Category: Two State Solution

The Historical Injustice Behind Palestinian Violence

29 December 2025

Stephen Gowans

There is a fundamental injustice at the root of Palestinian violence.  In 1948, Jewish settlers stole most of the Palestinians’ country. Israelis claim that part of historic Palestine was given to them by the United Nations, but the claim is false, and even if it were true, Palestine wasn’t the United Nation’s to give away. It’s true that the United Nations General Assembly in Resolution 181 of 29 November 1947 recommended a partition of Palestine between a state for recent Jewish immigrants and a state for indigenous Palestinians, but the recommendation was rejected by the Palestinians, and was never implemented. Moreover, the United Nations had no authority to deny the Palestinians self-determination in their own land, or to confiscate part of their country to create a Jewish state. There was no moral foundation or legal basis for the creation of a state for Jews in Palestine. Israel is not the child of moral necessity and law but the product of naked aggression, land theft, and ethnic cleansing.

In 1967, Israel conquered those parts of Palestine it had not stolen from the Palestinians in 1948. Its new conquests included the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, along with parts of Egypt (the Sinai) and Syria (Golan). Since then, the newly-seized Palestinian territories have been occupied while the Sinai has been returned to Egypt (in return for Cairo renouncing Arab nationalism and becoming a US client state), and the occupied Golan has been annexed illegally with the blessing of the United States.  

Today, approximately seven million Jewish settlers live in conquered Palestine, occupying about 85 percent of the country. A roughly equal number of Palestinians live in the remaining 15 percent of their homeland (while some eight million are scattered abroad, many living in refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan). Israeli policy, as evidence by the country’s actions, is to gradually drive into exile as many of the seven million Palestinians who remain in historic Palestine as possible, mainly by usurping their land and making their lives miserable. The process echoes the efforts of the Nazis from 1933 to Kristallnacht of 9-10 November 1938 to drive Jews out of Germany in order to create an ethnically pure German state. The Israelis, for their part, aim to create nothing as extreme as the Nazi’s homogeneous ethnic state, but a demography that substantially favors Jews. With a rough balance of Jews and Palestinians currently living within the territory Israel controls, that means either significantly reducing the Palestinian population, or ceding a Palestinian state on the 15 percent of historic Palestine in which Palestinians are concentrated, and accepting that the land of Israel will not include what Jews of antiquity knew as Judea and Samaria. The latter option, however, is rejected, not only by the current Israeli government, but by Israeli society generally.

In the absence of any intention to concede a Palestinian state, the Zionist imperative of creating a Jewish majority within a territory in which as many Palestinians as Jews live, means either driving the indigenous people out of the country, or failing that, forcing them into an ever shrinking space, as Israel takes more and more of their land, homes, and property for the building of settlements for Jews (including newly immigrated Jews from such places as the United States, Canada, and Western Europe.) The process echoes the genocide of the indigenous peoples of Turtle Island and of the Slavs and Jews of the German East (the territory of Eastern Europe the Nazis sought to conquer as Lebensraum to settle the German Herrenvolk.)  It also means denying Palestinians political rights in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem—in other words, apartheid.

This raises a question. Why are the Israelis so adamant about refusing the Palestinians a state of their own, especially considering that the state would comprise only a tiny fraction of the Palestinians’ original country and leave the bulk of it to the Jews? The answer is surely that, from the perspective of the Zionist project, a Palestinian state represents an opportunity cost (giving up land that could be otherwise taken from the Palestinians for the use of Jews) but offers no clear benefit. The presumed benefit is peace. With their own state, it is supposed that the Palestinians will recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state comprising the bulk of their country, making up that part the Zionists stole in 1948, plus part of the territory conquered in 1967 that has strategic value to Israel and which contains major Jewish settlements. True, the organized Palestinian resistance would gladly accept a Palestinian state in even only 15 percent of historic Palestine, but it has made clear that the realization of the two-state solution is not its end-game. Western states that back the two-state solution envisage something like a Palestinian protectorate with Israel as suzerain, controlling the state’s borders, police force, and foreign policy. The only way to persuade Israel to accept a Palestinian state, in their view, is to assure the Israelis that a Palestinian state will pose no threat to Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. And the way to do that is to insist that the state of Palestine have no military and that its leaders are quislings who serve at the pleasure of either Israel or Washington or both. This reflects an implicit acknowledgement that the dispossessed will always be a threat to those who dispossess them; that the dispossessed want returned to them what is rightfully theirs; and that unless a Palestinian state has no military and is governed by stooges of Israel and its Western patrons, the Palestinians will be at liberty to use the resources of their new state to attempt to recover, by force, what they have been unjustly denied.   

Of course, Israel could be strongarmed into acceding to a Palestinian state. The Zionist state depends significantly for survival on the support it receives from the United States and major US allies. By threatening to cut off or reduce arms transfers and diplomatic support, the West could compel its client state to comply with its demands to accept a state for the Palestinians. But the West has never used its leverage to force the Israelis to make any meaningful concessions to the Palestinians, and shows no sign of departing from this policy. Indeed, since the Oslo Accords of 1993, which were supposed to begin a process of moving toward the creation of a Palestinian state, the Israelis have consistently maneuvered to undermine the project, and the West has done precious little to stop them.  The number of Jewish settlers in the West Bank, which would form the largest part of a Palestinian state, has grown from 280,000 shortly after the Oslo Accords to 950,000 by 2023, more than a three-fold increase. [1] And Israeli efforts to sabotage a Palestinian state have only accelerated since 7 October 2023. The Zionist state unabashedly, even proudly, conducts itself in a manner aimed openly at denying the Palestinians a viable state. Western states occasionally utter protests, but fail to follow through with deeds that would induce Israel to abandon its ongoing sabotage.

