Middle East: The Two State Solution is a Recipe for PerpetualWar

The Associated Press reported on October 29 that President Biden had stated that a resolution

to the Israel Palestinian conflict is a priority “and in our view it has to be a two-state solution”.

Biden’s proposed “Palestinian” nation would in all probability include the West Bank of the

Jordan River, known to Israel as Judea and Samaria as well as the Gaza Strip. The resolution of

the status of Jerusalem itself would probably be impossible to solve due to the religious

sentiments of both Jews and Muslims. During the period of Jordanian rule (1948-1967), access

to Jewish holy places was denied and Jewish holy places were routinely desecrated. There is

little reason to believe that a Palestinian entity would behave differently as the Palestinian

Authority leadership has routinely denied the existence of a Jewish Temple on the Temple

Mount as well as any historical Jewish claim to exist. Further complicating any resolution to the

long-standing Arab Israeli conflict is the absence of peace treaties with a number of “front line”

Arab states and the intrusion into the conflict by Muslim nations with no common border with

Israel. Many of the most bitter anti-Israel Muslim nations are thousands of miles away, for

example, Pakistan and Malaysia. Closer nations, such as Iran, have routinely proclaimed

murderous hatred against Israel, which they call the “Zionist Entity” and they pledge publicly to

eradicate it from the map. They have acted to support heinous terrorism cloaked through the

use of proxies. namely Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. This article will review the historical

background of the current situation and will look at the record of other nations which were

geographically bifurcated. Such a geographic anomaly inevitably leads to war.

World War I was settled by the Treaty of Versailles (1919). A notable result of World War I was

the destruction of three empires and the creation of new countries. The new national borders,

particularly in eastern Europe led to serious trouble. Marshall Foch recognized what American

President Woodrow Wilson did not. Wilson and the United States fought “the war to end all

wars” and sought a “peace without victors”. Foch told French Premier Georges Clemenceau

“they’ll be back in twenty years” and they (Germany) were. The map makers of Versailles, in

their haste to solve the problems of the world, created new ones which persist to this day. The

principal one was the minorities problem. Most of the newly created nations had significant

minorities who ached for independence as much as the majority. The “new” nations of Poland

and Czechoslovakia were particularly problematic. Poland, previously erased from Europe’s

map, had belonged to the Russian, German and Austro-Hungarian empires. It contained

significant minority populations who felt loyalty to nations on other sides of its borders. The

major problem however was something artificial called the Polish Corridor. This corridor, East

Pomerania, was formerly part of West Prussia. It had a majority Polish population and was

created to give the new Polish nation access to the Baltic Sea. At its widest point, it was 30 km

(18 miles) wide. It separated the German province of East Prussia from the bulk of Germany.

This German exclave, as well as the status of the Danzig Free State were the direct causes of

the start of hostilities of World War II. Other Versailles geographic revisions included the

repatriation of Alsace and Lorraine, German territory since 1870, to France and the transfer of

Memel to Lithuania. These territorial changes, plus demilitarization of the Rhineland and the

imposition of punitive reparations and the Versailles “war guilt clause” guaranteed that World

War II was coming.

Czechoslovakia, the only Versailles created country that was a democracy, had other problems.

Its borders were contested by Germany, Poland and Hungary and it had significant minority

populations including centripetal forces dividing Czechs and Slovaks. Significantly, the

Czechoslovak national territory had previously been part of the Austro-Hungarian dual

monarchy. Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne, had planned to convert the dual

monarchy to a triple monarchy and give full equality to the Slavic citizens of the empire. All of

these plans came to naught as he was assassinated in Sarajevo. The events of the next month

led to the tragedy of World War I. The rise of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist German

Workers Party (NSDAP, Nazis) resulted in the “seizure of power on Jan. 30, 1933. The Nazis

were among other things extreme German nationalists and were determined to bring all

“Germans” into the Third Reich. Though the Germans of the Sudetenland region of

Czechoslovakia were previously Austrians, they spoke and identified as Germans. Years of Nazi

agitation led to the Munich conference of September 1938 which culminated in the crucifixion

of the only democracy in central Europe as England and France sought to appease an

insatiable Nazi Germany. Czechoslovakia was dismembered and occupied in early 1939.

