January 19, 2024 - 1:10pm
Yesterday, Benjamin Netanyahu announced that he had told US diplomats of his opposition to the creation of a Palestinian state after the present war in Gaza. The Israeli Prime Minister said that “in any future arrangement […] Israel needs security control over all territory west of the River Jordan. This collides with the idea of [Palestinian] sovereignty.” He added that the Americans were aware of his view, and that “the Prime Minister needs to be capable of saying no to our friends.”
This directly contradicts many of his previous public statements on the issue. In 2009, during a speech at Bar-Ilan University, Netanyahu spoke of his desire to see “two free nations side by side”; in 2013, at the same university, he outlined his acceptance of a demilitarised Palestinian state.
In 2015, Netanyahu told the United Nations that he supported “the vision of two states for two peoples”, and in another speech to the UN the following year he claimed he had “not given up on peace” and remained “committed to a vision of peace based on two states for two peoples”.
Both critics and supporters of Netanyahu responded sceptically to these statements — not least because, the Bar-Ilan speeches excepted, they were usually made in English to an overseas audience, and not intended to be heard or believed by his domestic political base. The Israeli Left assumed he was lying and understood that there could be no “two state solution” with Bibi as prime minister; the Right likewise saw these as meaningless words and were not worried that he actually meant what he said. Across the political spectrum, it was universally assumed that he was doing it to placate the Americans.
This adds extra significance to yesterday’s remarks: that Netanyahu is overtly stating his opposition to a Palestinian state and pointedly adding that he has informed the US of this suggests that he is no longer interested in maintaining his previous façade.
Although it goes almost unreported in the West, for several decades now the Israeli Right has been arguing that the country should openly depart from US policy and break free from American influence — even if this means risking the $3.3 billion in military aid that Israel receives annually from the US. This feeling has broadened with the increasing importance of the settler movement to Right-wing politics in Israel, many of whom are religious fundamentalists and scriptural literalists who argue that they do not need the USA as God is on their side.
Western analyses tend to assume that Israel and the United States are joined at the hip, or that the former is a junior partner in a broader American imperialist project. But this ignores that long-standing argument on the Israeli Right that they can afford to do without US help both militarily and economically, and that this will give them much greater latitude to act as they please in relation to the Palestinians.
Back in 1982, Israel’s then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin told a young senator called Joe Biden: “Don’t threaten us with cutting off your aid. It will not work. I am not a Jew with trembling knees. I am a proud Jew with 3,700 years of civilised history.” He went on: “We will stand by our principles. We will defend them. And, when necessary, we will die for them again, with or without your aid.”
Today, it seems as though Netanyahu is prepared to make good on the promises — or threats — of one of his predecessors as Likud leader. If he is able to follow through, it suggests a much darker future for the region and for the Palestinian people, one in which Israel operates with even fewer concerns for diplomatic pressure or international opinion, and without any worries about American opprobrium.
Yet Netanyahu’s days are numbered. He knows he will not be re-elected again, and his overriding objective is to keep his coalition together, to avoid an election and stay in power.
Yesterday’s statement should therefore be seen in this light: more as a political overture to Right-wing coalition partners such as Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich than a forecast of Israeli policy over the coming years. As hopeless as it seems now, it is still possible to imagine a Palestinian state. Just not with Bibi in charge.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“…it is still possible to imagine a Palestinian state…” Give the values and behaviour of Hamas Gaza, why would you bother?
The right wing in Israel would presumably like to annex all the land west of the Jordan – but only if the current population of the West Bank conveniently moved elsewhere.
Which is why Bibi talks about “security control”. In practice, this means a continuation of the current creeping de-facto annexation / settler land-grabs, but without the Palestinians having a vote, freedom of movement or rights over their land.
This has always been Israeli policy. The peace process was just window dressing to placate the outside world. One side or the other will eventually be the sole people living there. Personally I don’t care much anymore which side wins
If the Zionists are prepared to die without American aid, then perhaps the US should give them a chance to prove it.
American independence from Israel would be wonderful for the world
As hopeless as it seems now, it is still possible to imagine a Palestinian state. Just not with Bibi in charge.
Or with Hamas in charge.
At this point I’m having trouble imagining a stable Palestinian state with anyone on either side in charge, or even with a complete other nation in charge, if any nation were dumb enough to accept that assignment.
Bibi has little choice but perpetuate the apartheid situation, full control of the West Bank and Gaza, and maintain first and second class citizenship. Maybe we can redeem the word apartheid just a little bit, after all there’s nothing wrong with the idea of separation as such.
You can keep calling this second class polity “Palestinian Autonomy” if you please and even allow it to maintain a certain level of actual autonomy ( like South African townships, if I’m not mistaken ) but only drop the word “justice” from your lexicon. The practical solutions have nothing to do with “justice” and “right” of every “nation” (a wholly artificial and a recent construct anyway) to its own “nation-state”.
Me not understand what you say, George.
As long as those who want a Palestinian state also want the elimination of Israel, it won’t happen. “From the river to the sea” means what it means, no matter how surprised American college students are to learn that fact.
Time and again, the main impediment to a Palestinian state has been the Palestinian side. In the same time period that Israel was created, so were Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria. But no P state. And that won’t change until someone other than the current terrorist regime is in a leadership role.
“From the river to the sea” means what it means to the tribal obsessives on both sides. Have you ever considered that your fatalistic attitude is exactly what will ensure the enmity and inhumanity displayed by Hamas and Netanyahu’s cabinet continues to ratchet up. Why is it so important to you to parrot an argument that’s been trotted out ad nauseam? Where is the desire for reconciliation, redemption, self-knowledge and humanity? Are you convinced that eternal revenge and hatred are what evolution has mandated for those you speak of? I don’t agree. It takes courage to stand up for those on both “sides” of the war who are bravely advocating for peace and friendship. Have you ever considered doing so? You might find it more rewarding than looking for excuses to accept the status quo – Bellum omnium contra omnes is not a happy way of life.
The two-state solution is a myth. Neither side wants it, and both sides elect leaders who are militantly aggressive. If a permanent solution flows from the current conflict, one of two things will happen:
Either Israel buries Palestine to the last man and greater Israel becomes their exclusive sovereign domain, or the conflict becomes regional, and Israel is eventually evacuated of Jews, and the land divided up among its neighbors. If the latter eventuality were to occur, Palestine still would not have their own state. They are hated by their brothers in the region and are only useful as a tool.
You’re neglecting the possibility of the Israelis setting off all their nukes as they leave, rendering the entire area uninhabitable for the foreseeable future. If some coalition of Arab nations did manage to push the Israelis into the sea, I can see this being the option of last resort.
Netanyahu is banking on a Trump victory, if he doesn’t get one, Israel is in trouble. His policy is costing the US and its allies dear, when Biden condemns Putin for bombing Ukranian civilians while doling out bombs for Israel to use on Palestinian civilians, most of the world lets out a contemptuous laugh. The Israeli right isn’t worth the damage they’re inflicting on the West.
The two state solution has been dead since 1967. Only a one state solution will bring any lasting peace. Contrary to what the Zionists claim, Hammas does not represent all Palestinians.
Besides, under a democratic state, Likud will never be voted into power again.
I’m afraid Likud will win next election as never before
Which has to be what Hamas wanted, or they wouldn’t have attacked.
What he said is the unpleasant truth. There will be either Israel or Arabs, but in no case Palestine.
I think this is way overstated. Israel will bend to American wishes. It doesn’t rely on the US only for military aid. If the U.S. walks away, it will embolden its enemies. Israel has very little choice in the matter.
It’s not inconceivable that China could take over as Israel’s patron, with the Arab oil kingdom firmly in the U.S. camp.
“This directly contradicts many of his previous public statements on the issue.”
Well, duh. Times change, so do circumstances. The Palestinians have shown themselves incapable of administering anything even beginning to resemble a modern, organized state. That leaves one functional state in the region: Israel. As long as Iran sets the agenda for the Palestinians, Israel cannot rest, nor can it hope for a “two-state solution”. The Iranians don’t want a two-state solution. They want Israel annihilated. “From the river to the sea” is not just a slogan; it is a stated policy goal.
How can any leader of the State of Israel negotiate with those who are sworn to its destruction?
Jews are expected to negotiate the terms of their own suicide. It’s the Left’s Wansee plan.
Call his bluff. Cut out all military aid and assistance to Israel, and inform him no American soldier will be risked if Israel is attacked by any of its neighbours
I’m guessing the downvotes imply that America should keep pumping billions into Israel, even if Israel is actively working against Americas interests in the region?
Or perhaps it just means that UnHerd readers recognize a genocidal Jew-hater when they smell one?
I don’t believe I’ve ever said anything derogatory about Jewish people. If you have an example of me being antisemitic then please provide it, otherwise stop using it as a lazy way of trying to shut down debate about Israeli policy
There are some situations that have no realistic way out, that will satisfy all sides (except to go back in time and not get into them). I suspect this is one. It’s especially hopeless to expect Mr Biden to provide a solution: his talent is to always make things worse.
It doesn’t matter who is in charge, no sane Israeli is going to want to empower a belligerant Palestinian state ruled by leaders with the stated aim of destroying Israel!
Israel is not, repeat not, going to break with America. For a break to occur, Biden has to conclude that Israel (particularly Netanyahu) is on net balance a liability to his re-election bid. Biden (more precisely his handlers) have little Middle East strategy and no announced red lines.
I can’t prove this, but Mossad may have more receipts on Hunter, Jim and Joe than Comer. Netanyahu has been clear on where he is leading Israel in this conflict regardless of the effect on Biden’s most left wing support (to be kind its noticeably eroding). Biden just keeps taking it. Too bad Congress has no ability to subpoena Mossad.
It is not possible to imagine a Palestinian state until such time as the Palestinians accept the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state and they cease their Jihad. If the Palestinians did that they could have a state tomorrow. But they have no interest and have shown no interest, despite many generous offers, since 1948.
Israel should understand that it is not a fully sovereign country, that its capacity for unilateral action is limited (meaning it’s not infinite) and that its continued existence depends on its ability (or lack thereof) to maintain alliances (that is to get the patronage) of bigger, stronger countries, such as the United States (or in its time, the Roman Empire or the Persian Empire). And that in the United States, the so-called “two-state solution”, however unrealistic or hard to achieve in practice, is still the conventional wisdom for solving the Near-East conflict. Unless Israel gets this through their head, it will suffer the same fate of the Crusader Kingdom of Acre-Jerusalem, namely that it will be allowed by its former allies to fall to its enemies in the region.
The Crusader kingdoms lacked nukes, and just as importantly, the Crusaders had supportive European homelands to return to.
Useful to remind ourselves that Jews are less than 2% of the US population. Marriage to non-Jews continues to increase while Zionists are an ageing and declining influence. Moslem immigrants will become influential politically over time, something that Biden is just too old to take on board. Just sit tight for a decade more and the US will start to put its muscle behind two state governance. It may even stop contravening it’s own law and cease supplying the ordnance Israel uses to kill innocent children.