Many states and political organizations in the West, including most far-left and progressive political parties, proclaim their affection for an independent Palestinian state along 1967 borders, along with the full right of return for Palestinian refugees (and their descendants) to the homes from which they were expatriated.  Advocates of this position have no answer to the question of why a Palestinian state should be constituted along 1967 borders, that is, why it should comprise only the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, territory not conquered in 1948? Implicitly the position endorses the 1948 theft by Zionist forces of most of the Palestinians’ country, but condemns the 1967 theft of the remaining part of the country. In this view, the second (1967) conquest is objectionable but the first and larger (1948) conquest is not. Moreover, Israel and its Western patrons would never accept the emergence of an independent, militarized, Palestinian state, for reasons cited above. Nor would they accept the repatriation of eight million Palestinians living in the shatat, a development that would radically alter the demographic balance of Israel, turning it into a Palestinian-majority state. The proposal, thus, is not only confused morally (why reject the 1967 conquest but not the 1948 one?) but is also pie-in-the-sky, since it assumes conditions (a truly independent Palestinian state and repatriation) that are completely unacceptable to the states that would need to accede to them. Moreover, were the Palestinians strong enough to compel Israel and its Western patrons to accept an independent Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, they would also be strong enough to press for the recovery of all their country. So why would they stop at the 1967 borders? The proposal, vaunted by its supporters as both morally defensible and pragmatic, turns out to be, on inspection, confused, inconsistent, and unrealistic.

Returning to the question of why Western states allow Israel to get away with blocking implementation of the two-state solution: The simple answer, favored by followers of the US political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, is that a lobby of Zionist Christians and Zionist Jews wields enormous political power, which it has used to hijack the foreign policy relevant to Israel and the Middle East of the United States, as well those of its major allies.  If this is indeed true, the obvious question is: How did this lobby get to be so powerful that it can make Washington do what Mearsheimer and Walt claim is at odds with American interests? The answer, never spelled out, lurks within the Mearsheimer-Walt theory: The lobby is made up of enormously rich Jewish financiers who identify with Israel because they’re Jews and as a consequence place Jewish interests above those of American interests. This echoes the Nazi view that Jewish international financiers, operating in the shadows, controlled German politics, to the detriment of the German Volk and to the benefit of the Jews. If, to Hitler, German Jews were committed to Jewish interests and not those of Germany, to Mearsheimer and Walt, Zionist American Jews are committed to Jewish interests and not those of America. It could also be said that the lobby comprises fabulously wealthy Zionist Christian moneybags who identify with Israel because they’re evangelical Christians and many evangelical Christians believe that God has ordered them to support Israel; as a consequence, they place evangelical Christian theological interests above those of US secular interests. But, were we to say this, we would invite an obvious question: Aren’t these evangelical Christians also Americans? If Zionist Christians define their interests as support for Israel, then support for Israel is an interest of these Americans. Likewise, if Zionist Jews define their interests as defending Israel, then the defense of Israel is an interest of these Americans. What are American interests but the interests of a group that includes Zionist Jews and Zionist Christians as much it includes those of anyone else? To say the interests of Zionist Jews and Zionist Christians are not American interests is to say Zionist Jews and Zionist Christians are not Americans—that they operate on behalf of temporal (Israel) or spiritual (evangelical Christian) constituencies whose agendas are independent of American agendas and are therefore potentially in conflict with them. This is only a way of saying “If you disagree with me about what America’s interests are, you’re not a loyal American; you are, instead, an agent of a Church or an agent of a foreign state.”

Obviously, there are many American views of what the American interest is, so many that the idea that there is one, single, American interest—the interest that Mearsheimer and Walt claim to know—is absurd. Sociologically, what is called “American interests” are the interests of the class of people who have the means to dominate the ideological sphere and represent their own class interests as the interests of everyone else. As Marx and Engels put it, the ruling ideas [about what American interests are] are the ideas of the [US] ruling class. And the US ruling class happens to be made up of fabulously wealthy Zionist Jews and fabulously wealthy Zionist Christians, along with fabulously wealthy people who identify neither as Zionist Jews nor Zionist Christians but who happen to believe that Israel is a useful instrument for defending US ruling class interests in the Middle East.  We should not, therefore, adopt a view that implies, as Mearsheimer and Walt do, that Zionist Jews are not true Americans, committed to true American interests, because they’re Jews (or that Zionist Christians are not true Americans, committed to true American interests, because they’re evangelical Christians).  

A better answer to the question of why Western states allow Israel to get away with blocking implementation of the two-state solution—even though these states profess to favor it—is that the United States and its North American and European clients:

  • Are committed to Israel as their instrument for defending their interests in the Middle East. Indeed, the entire history of political Zionism has been one of Zionists seeking the support of Western states to establish and then maintain a Jewish state in the heart of the Arab and Muslim worlds in return for acting as the paladin of Western interests in the Middle East, and Western states accepting the proposal. The Palestinians, in this view, are a threat to achieving Western aims, since they are a threat to the West’s instrument for achieving those aims.
  • Don’t really believe that an independent Palestinian state, existing side-by-side with Israel, constitutes a genuine solution to the problem of two national movements vying for the same space. A Palestinian state, for reasons explained above, does not make the Palestinians’ desire for the recovery of their country, and the concomitant end to the Jewish state, vanish. If anything, it strengthens it, especially if the Palestinian state is militarized and truly independent. Palestinians won’t long be satisfied with just a small fraction of their country. The dispossessed always aspire to recuperate what they have been dispossessed of, and will use an independent state as a base from which to pursue the liberation of their country in its entirety. That is why no Western proposal envisions a truly independent, militarized, Palestinian state.
  • Accept the view, articulated in 1923 by Ze’ev Jabotinisky, that the only way to make a Jewish state in the center of the Arab and Muslim worlds secure from Palestinian irridentism, is to overwhelm the Palestinians by force and military strength until they give up their dreams of recovering their country as futile. This accounts for why Western states, the United States and Germany especially, have been prepared to furnish Israel with munificent military aid, to the point of giving it a qualitative military edge over all regional states. Israeli military primacy in the Middle East allows the West’s outpost in the Arab and Persian worlds to a) defend itself from Palestinian irredentism and b) take on states and movements of national assertiveness and independence that threaten the West’s domination of an important petroleum-producing region.
  • Conceal their commitment to the strategy of the Iron Wall behind a professed commitment to the two-state solution as a way of managing the demands of their own populations to intercede on behalf of the Palestinians. We seek justice for the Palestinians through our advocacy of the two-state solution, they say, while failing to hinder Israel in its efforts to thwart the very possibility of even a non-militarized, vassal, Palestinian state.