Despite slight differences in the mutually intelligible Czech and Slovak language, there had long

been activist Slovak Nationalists, such as the Hlinka Guard which sough to devolve the

Czechoslovak nation into its constituent parts. With Nazi assistance, this occurred. The

presence of extreme nationalist dictatorships was common in Europe at this time. From

Corporative Portugal, Falangist Spain, Fascist Italy, royal dictatorships in Romania and

Yugoslavia, democracy was bring challenged by extreme nationalism in the guise of fascist

ideology. After the most ruthless, brutally lethal war in history, Nazi fascism was defeated.

Most of eastern Europe was now embraced by the Soviet bear with its “Communist

internationalism”. Ruthless and brutal leftist totalitarianism continued the same policies of the

extreme right in a different variation. Most importantly, the lid was placed on nationalism in

Europe by this communist facade. This extreme nationalism resurfaced when the Communist

regimes fell in 1989 and with the arrival of seemingly democratic regimes. In truth, it never died.

It was just suppressed and latent.

Nationalism takes many forms and bases. Despite efforts to establish supranational entities

such as the European Union (EU), nationalist regimes exist in many EU nations, particularly in

eastern Europe. It also has existed in Asia for thousands of years and continues unabated.

Japan was the aggressor throughout Asia until its defeat in World War II. China has a long

history of nationalism, calls itself the Middle Kingdom in recognition of its "being the center of

the world” and considers foreigners to be devils and barbarians. Its political and diplomatic

activity in Asia and particularly the South China Sea demonstrate the dangers of Chinese

nationalism. It has claims against most of Its neighbors who have “allied” themselves with the

US. Whether this leads to a war involving the US remains to be seen. Nationalism swept the

globe in the 1950s and 1960s leading to the decolonization of major parts of the world. Many

mini nations and barely viable states have been created which are heavily dependent on

foreign aid and assistance. The major export of many of these new nations seems to be

people. They have predominantly rural economies, poorly educated populations and massive

debt. Dictatorships and kleptocracy are widespread.

An often overlooked form of nationalism is that related to religion, which in many instances is

the determinant of nationality. In the 1990s Federal Yugoslavia, created at the Versailles

conference in 1919, broke apart. It had been ruled since 1945 by the League of Communists

led by Josip Broz Tito. At his death, the country established a rotating collective presidency

due to its inability to have a single leader. Yugoslavia (or land of South Slavs) was a multiethnic,

multi-religious and multi-lingual nation. Orthodox Serbs, Catholic Croats, and Muslim

Bosnians among others were freed from Communist totalitarianism and went mad. Intercommunal

war with atrocities on all sides broke out as the EU stood powerlessly aside and

American intervention was required. This carnage finally ended with the creation of six new

small nations. This is what nationalism did.

The Muslim religion and associated culture leads to a form of nationalism which is very difficult

to integrate into other cultures. Cyprus, a former British colony in the eastern Mediterranean

saw a failed coup by Greek Orthodox Cypriots lead to an invasion by Turkey to protect Turkish

Muslim Cypriots. Cyprus, a member of the EU, is split with two governing bodies which rarely

converse with each other. Cyprus has consistently vetoed Turkish applications to join the EU

and has been adamant in continuing its opposition. India, containing both Muslims and Hindus,

was split into two (now three) nations based on religion; Muslim Pakistan and now Bangladesh

plus Hindu India. Kashmir, a majority Muslim state in Hindu India has been an explosion waiting

to happen for decades. Its tense border, known as the line of control, has seen numerous faceoffs

between the two nuclear armed protagonists (India and Pakistan) whose major difference

is religion. No end is in sight for this dangerous situation.

Further east, in the Philippines, the only Christian country in Asia, a Muslim revolt in the

southern part of that country has been ongoing for decades. The Muslim demand is simple: an

autonomous Muslim state. Actual shooting, hostage taking and kidnaping are common

occurrences. Again, national and cultural differences seem to be irreconcilable. An even worse

situation can be found in Nagano Karabakh, a Christian Armenian enclave in Muslim

Azerbaijan. Completely surrounded by Azerbaijan, the Armenians in the enclave are at the

mercy of the Azeris. Only publicity of their plight seems to save them.

The above paragraphs have tried to show that culture, nationalism, religion and geography are

major determinants of the behavior of nations and various political entities. The US, UN and EU

may try to exert influence but ultimately are powerless to control the behavior of groups who

feel that their national survival and existence are at stake.

