A three-state, not two-state, solution for the Mideast
When it comes to developing long-term solutions to end the Israel-Hamas war, policymakers are spitting in the wind.
On Oct. 8, the day after the murderous Hamas assault on Israel, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the “best way” to resolve differences between Israel and Palestinian Arabs “remains a two-state solution.” This month, U.N. Secretary General António Guterres said, “Any refusal to accept the two-State solution by any party must be firmly rejected.”
I do support both Palestinian Arabs and the citizens of Israel living in peace in their own separate democratic countries. But a “two-state solution” envisions Israel being joined on the world stage by a single independent Palestinian Arab nation. The fatal flaw with any such plan is that the latter would exist in two separate pieces — the West Bank where the Palestinian Authority now holds sway and the Gaza strip where the terrorist organization Hamas wields power. The two parts would be divided by Israel itself.
The dismal history of nations split in two should provide a lesson to Blinken, Guterres and any other diplomats seeking peace in the Middle East.
— The most glaring example is Pakistan. Faced with communal violence between Hindus and Muslims in 1947, the British partitioned their colony of India into two countries, but three pieces. The largest piece kept the name of India. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan was separated by Indian territory into West Pakistan and East Pakistan. A common religion did not provide a strong enough glue to hold Pakistan together. After war and violence with deaths estimated at 3 million, East Pakistan broke away and declared independence as Bangladesh in 1971.
— The Treaty of Versailles after World War I divided Germany into two segments. East Prussia was separated from the bulk of the country by Polish territory. According to the journalist and historian William Shirer, Germans believed “the most heinous crime of the Versailles peacemakers had been to separate East Prussia from the Reich by the Polish Corridor.” The German solution to rectifying the grievance was to invade and conquer Poland at the outset of World War II.
— In the Arab world itself, Egypt and Syria merged into the United Arab Republic in 1958. The two parts of the UAR were separated by the territories of Israel, Lebanon and Jordan. In 1961, Syria rebelled against Egyptian domination. Even though Gamal Abdul Nasser, the Egyptian leader, reacted by confirming his commitment to Pan-Arabism, he decided not to send troops to the Syrian part of the UAR to maintain the union.
— A 1994 agreement between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel created the Palestinian Authority to administer Gaza and the West Bank, two territories separated by the state of Israel. In 2005, Israelis troops withdrew from the Gaza strip. The next year, Hamas seized control of the Gaza strip while the Palestinian Authority continued to hold sway in the West Bank.
So, the unity between Gaza and West Bank has broken apart once before. Is a solution for a single democratic Palestinian Arab state more viable now? No. But there could be one for two democratic states. The United States and the United Nations should move toward, not a two-state solution, but a three-state one.
But would the West Bank and the Gaza strip be viable as stand-alone countries?
Why not? The West Bank would be a small stand-alone country but in the same range as Jamaica. Like that Caribbean nation, it has an economy based on agriculture and tourism. The West Bank's per capita gross domestic product is already higher than that of neighboring Jordan. The Gaza strip is far smaller, but even so, its potential is promising. Singapore, Dubai and Hong Kong provide workable models for flourishing city-states with economies founded on trade, seaports, manufacturing and finance.
The best predictor of the future is the past. The history of divided countries indicates a two-state solution to the war now raging would be no permanent fix. What's happened already in this century to divide the West Bank and Gaza strip makes the chances of a lasting remarriage between them a 100-1 long shot. It makes little sense to try it again at those odds. The stakes are too high.
On the other hand, models do exist for both potential Palestinian Arab states. In the early years of their independence, political and economic support could be provided by the United States, the European Union, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Secretary Blinken and Secretary General Guterres, history tells us an attempt to reach a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian Arab conflict is bound to fail. A solution that includes three states has a chance, maybe even a good one, to lead to peace and prosperity.
© 2024, Creators