On top of the genocidal violence Israel has inflicted on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, it has waged a low-level war on the Palestinians of the West Bank. The war is multi-faceted: approval of new settlements; destruction of refugee camps; expulsion of Palestinians from their land and homes; settler attacks; pogroms.  Almost daily, newspapers are filled new Israeli horrors.

  • “The United Nations has warned of an alarming surge in attacks by Israeli settlers against Palestinians, with the number of incidents rising every year for almost a decade. This year, the U.N.’s humanitarian office, OCHA, has recorded more than 1,400 settler attacks that resulted in casualties or property damage.” [2]
  • “Since the attacks of Oct. 7, 2023, over 1,000 Palestinians in the West Bank have been killed by Israeli forces and settlers; one in every five dead was a child. In the same period, over 3,000 Palestinians say they have been displaced from their homes and lands largely because of Israeli settler violence. Anestimated40,000 Palestinians have been displaced in the northern West Bank by Israel Defense Forces operations. In the past two years, Israel has erected nearly 1,000 barriers and makeshift checkpoints across the West Bank, suffocating Palestinians’ ability to move and work freely.” [3]
  • “Pogroms in Palestinian villages have become routine, while the army and police stand by – or worse, assist the attackers. … These terrorists brag openly, knowing that even when settlers are filmed shooting and killing a Palestinian or beating an elderly woman with a nail-studded club, no one is prosecuted and the public remains indifferent. Settler violence isn’t outside the law – it is the law.” [4]
  • “Israel has also conducted extensive military operations that have uprooted entire neighborhoods in Palestinian cities. Historians and researchers say that has led to the largest wave of Palestinian displacement in the West Bank in a half-century.” [5]

Meanwhile, in Gaza, the genocide—established as a fact by the International Association of Genocide Scholars; the United Nations Human Rights Council; Amnesty International; Human Rights Watch; B’Tselem; Physicians for Human Rights—Israel; the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories; and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights—carries on, despite the 10 October 2025 halt to hostilities. From the start of the misnamed cease-fire through 27 December 2025, Israel killed 414 Palestinians and injured 1,142, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health/Gaza.  The victims were mainly non-combatants—Palestinians who had never participated in hostilities or had but were observing the cease-fire. “When Israel targeted two cousins on Oct. 29 — it said they were both local militant commanders — overnight missile strikes destroyed both their homes,” reported the New York Times. “One of the men was killed. So were 18 other members of their extended family, including two 3-year-olds.” The report continues: “Maysaa al-Attar, 30, a pharmacy student was shot in the abdomen as she slept in her parents’ tent.” [6] 

In a 19 December 2025 report on the faux cease-fire, the Israel human rights organization, B’Tselem, made the following observations:

  • The ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas on 10 October 2025 did not lead to any meaningful change in Israel’s conduct.
  • Even within the territory that supposedly remained under Palestinian control beyond the “yellow line,” Israel continues to inflict extensive harm on civilians, homes, and infrastructure – often within the very area designated as the al-Mawasi “humanitarian zone,” where hundreds of thousands of displaced people currently live.
  • Moreover, as of November 2025, Israel refuses to open several commercial crossings through which it was supposed to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, disrupts and delays the entry of essential aid through the crossings that have opened, and continues to impose draconian restrictions on humanitarian organizations and to prevent journalists from entering devastated Gaza.
  • UN agencies and international organizations reported that between the agreement’s entry into force and 21 October, Israel rejected approximately 75% of all requests submitted for the entry of aid into the Strip. [7]

The conclusion, according to Martin Shaw, a sociologist of global politics, war and genocide, is that “What we have is supposed to be a ceasefire, but Israel is still killing, starving and systematically destroying buildings; people are still dying and suffering. [8]

Lamenting the Zionist war on Palestinians, especially the largely unremarked war in the West Bank, Jack Khoury, a writer with the liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz, wrote that “Neither the United Nations (and its agencies), nor the International Court of Justice, nor enlightened Europe, nor powerful China have been helping West Bank residents. There is also no point in trusting Arab countries.” [9] Strange that Khoury thinks any of these bodies can, or even wants to, help Palestinians. The United Nations and its agencies can’t help the Palestinians because the UN is an instrument of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council who dominate it, three of which, as we have seen (the United States, Britain, and France) conduct their foreign policies in a manner that strongly suggests they are committed to Jabotinsky’s Iron Wall view of dealing with the Palestinian threat to their outpost in the Middle East. Any one of these veto-wielding permanent members can stay the hand of UN humanitarians who take it into their heads to help the Palestinians in any material way. Western Europe fails to help the Palestinians because it too supports the Iron Wall, as evidenced by the colossal military contributions it provides Israel. China, however powerful it is, is not powerful enough to take on the United States in the Middle East, which it would have to do were it to help Palestinians against Washington’s Zionist protégé. Moreover, China is a country that exists for the Chinese; its leadership cares as much about the Palestinians as the Americans do, which is not at all. China is not a Soviet Union, pursuing universalist ideals (and even the USSR had limits on how far it would go on behalf of internationalism.) It is, by its own admission, focused on building the Central State and not interfering in the affairs of other countries (except insofar as doing so helps advance its project of national rejuvenation.) As to the Arab countries, Khoury implicitly acknowledges that they exist as what Norman Finkelstein has recently called slaves and stooges of the United States. They won’t help the Palestinians because 1) what’s in it for them? and 2) they don’t want to displease their master.  It’s true that the Arab states have to feign concern for the plight of the Palestinians in order to mollify the passion of the street for the Palestinian cause, but then so too do Western states.

