you prefer sovereignty to achieving justice through war. I.e. whatever Jordan has. A cold peace. That's good enough. Just not Hamas.
Right but no one ever would. Relinquishing the right of return and declaring an end to hostilities (not just a “hudna”) simply isn’t something any leader can do and survive.
"On Gaza, the coalition and the opposition find rare agreement: there will be no Israeli withdrawal before Hamas disarms."
"For Palestinians, there are no good options. Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank cannot vote in this election, yet its outcome will help determine whether settlements expand, whether annexation advances, what happens to Gaza, and whether any path toward Palestinian statehood stays open. An election in which they have no say will determine their fate."
So what you're saying is that if the 2 million Gazans succeed at disarming Hamas then Israel is far more likely to withdraw? Seems like a good option to me. Either they have agency or they don't.
A great article overall. I have a few comments and disagreements:
1) “The first camp sees the very idea of a Palestinian state as a threat and says so plainly.”
This is certainly true of the contemporary Likud, but the party has been inconsistent on this issue in the past. Netanyahu, like any good politician, has contradicted himself. On multiple occasions, he has said that he could accept a Palestinian state at some point in the future, provided that it would not pose a threat to Israel, only to later contradict himself and categorically oppose Palestinian statehood. In recent years, Netanyahu has become consistent in his categorical opposition to Palestinian statehood.
The Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) parties, Shas and UTJ, don’t hold particularly strong views one way or the other on Palestinian statehood. They seem to take whichever position is necessary to remain in the governing coalition. Shas once supported the Oslo Accords when it was in coalition with Rabin’s Labor Party. The party leadership consulted its rabbinic authorities, who permitted ceding portions of the Land of Israel if doing so was necessary for peace and security. Currently, Shas and UTJ are joined at the hip with Likud, so whether they might support a Palestinian state is largely a moot point.
Ben-Gvir and Smotrich’s parties don’t oppose Palestinian statehood because they see it as a security threat. From a Palestinian perspective, their position is much worse. While Likud opposes Palestinian statehood for pragmatic reasons, they oppose it on principle: they believe that every inch of the land is Jewish and would not cede territory even if doing so were necessary to protect the State of Israel.
2) I agree that none of the opposition-bloc parties are pushing for the immediate establishment of a Palestinian state, but I think you are unfairly flattening the distinctions between them. Supporters of a two-state solution know that they are currently in the minority, so there is little reason to push for something that would both be politically divisive and could not realistically happen in the short term.
– Eisenkot’s Yashar opposes a Palestinian state on security grounds and because he considers it politically unfeasible, as you say.
– Lapid’s Yesh Atid has consistently supported a Palestinian state but has made it a low priority. He has joined with Bennett despite their differences because they believe national unity is necessary during this period of crisis. Lapid has not abandoned his support for a two-state solution; he has simply sidelined the issue for the next government.
– Bennett has repeatedly ruled out a two-state solution and has in the past favored Palestinian autonomy under Israeli sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza.
– Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu is missing from the article. He has consistently supported a Palestinian state as a means of maintaining a Jewish majority in Israel. He, too, has deprioritized the issue, but he has not abandoned his support for it.
– The Democrat supports a Palestinian state as a long-term goal. On Palestinian recognition, they have taken a position similar to that of the Israeli left and much of the West for decades: that recognition should come as part of negotiations and a concrete plan for creating a de facto Palestinian state.
3) It’s a strange thing: no other national movement, to my knowledge, has sought recognition of statehood without first having a functioning state to recognize. It’s as if they think recognition magically creates a state. As of now, the State of Palestine is little more than a legal fiction.
4) Ra’am has also deprioritized Palestinian statehood. I don’t understand why it gets a pass on that when you criticize Yesh Atid and the Democrats so harshly for doing essentially the same thing.
5) You’re correct that Bennett and Eisenkot probably don’t support freezing or reversing settlement growth, but they would likely oppose the illegal outposts and may not approve new settlements. Golan, on the other hand, would probably support a construction freeze and may, along with Ra’am, require such a concession in coalition negotiations.
Palestinians should obviously prefer that Bibi wins
I was wondering if you have heard of the Palestinian-led One Democratic State Initiative, Mobadara? https://mobadara.ps/en/articles/beyond-solidarity-and-towards-shared-struggle