Looking at the pressure for a “two-state solution” in this context is now very troubling.

Numerous opportunities have existed for a two state solution and have always been rejected

by the Muslim side. The author refers to this dispute not as an Arab-Israeli one but rather as a

Muslim-Jewish conflict as it is primarily religion that is motivating the parties. This in itself is a

factor that most modern westerners find difficult to comprehend as religion has lost much of its

influence and meaning in the western democratic world. The UN attempted to solve this

problem at the time of Israel’s creation with a “partition plan”. Though this would have divided

the country into numerous small entities based on religion, it was firmly rejected by the Muslim

nations who went to war with the newly created Jewish State of Israel. Israel won, was

recognized by many nations and joined the UN. But “peace was not at hand” . Terrorism

persisted; fedayeen attacks across the border into Israel led to the 1956 Israel, United

Kingdom France war on Egypt The latter two countries attacked Egypt because of its seizure of

the Anglo-French Suez Canal Company. American pressure, particularly on a weak British

pound, led to a cease-fire but little else.

Egyptian closure of the Straits of Tiran led to the Six Day War of June 1967. Israel’s stunning

victory included capture of the West Bank of the Jordan River, including East Jerusalem, from

Jordan, the Gaza Strip from Egypt and the Golan Heights from Syria. It is important to

remember that Israel, immediately after this war offered to return all these conquered territories

to the Muslim nations in return for peace. The Arab League, meeting in Khartoum, Sudan in

August 1967 responded with the three famous nos of Khartoum: No negotiation, No

recognition, No Peace. Most of the world has forgotten this rejection of peace by the Muslim

world.

The Six Day War was followed by the War of Attrition between Egypt and Israel (1969-70),

failed peace overtures by new Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and finally the Yom Kippur War,

known to the Muslim world as the War of Ramadan (1973). An armistice agreement was

obtained by US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger through exhaustive shuttle diplomacy and a

disengagement of forces which freed the surrounded Egyptian Third Army. Sadat proceeded to

visit Jerusalem, where he addressed the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) and with the assistance of

President Jimmy Carter, the Camp David Peace accord was agreed to. Sadat and Israeli Prime

Minister Menachem Begin were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and twenty years later

President Carter as well received that prize. Egypt recovered all of its lost territory in the Sinai

Peninsula but made it clear that it wanted nothing to do with the Gaza Strip. No one wanted

this piece of territory and its inhabitants which remained under Israeli occupation.

The West Bank is a very complex issue. It was completely integrated into the Hashemite

Kingdom of Jordan prior to the Six Day War. Its residents were Jordanian citizens and

participated fully in the body politic of that nation. They served as members of Parliament and

even reached the position of Prime Minister. In 1988, the Arab League declared the Palestine

Liberation Organization (PLO) to be the sole legitimate representative of the West Bank Arab

population. In response, King Hussein lifted the Jordanian citizenship of the West Bank

residents. The irony of this is that the Hashemite rulers of Jordan have very shallow roots in

Jordan; they arrived from today’s Saudi Arabia only in the early 1920s; hardly deep roots. The

Arab League’s action is little known and when anti-Israel agitators are presented with this fact,

their response is one of incredulity. Then again, much of the history of the modern day Middle

East is unbelievable. Attempts at peace continued through negotiations between Israel and

PLO representatives and at first, the Oslo accords seemed to be a breakthrough. Major

portions of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria to Israel) became self governing by a new entity,

dominated by the PLO, namely the Palestinian Authority (PA). Led by PLO leader Yasar Arafat,

PA-Israel negotiations assisted by US President Bill Clinton went nowhere as Arafat rejected

offers of up to 97% of the West Bank as unsatisfactory, leading to the first intifada (revolt).