Further evidence that the Western states view in Jabotinsky’s Iron Wall the correct way to manage the threat Palestinian irridentism presents to their outpost in the Middle East comes from their insistence that “Israel has a right to defend itself.” In practice this phrase means “Israel has a right to use overwhelming violence against Palestinians, far in excess of what is actually needed for defense.” Even if we accept that Israel has a legitimate right to defend itself from the recalcitrance of the people it oppresses, in the same manner that defenders of the slaveocracy of the American South might have said that the slave-owners had a right to defend themselves against the rebellion of their slaves,  or fascists might have asserted a Nazi right of self-defense against the uprising of the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, a critical question arises as to how much violence is necessary for Israel to provide itself an adequate defense? It is clear to all but biased observers that the level of violence Israel inflicted upon Palestinians in Gaza from October 2023 to October 2025 (with the substantial aid of arms flows and intelligence from the United States, Germany, and other Western states) was well beyond what was necessary to defend Israel. Instead, the level of violence was consistent with the aim of achieving permanent security, which is to say, annihilating the possibility of future Palestinian attacks altogether–in other words, preventive war. The threat of future rebellion can be construed as immanent in Hamas, or more broadly the Palestinian resistance, or most broadly of all, Palestinians as a whole, for it is from within the Palestinian community that the threat of violent rebellion against Israeli oppression arises. Did the Nazis have a right to defend themselves against the Warsaw uprising by annihilating the community from which the threat arose: the Jews? By the logic that underpins the slogan “Israel has a right to defend itself”, they did. The genocide scholar A. Dirk Moses has argued that genocide is a quest for permanent security.  The condition for genocide is an inverse relationship between the existence of one group and the existence of another. If the existence of Israel, as a Jewish state, is threatened by the existence of a Palestinian nation as a displaced people, then the Palestinians are at risk of genocide at the hands of the Israelis. Likewise, Israelis are at risk of genocide at the hands of the Palestinians, since the existence of a Jewish state in the Palestinian homeland threatens the existence of the Palestinian nation.  It is for this reason that the idea of one, democratic state from the River to the Sea, in which everyone is equal, regardless of ethnicity or religion, is preferable to a struggle between two peoples to build their own ethnic states in the same space. Struggles between ethnic groups have a high potential for genocide.

One way of achieving Israel’s permanent security is to eliminate the Palestinians as a people. This can be accomplished in various ways. One way is to disperse Palestinians throughout the world in order that they become assimilated into other communities and cultures. Israel would love nothing more than for Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan to accept the Palestinian refugees living within their borders as citizens. After a time, these Palestinians and their descendants would come to identify as citizens of the countries in which they live, rather than as Palestinian refugees waiting to return home. 

Another way of destroying the Palestinians as a nation is to destroy what makes them a nation—their heritage and culture; the things that bind them together as a people and make them more that just a collection of individuals. This is part of the reason why Israel has destroyed mosques, schools, universities, and other cultural infrastructure in its war on Gaza, and targeted the community’s intellectuals.

Physical annihilation of individual Palestinians is yet another way of achieving the same end, but killing every Palestinian, or even a substantial fraction of them, is too difficult to be considered a practical aim. Nevertheless, physical annihilation does have a role to play in Israel achieving permanent security. Overwhelming physical violence, along with the imposition on Palestinians of conditions that are inconducive to a thriving life—too little food; inadequate sanitation; shortages of potable water; inadequate shelter; no garbage collection; no schools; no universities; no recreation; no cultural activities; impoverished health care; i.e., the conditions that Israel has imposed on Gaza with Western backing— combine to limit population growth, if not reverse it, but more importantly, create significant incentives for self-exile.  The aim of Israel’s brutal war on Palestinians qua Palestinians is to make their conditions of life in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, impossible, so that they vacate these territories to make way for Jewish settlers.

When Western states justify Israel’s massive violence against Palestinians as self-defense, they endorse their protégé’s adoption of a point of view that is no different from my telling you that if you bite my toe while I’m stepping on your head, I have a right to take a crow-bar to your skull and bash your brains in. That North American and European governments offer this justification is further evidence of their commitment to Israelis using massive reprisal violence to deter the future rebellions of the Palestinians. Massive violence as reprisal for rebellion has forever been the theory and practice of the oppressor.

If, as Khoury points out, the United Nations, the European Union, powerful China, and the Arab states, won’t help Palestinians, who will? The answer has always been no one but the Palestinians themselves. And the Palestinians have, for a very long time, asserted their own agency. They have launched massive strikes, practiced diplomacy, appealed to the conscience of humanity, invoked international law, inspired countless UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions on their behalf, and used moral suasion. They have tried making concessions. They have also used violence. Nothing has worked…yet. That the Palestinians have resorted to armed force, and will continue to do so, is assured.

Simone de Beauvoir once remarked that “All oppression creates a state of war”.  I would say that all oppression is a state of war, and until the oppression of Palestinians is overcome, they will continue to turn to violence (along with other methods of struggle.) Anyone who condemns them for doing so sides with the oppressor.

1. Hamas Media Office, “Al-Aqsa Flood: Two Years of Steadfastness and the Will for Liberation”, Dec. 2025.

2. Feliz Solomon, “Israeli Settlers Burn Mosque as West Bank Violence Escalates”, The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 14, 2025.

