Like the changing hem-line, the idea of the Two-State Solution has again become fashionable.

At the beginning of November, President George Bush stated that he is "personally committed" to assist in the creation of a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, because the survival of Israel depends on it. Therefore, he described himself as a "Two-State Solution person." After meeting with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert at the White House on Monday, November 13, the president declared: "We talked about our commitment to a Two-State Solution."

A week before, on Monday, November 6, the British Ambassador to Israel, Tom Phillips, told the annual Balfour dinner in Tel Aviv that "if Lord Balfour were here today, he would see such a solution as the right way in the modern world to achieve that balance he sought in his declaration."

On November 8, Israel's Foreign Minister Tzippy Livni told reporters in Los Angeles: "There is hope for the moderates, for those who believe in a Two-State Solution." And on November 9, the Hindustan Times reported that "India backs the Two-State Solution in Palestine."

These expressions of support indicate that a major diplomatic initiative is underway. We may ask: If this idea has so much public support, is it good for the Jews? The problem is that the different sides interpret the terms in entirely different ways.

In order to grasp the meaning of the term, one must first understand its origin. Briefly, the North Vietnamese originally coined the term "Two-State Solution" based on their own experience. Once, there were two states, North Vietnam and South Vietnam. The Communist North conquered the South, and that was the end of the story. Therefore, the term is a weapon in the armory of political warfare whose purpose is to deceive the public.

Abu Iyad (Salah Khalaf), who was a leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, wrote that the PLO adopted this type of terminology in the early 1970s in order to disguise their real objective - the destruction of Israel, which they hoped to achieve according to the Phased Plan they formally adopted in 1974.* Thus, the Palestinians borrowed both the strategy and terminology from the North Vietnamese. In the context of the current propaganda war, this may explain why the Palestinians stopped talking about "driving the Jews into the sea." An additional purpose of this subterfuge was to blur the fact that the Palestinians had a reputation as terrorists. Promoting a Two-State Solution would enable them to improve their image and thus gain sufficient respectability to pass as a potential negotiating partner.

The question remains: What do normal people really mean when they use this term? The answer is "partition." This idea dates back to recommendations of the Peel Commission in 1937: partition of the land into two unequal states and population transfer. The Zionist leadership of the time, namely Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion, accepted the principle. They understood the limitations of power and preferred having something rather than nothing. In contrast, the Palestinian Arab leadership, led by the Mufti Haj Amin Al-Husseini, rejected the idea out of hand. As a result, they denied European Jewry a place of refuge in its moment of dire need.

Then, in 1939, Great Britain caved in and issued the White Paper, which violated the Balfour Declaration and the terms of the Mandate. (It is nice that Ambassador Tom Philips mentioned Lord Balfour's humane intentions, but it would have been more honorable if he had accepted responsibility for Britain's historic act of appeasement and bad faith in undermining Lord Balfour's vision.) That was the moment in history when a type of Two-State Solution would have had its greatest value to our people. By rejecting the compromise of the Peel Commission and closing Palestine as a place of refuge for the Jews, the Arabs of Palestine committed a crime against humanity. It was by choice that the mufti collaborated in the Final Solution.

The Jews, however, refused to depart from the stage of history. The idea of partition found new life in the UN Partition Resolution of 1947. But when seven Arab countries invaded the new state of Israel, the United Nations did nothing. According to historian Bernard Lewis, "The United Nations failed to act after the Arab states invaded Palestine and then treated Jewish and Arab refugees differently, leaving problems that remain today." This failure contributed to making Israel's conflict with the Arab world intractable. And, therefore, those powers that did not intervene in the face of this aggression bear a good measure of moral responsibility for the current situation.

Even after the war in 1967, the other side did not "pick up the telephone." Similarly, the Palestinians undermined what could have been a deal through Oslo or at Camp David, but compromise is simply not part of their world-view. As recently as October 20, Hamas Foreign Minister Mahmoud Al-Zahar declared (as translated by MEMRI), "We want all of Palestine from Naqura to Rafah, and from the [Mediterranean] Sea to the [Jordan] river." In contrast to the Fatah leadership of the Palestinian Authority, the Hamas does not repeat the reassuring lies that world leaders crave to hear. This is to their credit.

If our leaders really want to bring peace closer, then they can begin by looking at the facts honestly. They should not delude themselves into believing that the Two-State Solution - either in its original incarnation, a form of politicide as framed by the North Vietnamese, or as a construct based on the principle of partition - will bring peace any closer. It will not work because the Palestinian side will not accept a compromise. Indeed, another unsuccessful round of sterile peace negotiations will most likely bring more violence and harm to all parties in the present conflict.

This article originally appeared in Hebrew in Makor Rishon on November 17, 2006.

Footnote

* Abu-Iyad explained that the Vietnamese team [of political warfare experts] emphasized that the PLO must remain committed to its ultimate objective, namely, "the establishment of a unified democratic state in the entire Palestine," (which means the destruction of Israel). However, in the near term it would be expedient and advantageous from a political point of view to accept transient phases and even interim solutions. The Vietnamese suggested that seemingly accepting "the division of the land between two independent states," without stressing that this was only an interim phase, would neutralize the PLO's opponents in the West. -- Yossef Bodansky, Arafat's Peace, ACPR Policy Paper, No. 8 (Ariel, 1997); p. 3.