Support for a two-state solution is not antisemitic. Even Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and many Israelis—once more than 50%, now fewer—backed that arrangement. It is worth remembering that it was the Arabs who rejected partition in 1937 and again in 1947; they spoke of annihilation and went to war.
They did not create a state alongside Israel. For nearly two decades, Israel was governed on the 1967 lines, yet they did not accept a state next to Israel; they wanted a state instead of Israel.
After the Oslo Accords, a new chapter seemed to open. As prime minister, Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians a state at Camp David in the summer of 2000. Arafat said no. Bill Clinton offered an improved proposal later that year. Again, they said no. In 2008, Ehud Olmert presented a similar plan and this time it was Mahmoud Abbas who refused.
In 2014 John Kerry and the Obama administration offered another effort and in 2020, Donald Trump presented his vision of peace. Netanyahu, by the way, accepted both of the later offers. The Palestinians repeatedly replied no.
To see why the renewed initiative by Western leaders—Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer and others—is actually a step backward, one must recall that as early as 2000 many Arab states accepted, in principle, the idea of two states for two peoples: a Palestinian state and a Jewish state.
Bandar bin Sultan, then the Saudi ambassador in Washington, warned Arafat: “If you say no, it will not be a tragedy. It will be a crime.” Arafat walked out of that meeting and said no. The same dynamic played out in 2002, when the Saudi peace initiative excluded the fantasy of the “right of return.”
Under pressure from refusal states, the initiative was altered into the Arab Peace Initiative, whose practical implementation would have enabled the “right of return” and thereby the elimination of the State of Israel. Have Western leaders learned anything?
What happened at the UN General Assembly ten days ago and what is slated to take place tonight—on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, when Jews worldwide are celebrating—show that they have not. They chose the worst path: rewarding refusal. Why does Hamas welcome this? For two reasons.
First, because this renewed initiative is a product of the October 7 massacre: murderous violence pays, Hamas now says. Second, because the new initiative implicitly recognizes the “right of return” fantasy. The West has joined the Arab front of refusal.
That is exactly what appeared in the UN resolution a week and a half ago, and there is little reason to expect a repudiation of that demand in the declaration expected tonight. In short, this is total capitulation to the radical line of the refusal front and to Hamas.
Since October 7, another shift has occurred: many Israelis who once supported a Palestinian state alongside Israel have become deeply skeptical. Most Palestinians have supported, and continue to support, Hamas.
Would Macron agree to the creation of a jihadist entity in Alsace-Lorraine? Would Starmer support such a state in Wales? Many Europeans, it seems, now understand there is a problem.
Ben-Dror YeminiPhoto: Avigail UziA poll published this week in France found 71% oppose Macron’s initiative. Two recent polls in the UK showed low support as well: one found only 44% backing the plan; another, by The Telegraph, put opposition close to 90%.
The issue was never recognition of Palestinian self-determination or of a Palestinian state; that recognition has been offered repeatedly. The issue has always been recognition of Jewish self-determination. Some Arab states were already prepared to offer that recognition.
But Macron and Starmer are bypassing those states from a radical, pro-Hamas angle. Their initiative contains no preconditions, no explicit recognition of a Jewish state, and no unequivocal rejection of the “right of return” fantasy that aims at Israel’s destruction. That only strengthens and rewards Palestinian refusal. This approach does not advance peace and reconciliation; it destroys any real chance for a settlement.