3 Mairav Zonszein, “There Is No Cease-Fire in the West Bank”, The New York Times, Nov. 11, 2025.

4. Yoana Gonen, “Creative Use of Bullshit: Why Right-wing Populist ‘Journalist’ Amit Segal Calls Haaretz Israel’s Greatest Threat”, Haaretz, Oct 28, 2025.

5. Natan Odenheimer and Fatima AbdulKarim, “How Israel’s Settlement Surge in the West Bank Is Displacing Palestinians”, The New York Times, Dec. 4, 2025.

6. David M. Halbfinger, Bilal Shbair and Aaron Boxerman, “The Truce Is 2 Months Old. So Why Have Hundreds of Gazans Been Killed?” The New York Times, Dec. 24, 2025.

7 “No Place Under Heaven”: Forced displacement in the Gaza Strip, 2023-2025,” B’Tselem, Dec. 19, 2025.

8 Martin Shaw, “Freedom of Expression in the New Age of Genocide”, Substack, Nov 13, 2025.

9. Jack Khoury, “When Did Israeli Settler Attacks Become Official Netanyahu Government Policy in the West Bank?” Haaretz, Dec. 25, 2025

The Illegitimacy of Both Israel and the Two-State Solution

August 19, 2024

By Stephen Gowans

Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy recently misattributed the Himalaya of injustices the Israelis have visited upon the Palestinians to ‘the army,’ as if, absent the IDF, Israel—not only its conduct but its very ethos—would become acceptable to world opinion. [1] But were the IDF to disband, or renounce its genocidal conduct, Israel would still be a Jewish state, founded on the robbery of the Palestinians, and committed to their continued dispossession and exile in order to maintain the state’s Jewish character.

The army’s role in Israel is to defend Jewish supremacy and extend the territory over which Jews come first and Palestinians matter not at all. The 1948-9 theft by Jewish nationalist settlers of the Palestinians’ country, along with their homes, land, and property, is Jewish supremacy’s original sin. The IDF defends and promotes it. The two-state solution ignores and conceals it.

The fruits of the Jewish nationalist plunder are thus defended by violence, and extended to such territory in the West Bank which Jewish settlers have not yet completely taken for their own use. The process is summarized by a single word: Zionism—the racist ideology of Jewish nationalism and Palestinian dispossession. Pro-Zionist, as the Palestinian revolutionary Leila Khaled once pointed out, equals anti-Palestinian.

It is Zionism (the project) and its child, Israel, not the IDF (the project’s instrument), that lies, contra Levy, at the root of the problem of Israel. 

To correct Levy, the following injustices, which he attributes to the IDF, are properly understood as the bastards of settler colonial Jewish nationalism.

“…the Sde Teiman base is [Zionism], the human shields used in Gaza are [Zionism], the assassinations are [Zionism]. Forty thousand dead are [Zionism], the destruction of Gaza is [Zionism]; the cruel roadblocks in the West Bank are [Zionism]; the killing of the 3-day-old twins, along with their mother and grandmother, while the father was out obtaining their birth certificate, is [Zionism]; the growing use of drones for killing people in the West Bank is [Zionism]; the pilots, artillery units, armored units, bulldozers, canine units, they are all [Zionism].”

It is difficult to understand how the two-state solution continues to be seen by people ostensibly committed to Leftist or humane values as constituting either a just solution, or even a practical one. Levy himself rejects the two-state solution, not because he dislikes it, but because, with 700,000 Jews in the West Bank, he recognizes that the idea is no longer workable. Scholar Rashid Khalidi calls the two-state solution an Orwellian hoax—a promise to replace the quisling Palestinian Authority with a quisling Palestinian pseudo-state. The two-state solution has always meant one Jewish state plus Palestinian Bantustans, Khalidi argues.

The two-state solution in its current guise rests on UN Security Council Resolution 242, formulated by the United States and Israel, and ratified by the Soviet Union, as a solution to the 1967 Six-Day War, in which Israel conquered the Sinai, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and parts of Syrian territory in Jawlan (the Golan Heights).

The resolution (unheeded by Tel Aviv) demanded that Israel withdraw to its pre-1967 position, roughly the armistice lines which ended the conflict of 1948-9 between the Zionist settlers and four of the Arab states—Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. These states had intervened in the war between the Palestinians, who were seeking to keep their country, and the Zionists, who were seeking to make it their own.

At the heart of 1948-9 conflict was UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of 29 November 1947, which ended the British Mandate in Palestine and ordered the partition of the country between Jewish and Arab states, to be linked by an economic union, with Jerusalem under international control. The resolution assigned 56 percent of the Palestinians’ country to Jewish settlers, most of whom were recent immigrants, and who comprised less than one-third of the population. The Palestinians, the majority, were granted a state comprising only 42 percent of their country. The remaining two percent was allocated to an internationalized Jerusalem.

Neither the Palestinians, who had been disarmed by the British Mandate, and in any event had little military training, or the Arab armies, which were rendered ineffective by division and the absence of a central command, and were outnumbered by Jewish settler forces by at least three to one, could prevail against the well-organized, well-trained, and well-equipped Zionists. The Jewish nationalists could count on the assistance of Western imperialist countries as well as the Soviet Union, which shipped arms to the Zionists through Czechoslovakia. Indeed, it was the colonialist West in partnership with the USSR that presented and approved the partition of the Palestinians’ country. Little wonder that the great powers should play a key role in helping the settler army rob the Palestinians.