With the creation of the PA, negotiations between Israel and Jordan established diplomatic

relations and peace between the two foes. (Peace and diplomatic relations between Egypt and

Israel had already been established with the Camp David accord). The only front line belligerent

states were now Syria and Lebanon. The minority Alawite (Shiite) regime in Syria, ruled by the

despotic Assad dictatorship and Lebanon, increasingly controlled by Shiite Hezbollah are both

vassals of Iran which uses them as proxies in their own Shia-Jewish war. PA elections led to

the victory of Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Israel and Egypt imposed blockades on this territory as

a result. Hamas, too, is an Iranian proxy and its charter vows the destruction of Israel as

demonstrated by their atrocious attack on Israeli civilians on Oct. 7, 2023. This had also been

in the PLO charter but the PA, in a sanitary move, removed that objective and proclaimed its

willingness to accept a two state solution, though its behavior seems to negate such an

occurrence. Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, succeeded to the Presidency of the

PA on Arafat’s death. Abbas’ Ph.D, thesis declares that the Shoah never happened. His thesis

was accepted by Moscow University (USSR) which granted him the doctoral degree. Despite

Abbas’ completing his elected term as president, no new elections have been held and he has

continued in office for decades after the expiration of his term. Numerous diplomatic efforts in

the last quarter of a century have been fruitless, despite even the efforts of “The Quartet” led

by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. During this interval, Israeli citizens moved to Judea

and Samaria leading to an increasingly complex situation whereby Muslims refuse to tolerate

the presence of non-Muslims in their midst despite historic Jewish links to that area. For

example, a continuous Jewish presence in Hebron for thousands of years ended in 1936 with

the massacre of the Jewish population of that city. The Caves of the Patriarchs is present there

and this, too, is a Jewish holy site denied by Muslims. Resolution of these religious problems

remains a fiery subject with the flames of passion and war being fanned by the Iranian fanatic

regime.

With this background, it is clear that a two-state solution is in itself a casus belli. The proposed

Arab state would include the West Bank and Gaza. A bifurcated state is by definition an

unstable entity which inevitably leads to war. This would be a modern day Polish Corridor with

equally tragic results. The failure of the Muslim world to allow the integration of former

residents of Mandatory Palestine into their societies and their incarceration in “refugee camps”

further hardens resentfulness and hatred. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the

Muslim world bloc, uses its numbers to paralyze any possible positive action by the UN to

prevent the tinders of war from exploding. The population density of Gaza and the lack of any

natural resources and modern economy would, in a two state solution, probably result in

internal migration to the West Bank portion of any Palestinian entity, further increasing social

tensions there. Israel has never been permitted to win any of the wars it fought for survival,

further convincing their opponents that a victory is possible. A putative peaceful Palestinian

entity would follow a dual policy, outwardly peaceful, while surreptitiously preparing for war,

probably with aid from Iran as well as Russia and China. The latter two nations’ objective is

tension and weakening of the United Staes and EU. The Palestinians would be pawns in the

anti-American efforts of the “trio” and would suffer the most, again for others. Israel, if it agreed

to a two state solution, would be returned to, what Abba Evan called “Auschwitz borders”

which would challenge its continuing viability and ability to defend itself. With all of this, the

solution to Jerusalem remains unresolved. Much of the world still insists that the borders of

Jerusalem established in 1948 are permanent. This denies anything that has happened since

then and is ahistorical or anti-historical. No one proposes the return of Kaliningrad Oblast,

formerly Koenigsberg, a German city to Germany or even to Poland. It is part of the former

Soviet Union and is now an exclave of Russia, with no land connection to that nation. The

Russian war on Ukraine is probably a first stage in an ultimate Russian maneuver to establish

land contiguity to Kaliningrad, a Baltic seaport. No one talks about returning Silesia to

Germany. No one talks of the millions of German citizens expelled from East Prussia in the

most brutal conditions after the end of World War II. But the UN has made Israel a special case

and with the connivance of the Arab League has refused to allow the Palestinians to resume a

normal life. A two state solution is a recipe for a continuous war in the Middle East and must

not ever be allowed to happen. History did not stop in 1948 and is not the basis for any

resolution of this problem which must take into account all that has happened since then. PA

insistence that Jerusalem be divided and its eastern portion be their capital has no historical

basis and must be rejected. The OIC, UN and other parties truly have no standing in a Middle

East settlement. That must be reserved to Israel and its counterparts. Other would be “helpers”

have amply demonstrated that what they are truly concerned about is their own interests. That

is not a basis for peace. However attractive a two state solution may appear to be superficially,

on closer examination, it is only a solution for future conflict and therefore must be rejected.

This leaves two other possibilities for peace. A one state solution and a three state solution.

These options will be discussed in posts to follow this one.

Garry S. Sklar

At Sea in Alicante, Spain

November 12, 2024