Follow Steve Postal: @HebraicMosaic
———
The Biden-Harris administration in its very last days continues to peddle the old bad idea of a Palestinian state as a remedy for the ills of the Middle East.
While Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated in a recent speech that “…our imperative is not to turn back the clock to the way things were before October 7th,” Blinken does precisely that with an ongoing obsession with a two-state solution and a “reformed Palestinian Authority.” In fact, Blinken’s speech references Palestinian statehood a whopping ten times in his speech, and pines for a “reformed Palestinian Authority” six times. But Blinken disregards multiple facts that make such a dream an impossible poison pill.
Blinken envisions an “interim administration of Palestinians from Gaza and representatives from the PA” that would then “hand over complete responsibility to a fully reformed PA administration as soon as it’s feasible.” But would a “fully reformed PA” ever be feasible?
Blinken actually answers that question. He mentions that “[n]o one should expect Israel to accept a Palestinian state that is…militarized or has independent armed militia; that aligns with Iran or others who reject Israel’s right to exist; that educates and preaches rejectionism; or that, unreformed, becomes a failed state.” But the PA is chock full of individuals who support genocide against the Jews, reject Israel’s right to exist, propagate vile anti-Semitic canards, and even engage in terrorism against Israel. Indeed, those in the PA have not only praised Hamas’ October 7 attack, but members of the PLO and Fatah actually participated. So by Blinken’s metric, yes, Israel should reject a Palestinian state run by the PA.
Blinken mentions that “Hamas has tried to kill the idea of two states for decades. It hoped to destroy the Oslo Accords.” But Blinken failed to recognize that the PA also destroyed Oslo. It did this by baiting then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon into a visit to the Temple Mount and then using that as a pretext to orchestrate the Second Intifada, and by rejecting or not offering a counter-offer to all proposals for statehood.
Blinken sets up a false choice by stating that Israel must accede to Palestinian statehood: “Israelis must decide what relationship they want with Palestinians. That cannot be the illusion that Palestinians will accept being a non-people without national rights. Seven million Israeli Jews and some five million Palestinians are rooted in the same land. Neither is going anywhere.” However, Blinken fails to take into account multiple other possibilities that could achieve Arab autonomy in the region short of Palestinian statehood based on the Oslo Accords.
And lastly, Blinken recognizes that land-for-peace is a failed model, but demands Israel agree to that failed model: “…in Israeli hearts and minds lies the conviction that past efforts at peace have been met with rejection, violent resistance, greater insecurity – with Camp David leading to the [S]econd [I]ntifada, the unilateral withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza leading to Hizballah and to Hamas. In the wake of October 7th, convincing Israelis otherwise will be a necessary and major undertaking.” Convincing Israelis to once again accede to a land-for-peace framework is not a “necessary undertaking,” but asking them to disregard facts to accept a rehashed, failed bad idea. Blinken himself admitted this.
Hopefully the incoming Trump administration will end American support for the idea of a Palestinian state.