The outcome of the war was, from the Palestinians’ perspective, a Nakba. Zionist settlers conquered 80 percent of the Palestinians’ country—not just the 56 percent which Resolution 181 allocated to a Jewish state, but also half the territory allocated to an Arab state, and, on top of that, West Jerusalem. At the same time, they exiled (ethnically cleansed) 700,000 Palestinians, at least half and probably much more than half of the Palestinian population. In 1967, the Zionist settlers gobbled up the remaining 20 percent of the Palestinians’ country. It is on this one-fifth of Palestine—what is deceptively called ‘occupied Palestinian territories’—that apostles of the two-state solution propose to give the Palestinians a rump state. The term ‘occupied Palestinian territories’ is deceptive because it refers only to the territory Zionist settlers have occupied since 1967, and not the larger territory they’ve occupied since 1948.

The inequity of a two-state solution should be glaring enough. How is it fair to grant Palestinians a tiny, disjointed, fraction of their own country? But the problems run deeper than that. A two-state solution ratifies two fundamental injustices.

The first injustice is the decision of the UN General Assembly, under the influence of the United States and the Soviet Union, to partition Palestine, granting more than half the country to recent Jewish immigrants. The UN General Assembly had no more authority to rob Palestinians of a part of their country than did the British in the 1917 Balfour Declaration to promise Jews a homeland in Palestine. Au fond, Resolution 181 is a violation of two principles: democracy (the Palestinians were opposed to their country’s division) and self-determination. It is also an expression of US and Soviet imperialism. Gifting the larger part of Palestine to recent Jewish immigrants, a minority, contrary to the majority’s wish, and over its objection, suited the electoral goals of the US president, who hoped to strengthen his appeal to Jewish voters, and comported with the geopolitical aims of the Soviet Union, which hoped to build influence in the British-dominated Middle East. Palestinians didn’t count. What’s more, neither the General Assembly or the Security Council had the authority to create two new states, let alone, abolish another (Palestine.)

The second injustice is the ratification of Zionist conquests in the 1948-9 war, which allowed Jewish settler forces to extend their plunder of the Palestinians’ country to 80 percent of the territory from the 56 percent allocated in Resolution 181.

The two-state solution thus fails to address the fundamental injustices at the core of the problem, namely:

  • The negation of democratic principles;
  • The denial of Palestinian self-determination;
  • The spoliation of the Palestinians’ country and the forcible transfer of their land, homes, and property to Jewish settlers with the approval and aid of imperialist powers;
  • The immiseration of the Palestinians by the theft of their land, homes, and property and the corresponding enrichment of Israeli Jews in whose hands these stolen goods have been deposited. The two-state solution offers no mechanism for reversing the colossal inter-ethnic redistribution of wealth, whose major effects have been the ghettoization of millions of Palestinians in squalid refugee camps and the enrichment of Israel and its favored Jewish citizens.

Israel is the outcome of an enormous theft, and an affront against democracy and self-determination, approved (without authority) by the UN, sanctified by international law, backed by the colonialist West, and supported by the Soviet Union. The two-state solution ratifies these crimes, throwing a few crumbs to the plundered and immiserated Palestinians as a sop.

In The Palestine Question, legal scholar Henry Cattan asked whether a two-state solution based on the implementation of Resolution 242 would resolve the Palestine issue. Since it would simply restore the conflict that existed prior to 1967, he answered in the negative.

Would implementation of Resolution 181, and a two-state solution as originally envisaged by the UN in 1947—which at least condescended to allow the Palestinians to keep more of their country—work? No, insisted Cattan, since the resolution was rejected by both the Palestinians in words (who understandably objected to their victimization by a settler colonialism that would deny them self-determination) and Zionist settlers in deeds (who sought in 1948-9 to conquer as much of Palestine as their strength and Soviet arms would allow, and in 1967, when their strength had greatly increased, extended the conquest to the whole of the Palestinians’ country. It has been clear from the beginning, and is all the more evident today, that the Jewish nationalists want all of Palestine, and have no intention of settling for less.)

The solution to the Palestine problem is not, then, a ratification of Zionist settler colonialism, as the apostles of the two-state solution propose; settler colonialism, after all, lies at the heart of the problem. The problem can only be resolved at its core, which is to say, by de-colonizing Palestine, not just occupied ’67 Palestine, that part of the country which the two-state advocates propose to throw to the Palestinians as a sop in the hope of pacifying them, but also occupied ’48 Palestine, the greater part of the country conquered in the 1948-9 war by Jewish nationalist settlers. 

Palestine must become a democratic country, from the River to the Sea, in which all people, regardless of religion or ethnicity, are equal. There should never have been a Jewish state in Palestine, any more than there should have been a white supremacist state in South Africa and another in Rhodesia. All the brutalities of the Zionist regime—the genocide, the official racism, the pogroms, the ethnic cleansing, the prison abuses and torture, the incessant colonial expansion—flow ineluctably from the project of maintaining a Jewish state on the stolen land of the Palestinians.   

The solution to settler colonialism is de-colonization and equality among peoples—not the two-state solution’s ratification of settler-colonialism, not the repudiation of a democratic state in which settlers and natives are equal, and not the relegation of Palestinians to Bantustans within their own country.

1. There is a danger that I have created a misleading impression of Gideon Levy’s views. To be clear, Levy makes similar arguments to my own. He says that “The decisive moment is ‘48. A people came to a populated land and took it over. That’s the core of everything.” He adds that “any solution which will not include some kind of accountability of ‘48 and some kind of compensation — not only in terms of money — will not be a just solution.”  For the future, he envisages “one vote, one person, as in any other democracy,” even though it means “the end of the Jewish state.” See  “It’s too late for the Jewish state”.

On the Palestinian Question, Opportunism Has a Long History

June 1, 2024

By Stephen Gowans

Le Monde Diplomatique is running a review of Moscow’s stance on the Palestinian question in this month’s (June, 2024) issue, presenting a history that begins with the twists and turns of Soviet policy.  

The Soviet Union’s initial position on the Palestinian question, likely formulated under the influence of the Comintern and definitely under the influence of Marxism, was that there ought to be in Palestine an independent, non-national, democratic state, in which all citizens are equal, regardless of their ethno-religious identity.

