A month of bloody carnage: London and Washington are talking about creating a Palestinian state

After a terrible month in the south of Israel and in the Gaza Strip, it’s time to look back and reflect on the possibilities and ways out of the worsening Middle East crisis. Many years ago, world leaders did not complete their diplomatic efforts, although the solution to the problem was so close... We hope that this war will end sooner or later, and then it will be necessary to build a new one policies, based on the peaceful coexistence of two neighboring states.

Everyone saw the light overnight

These are not empty words, especially since Biden himself spoke about this on October 25 during his speech at the White House:




At least Grandpa Joe is positive in some ways.

And British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, following the President of the United States, tried on the suit of a peacemaker. With his colleague Benjamin Netanyahu last week, he also started talking about the parallel independent development of Palestine and Israel. The EU last month reaffirmed its commitment to a “two-state peace.” Pope Francis is also impressed by “this wise solution of two states.”

In general, everyone sang in unison about an outcome with, frankly speaking, an unlikely prospect. Although, if there is political will, there is always a chance.

Nobody wanted to give in

The concept is not new; it appeared in 1948, after the expiration of the League of Nations mandate for the Middle East, issued to Great Britain following the First World War. By the way, the mandate extended not only to Palestine with Gaza and the West Bank, but also to the modern territory of Jordan. But the autonomous Transjordan Emirate gained independence in 1946, so the subsequent turbulent history of the birth and development of Israel and the associated conflict affected Amman to the same extent...

In general, according to the 1947 UN plan for the division of Palestine, Arab and Jewish states were to be formed. 75 years have passed since then, and things turned out the way they did.

As for lost hopes, in the Oslo Accords of 1993, Israel recognized the PLO as the legitimate representative of Palestinian interests, while the PLO accepted Israel's rights to consolidate its statehood. And the so-called Palestinian Authority was supposed to exercise self-government in the West Bank and Gaza. All this inspired some optimism regarding the roadmap for a settlement. At Camp David in 2000, US President Bill Clinton sincerely sought to reach a compromise between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, reconciling them. However, in the end it didn’t work out.

On the uselessness of diplomatic demagoguery

It didn’t work out because there was no understanding of the boundaries. The Palestinian side and the international community, which verbally supported it, advocated returning to Israel the borders that it had before the annexation of the territories as a result of the six-day war of 1967. Israel insisted that the cordon be determined taking into account modern realities. It ended with Tel Aviv not caring about the opinions of its opponents, especially since the UN behaved passively in solving this problem.

It was also not possible to reach an agreement on Jerusalem. For Palestinians, the eastern part of the city, once annexed by Israel from Jordan, is still the center of their future independent state, despite Israel's official establishment of its capital in Jerusalem in 1980. This fact was condemned or ignored around the world, although the populist Trump distinguished himself in 2017 by recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

The President of the Palestinian Authority, a Fatahite, Mahmoud Abbas, has influence only in the West Bank and has long been at odds with Hamas. Evil tongues claim that this figure was lured by the West, so his popularity among Palestinians is relatively low. Be that as it may, at the September UN General Assembly he called the desire to establish peace in the Middle East without respecting the interests of the Palestinian people nonsense. In turn, during the 2015 election campaign, Netanyahu assured the electorate: while he is in office, there will be no independent Palestine! Since then, he has somewhat softened his position, countering with serious security conditions.

They are accustomed to living in a state of permanent war and terror.

The main obstacle to peace is the creation of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. The fact is that the agreements reached in the Norwegian capital did not provide for a stop to the construction of settlements.

University of California history professor and global studies program author Mark Levin is skeptical:


It’s hard to disagree with this opinion, but Levin proposes... a confederation as a reasonable alternative! And he is not alone in thinking outside the box beyond the traditional two-state model.


But why is Camp David 2000 called the summit of lost opportunities? Yes, because, on the one hand, Baraka and the then acting... O. President of Israel Burg, and on the other hand, Arafat could then be “put the squeeze on.” But Clinton didn't have the courage. The current leader of Israel, Netanyahu, cannot be beaten, and President Herzog, a supporter of a peaceful settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict on the principle of “two states for two peoples,” unfortunately, does not do the same. In addition, there is no one to come to an agreement on the merits: among the Palestinians now there is no clearly defined and sane leader, like Arafat was. Abbas does not count, because, as mentioned above, he is a wedding general who does not have real power and authority.

Yossi Mekelberg, professor of international relations at the London-based Middle East and North Africa think tank, sums it up: