The comfortable fiction of a two-state solution has been the cornerstone of Middle East peace negotiations for decades. But what if we've been chasing a mirage?
Former President Bill Clinton recently recalled offering Palestinians "96% of the West Bank, a capital in East Jerusalem, and security guarantees." The offer was rejected. Clinton blamed Hamas, suggesting they "didn't care about a homeland." But this misses a more fundamental truth: What if the very premise of Palestinian statehood aspirations is flawed?
The "peace process" has become a diplomatic security blanket - comfortable, familiar, but ultimately ineffective. It's a framework that allows Western diplomats to avoid confronting harder truths about regional dynamics. The same pattern played out with UN Resolution 1701 regarding Lebanon, which promised security arrangements that proved unenforceable.
This diplomatic theater has real costs. Israel's northern communities remain under Hezbollah's threat despite UN resolutions. Gaza's borders stayed porous despite international guarantees. Each failed agreement becomes another layer of false hope layered over harsh reality.
Recent events suggest a shifting perspective. Brigadier General (res.) Amir Avivi argues for a more clear-eyed approach, suggesting that temporary ceasefires and partial solutions only defer inevitable conflicts. He points to the Palestinian Authority's international delegitimization campaigns as evidence that the challenge goes beyond military threats.
The comfortable assumptions underlying decades of peace negotiations deserve scrutiny. While hope for peace remains vital, it must be grounded in reality rather than diplomatic fiction. The question isn't whether peace is possible, but whether we're honest enough to face what achieving it might require.
For decades, we've been sold a story about Middle East peace negotiations. Let's look at what actually happened, stripped of diplomatic niceties.
Consider Bill Clinton's stunning revelation about the failed peace deal. The Palestinians were offered:
- 96% of the West Bank
- 4% of Israeli territory as compensation
- A capital in East Jerusalem
- Two of the Old City's four quarters
- Daily access to security zones up to the Golan Heights
- Full cabinet approval from then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak
They said no.
Then there's UN Resolution 1701 - another diplomatic sleight of hand. Israel drafted a resolution supposedly to remove Hezbollah from its northern border.
But look closer:
- The resolution set the Litani River as a boundary - in some places just 3km from the Golan Heights
- When Hezbollah ignored the withdrawal requirements, Israel did nothing
- The Israeli diplomat who drafted it, Tal Becker, later admitted it was "far from perfect"
Now we're seeing this pattern repeat. The U.S. is suddenly eager to enforce Resolution 1701, pushing Hezbollah back to the Litani River. But military experts like Brigadier General (res.) Amir Avivi call this what it is - another half-measure that kicks the problem down the road.
The Palestinian Authority, meant to be the cornerstone of any future Palestinian state, runs antisemitic campaigns through seemingly legitimate channels. For instance, they manage the BDS movement through the BNC (Palestinian BDS National Committee) - a fact buried in fine print on their own website.
Here's what decades of "peace process" diplomacy has brought us:
- Failed withdrawals
- Unenforced UN resolutions
- Rejected peace offers
- Continued security threats
The evidence is clear: we've been chasing diplomatic fantasies while ignoring hard realities. It's time to admit the peace process industry has failed.
JPost contributed to this article.