This is the same view which was initially taken up by the PLO, and is the stance of those who today “support the dismantlement of Israel’s racist structures and laws and advocate for one decolonised state, from the river to the sea, in which everyone living within it is equal before the law and does not benefit from any racial, ethnic, or religious privileges,” as Joseph Massad recently put it.

In early 1947, R. Palme Dutt, writing on behalf of the communist parties of the British Empire, demanded “the creation of a free, independent and democratic Palestinian state, which will guarantee equal rights of citizenship with full religious freedom and full opportunities to develop their culture to all its inhabitants, Arab and Jewish.”

It seems odd that a little over one year later, the USSR recognized “the state of Israel, three days after its founding,” and equally odd (or disappointing if not repugnant) that less than a year earlier it had backed the UN partition plan, which granted Jewish settlers in Palestine, who made up one-third of the population, over one-half of the Palestinian’s country.

One body, the UN General Assembly, at the time dominated by imperialist and settler colonial states, pledged more than half of the country of one nation to Jewish settlers who said they made up another. The UN General Assembly had no legal or moral authority to partition Palestine.

Worse still, Moscow was recognizing a state that had no intention of even adhering to the legally and morally invalid UN plan, having taken territory by force slated for an Arab state, and expelling 800,000 Palestinians.

It gets worse. Stalin then sent arms via Czechoslovakia to the Israeli army, and dispatched “hundreds of Jewish officers from the Red Army,” to help put down the resistance of the Palestinians and their Arab compatriots to the theft of their land and expulsion.

Soviet support helped “Israel defeat the Arab countries, then seen as British allies by the Soviets.” In the settler-native war of 1948, the Soviets were clearly on the side of the settlers and against the oppressed. Moscow’s appeal to the oppressed to join hands with workers around the world under Soviet leadership, must have seemed to be, for good reason, a bad joke.

Why did the Soviets abandon a position of opposition to settler colonialism in favor of one supporting Zionism? Raison d’etat. Realpolitick. Moscow saw advantage for the Soviet state in backing a movement it saw as against British influence in the Middle East. Since the Zionists had engaged in a war of terrorism with the British mandate authorities, and London controlled Egypt, Iraq, and Transjordan, Stalin thought that support for Jewish settlers in Palestine would deal a blow to British influence in West Asia and North Africa.

It didn’t. The British continued to wield influence in the region and Israel looked to the West for support. Soviet influence in subsequent years remained limited to a few Arab nationalist states—Syria, Iraq, Libya—which had turned to the Soviets for aid against the British and Americans, who objected to their economic nationalism.

Even then, these states were wary of getting too close to Moscow for fear of being turned into Soviet vassals. Given Moscow’s capacity to sacrifice principle in pursuit of realpolitik and its immediate political aims, their fears were not without foundation.

Moscow’s shift from endorsing a decolonized Palestine to supporting Zionist settler colonialism was an instance of opportunism—sacrificing principal and fundamental goals to short-term advantage. Lenin railed against the opportunism of the Second International; on the Palestinian question, Stalin practiced it.

Of course, it could be quibbled that the Marxist notion of opportunism is specific to working class interests, not those of an agrarian people despoiled by settler colonialism.  The reply, if we confine ourselves to the Marxist canon, is to paraphrase the words of Marx. No people can be free who help enslave another. Clearly, the Soviets, at Stalin’s direction, helped Zionists figuratively enslave the Palestinians.

It is said, though the story may be apocryphal, that Stalin later recognized his error and apologized. If true, we must ask ourselves—what did he apologize for? His opportunism, or the fact that he failed to obtain even an opportunistic advantage in his abandonment of principle?

In later years, the USSR would support the two-state solution, as do some previously Soviet-aligned communist parties today, for example, the Communist Party USA, the Communist Party of Canada, and the KKE. So accustomed to blindly following the Moscow line with all its twists, turns, opportunism, and raison d’etat, the leaders of these parties long ago lost the power of independent thought, if they ever had it to begin with. So, they ape what the Soviet position was in its final years, and one suspects without the foggiest idea of what they’re supporting or why.

The two-state solution has a practical problem. Exactly where is the Palestinian state to be located, now that the building of Jewish settlements in the West Bank has effectively denied the Palestinians territory on which to build a viable state? And why should Palestinians be crammed into an insignificant slice—or many insignificant, incontiguous, slices—of their own country?

But the practical problems of the two-state solution pale in comparison to the moral problem. A Palestinian state alongside Israel means the continued existence of a Jewish supremacist apartheid state, whose origin is found in settler colonialism, the theft of the Palestinians’ country, and ethnic cleansing.  

Moreover, two-states concedes the legitimacy of Zionism, a racist, antisemitic, doctrine which holds that:

  • The Jews are a nation, rather than a religious community;
  • Dismisses activism against antisemitism as futile (because Zionists believe antisemitism is ineradicable, built into the DNA of non-Jews); and
  • Favors, as antisemites do, the emigration of Jews from the countries in which they live to Israel.

Strange that no one with even a single progressive bone in their body would have accepted anything less than the complete dismantlement of apartheid South Africa, and the creation, in its place, of a single, unitary, non-national, democratic state in which all people, settlers and natives, were equal. And yet many of the same people, including communists, continue to support a two state solution in Palestine–the companion South African arrangement to a state for whites and Bantustans for blacks.

In 1973, Louis Eaks interviewed the historian Arnold Toynbee on the Palestinian question. Eaks began by outlining what, at the time, now largely forgotten, was the dominant Palestinian goal, “a unitary and democratic state” in all of historic Palestine. Eaks observed that this would offer, “both for the Jewish settlers in Palestine and for the Palestinians, safeguards for their existence in Palestine and for their civil rights.” He lamented, however, that “there doesn’t seem to be any kind of debate about the merits of the Palestinian plan.”

Toynbee opined that the plan “has two merits. It would produce the greatest possible amount of justice, with the least possible amount of suffering for everybody. Nobody would be turned out of his home.” Then Toynbee turned to what he saw as the plan’s weakness. It is “recognized to be politically impracticable. I don’t think that the Israelis would ever agree voluntarily, and I don’t think that America would be willing to compel them to agree to this. Therefore, I don’t think it is possible to carry out this plan.”

Eaks objected. “You say that it is a plan which is now almost impossible to achieve, but the United Nations solution [of cutting the Palestinian baby into two ethnic national states, one Jewish and one Arab] seems equally impossible to achieve, and particularly that aspect which the Palestinians must consider to be the most crucial paragraph, which concerns the right of the refugees to return.”

Eaks, of course, was right. A half century later, the two-state formula remains as much an unrealizable fantasy as it was in 1973, indeed as much as it was in 1947, when it was first proposed as the UN Partition Plan. It has been rejected in deeds and in some cases words by all parties involved ever since.

Eaks continued: “Do you think it is wise in the long run to compromise with Zionism, which is based very much on racial discrimination? Do you not see any future threat to the East if one accepts this kind of racialist state.”

 “Yes,” conceded Toynbee, “I think a racialist state is as bad and as dangerous in the Middle East as it is in southern Africa.”

Eaks wasn’t finished. “It seems to me,” he continued, pressing the point, “that no one who says that apartheid is wrong would say that South Africa is here to stay, and that therefore the African states should accept it and recognize it. Yet many people who say that Zionism is evil and wrong, claim that Israel is here to stay and that we must accept it. Why is there this contradiction between the attitudes towards Zionism and towards apartheid?”

As for China, the capitalist giant which occasionally sings rhapsodies to Marx to excite its gullible communist supporters in the West, its president Xi Jinping “recently reiterated his support for a two-state solution”, which is to say, for the continued existence of a Jewish supremacist state based on settler colonialism, ethnic cleansing, and racist institutions.

As Xi rejects a two-state solution for China—where two independent Chinese states, Taiwan and the PRC, could live side by side, in peace—he endorses a two-state model for the Palestinians. The Chinese, in his view, deserve better. They won’t concede a part of their country in the name of peace—as Xi expects the Palestinians to do.

Xi cares about China, tout court, not the global south and not the Palestinians, any more than Stalin did. As leaders of major states, Stalin then and Xi now, pursue as their priority the interests of the states they lead; everything else is secondary, available to be sacrificed in pursuit of raison d’etat, realpolitik, and opportunism.

Follow-up

In his critique of the KKE’s endorsement of the two-state solution, Jorge Martin makes many of the same arguments I do, but develops some themes more fully. Here are what I think are the parts of his analysis that are particularly relevant to my discussion above.

“[T]he two-state solution has been proven to have been impossible in practice, as we have explained in detail elsewhere. The Oslo Accords of 1993 were seen precisely as a road map towards a two-state solution by the Palestinian leadership. In fact, they were a complete betrayal and sell out of the Palestinian struggle. Israel kept control of a large section of the West Bank and of the external borders, Jewish settlers were allowed to remain in the Palestinian territory and settlements have continued to expand. 

“Meanwhile, the questions of the right of return and the state of East Jerusalem were postponed to be discussed in the long distant future (read: never) and in exchange a pitiful Palestinian ‘Authority’ with no real power was created with the sole aim of subcontracting the policing of the Palestinian masses to the rotten leadership of the PLO. 

…

“So as long as the capitalist state of Israel exists, the Israeli bourgeoisie will never accept the existence of a genuine viable Palestinian state as it considers it a threat to its ‘national security’. This has been proven, not in theory, but in practice. Since the Oslo Accords, the number of Zionist settlements in the West Bank has continuously increased, while Gaza remains completely blockaded by the state of Israel. Israel’s military interventions in Gaza, as well as in the West Bank, have become increasingly frequent and violent, undermining the very existence of even the limited Palestinian entity that is the Palestinian Authority. 

“Furthermore, it is difficult to see how a capitalist state of Palestine would be viable in the territory of the 1967 borders, side-by-side with a powerful imperialist capitalist state of Israel. Such a capitalist Palestine, if it were possible, would be economically dominated by its powerful neighbor and remain at best its semi-colony. 

“It is the practical experience of the last 30 years that has led a majority of Palestinians to reject a two-state solution. In September this year, a poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found that 67 percent of Palestinians reject a two-state solution, with only 32 percent in support. The same poll shows that “71 percent believe the two-state solution is no longer practical due to settlement expansion”. A separate poll conducted by the Arab World for Research and Development on 15 November found that 74 percent of Palestinians are in favor of one state, while only 17 percent want a two-state solution. An overwhelming majority of Palestinians reject the Oslo Accords altogether. 

“Incidentally, even if one were to accept the idea of a two-state solution, why should a Palestinian state be established ‘on the 1967 borders’ (presumably what the KKE means is the pre-1967 war borders) which represented only 22 percent of historic Palestine? Why not go back to the 1947 UN partition plan borders, where a Palestinian state represented 44 percent? The 1967 borders represent not only accepting partition itself but also the further territorial conquests by the State of Israel in the period after it. 

…

“In 1947, the Soviet Union backed the partition plan at the United Nations. This was not done in solidarity with the Jewish people .. but rather in an attempt to undermine the position of British imperialism in the Middle East. [My note: It could have been done for both reasons.] The USSR was the first country to recognize the newly created State of Israel and Stalin supplied the Zionists with weapons via Czechoslovakia. Soviet support for the setting up of the State of Israel in 1948 was a betrayal with catastrophic consequences for all the communist parties throughout the Middle East and beyond. Such a position cannot be justified and made the USSR complicit in the crime that was committed against the Palestinian people.”