Written By Jerry Elman, September 26, 2024
In my current book project, Misplaced Blame: How Britain’s Failures Made Israel the Scapegoat, I explore the historical and geopolitical realities that have transformed the two-state solution from a hopeful vision into an impossible fantasy.
For years, I believed in the promise of two independent states for Israelis and Palestinians, particularly within the borders of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. However, after studying the history, political fragmentation, and violent events of October 7th, 2023, I have come to see this vision as impractical and dangerous. The version of the two-state solution focused on these borders is an illusion, ensuring not peace but further conflict and instability.
At the same time, I fully support the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state, as was originally promised by the British. However, I believe this state must be formed by returning to the original boundaries of Mandate Palestine, not through the never-ending attempt to divide the impossible within the current borders of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.
The Palestinian Arabs were betrayed when Britain separated Transjordan from Mandate Palestine and gave it to the Arabian Hashemites. Transjordan was supposed to be the new Palestinian Arab state, with the Jewish state covering all the land west of the Jordan River. What the British created instead was a state where a Palestinian Arab majority is ruled by an Arabian Hashemite minority, who had never lived in that land until the British gave it to them.
Later, the British hoped that an Arab military defeat of Israel during the War of Independence would deliver a Palestinian Arab state at the expense of the Jews. The British banned Jews from having arms, while Arabs had no restrictions. Jews smuggled arms in.
When Israel decisively defeated the invading Arab armies, Britain shifted its support to UN Resolution 194, which included the right of return for Palestinian refugees and all their future descendants, no matter where they were born or lived. The aim was to eventually flood Israel with returning refugees and descendants, turning the Jewish state into a Palestinian Arab state by creating an Arab majority.
This historical manipulation by Britain set the stage for a conflict that continues to this day and will never end until the international community embraces a completely new approach. That approach must start with acknowledging Britain’s false promises and working toward a just solution that corrects the injustice of those broken promises.
Britain’s Scapegoating of Israel and the Unique Scrutiny of the Jewish State
Britain has successfully made Israel the scapegoat for the failure to create a Palestinian Arab state. Israel did not promise such a state—the British did. Israel did not take away the land promised for a Palestinian Arab state—Britain did. It is not Israel’s responsibility to create such a state, especially within the land that was initially promised to the Jews and defended in multiple wars.
Britain has effectively positioned Israel as the scapegoat for the lack of a Palestinian Arab state, deflecting blame from their own role in creating this mess. Since 1948, when Israel fought and won its independence in a hard-fought war that Britain helped incite, the world has unfairly blamed Israel for the ongoing conflict.
The question must be asked: Would the world be behaving this way if Israel were not a Jewish state? History and precedent suggest that is precisely what is going on. No other state in the world is subjected to the same constant war, existential threats, and endless questioning of its legitimacy. There is no parallel where another country, established through legitimate international processes, is asked to repeatedly justify its right to exist. Jews must conclude that this is merely another form of expressing hatred toward Jews—this time directed at their one and only state.
The world also ignores the Palestinian Arab refugee camps that still exist in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. The UN treats these people as forever refugees. Why are they not allowed to become citizens and live normal lives, despite so many generations being born in these countries? Yet, Israel is also blamed for these camps that exist in other countries.
The world ignores the civil war in Syria where real genocide is being committed. It ignores Hezbollah when they fire hundreds of missiles towards Israel. The world only responds when Israel fights back. The world says Iran is a threat to world peace but does nothing other than sanctions as long as Iran’s focus is on destroying Israel and leaves everyone else alone for the time being. As long as all the nuclear missiles they are developing are aimed at Israel and nobody else.
Israel did not assume control of the West Bank and Gaza out of choice. They assumed control out of an unwanted war in which Arab states once again tried to destroy the State of Israel, and once again lost a war. Under the peace treaty with Egypt, Israel offered to return Gaza along with the Sinai; Egypt refused to take Gaza back. Under the peace treaty with Jordan, Israel offered to return the West Bank; Jordan did not want it back.
Every attempt to negotiate establishing a Palestinian Arab state in the West Bank and Gaza is rejected unless it also includes terms that would lead to the elimination of the State of Israel. And Israel is blamed for refusing to agree to their own destruction.
The Need for a New Approach
It is time for the world to wake up. The two-state solution as envisioned within the current borders is not only unworkable—it is a dangerous fantasy. A new approach is necessary, one that acknowledges past betrayals and seeks a just solution that addresses those wrongs.
Defining the Two-State Solution: A Fantasy Within Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza
The modern two-state solution envisions two sovereign states—one for Israelis and one for Palestinians—within the borders of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. This proposal is largely based on the pre-1967 borders, with minor land swaps to accommodate Israeli settlements.
However, this vision is an impractical fantasy. The West Bank and Gaza are geographically disconnected and politically divided, with the West Bank governed by the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Gaza controlled by Hamas, a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel’s destruction. These two territories cannot form a unified, functional state. Additionally, the West Bank is fragmented by Israeli settlements, security zones, and military checkpoints, making the concept of a contiguous Palestinian state nearly impossible.
From Israel’s perspective, a Palestinian state in the West Bank would create an indefensible border. The narrowest point of Israel is just nine miles wide, leaving it vulnerable to attacks from the highlands of the West Bank, which overlook much of central Israel. The idea that two secure, peaceful states could coexist within these boundaries is a dangerous illusion that ignores the region’s realities.
The Original Two-State Solution: Britain’s Unilateral Decision and the Violation of the League of Nations Mandate
The roots of the impossible-to-achieve two-state solution lie in the British Mandate period, but Britain’s actions drastically altered the original intention. In 1920, the League of Nations defined Mandate Palestine, which included the land on both sides of the Jordan River, with the intent of establishing a Jewish homeland, as outlined in the 1917 Balfour Declaration. This territory was meant to provide for both Jewish and Palestinian Arab national aspirations. Both Jews and Palestinian Arabs were the indigenous populations of this territory.
However, in 1921, Britain unilaterally decided to carve out Transjordan (modern-day Jordan) from Mandate Palestine, reducing the land available for both Jewish and Arab states by 77%. This action forever made a two-state solution impossible to achieve. The territory has been and remains impossible to split into two viable nations and yet the international community keeps trying.
This British decision was made without the involvement of the League of Nations and without consulting the local population. Britain took this action to appease the Hashemites, who had been promised territory after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. It was only after this unilateral action that the League of Nations rubber-stamped Britain’s decision, retroactively amending the mandate in 1922 to exclude Transjordan from the provisions concerning the establishment of a Jewish homeland.
The Hashemites: British Manipulation, French Deals, and the Loss of Syria
Britain’s decision to carve out Transjordan from Mandate Palestine in 1921 was part of a broader effort to compensate the Hashemite family, who were not indigenous to the area. The Hashemites, originally from the Hejaz region (now part of Saudi Arabia), trace their lineage to the Prophet Muhammad and were considered one of the most prestigious Arab families. During World War I, the Hashemites allied with Britain in the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire, with the understanding that they would gain control over large parts of the Arab world, including Greater Syria, as a reward for their efforts. However, Britain’s promises to the Hashemites were undercut by a secret deal with France.
In 1916, Britain and France concluded the Sykes-Picot Agreement, a clandestine arrangement that divided the Middle East into spheres of influence between the two powers. Under this agreement, France was given control over Syria and Lebanon, while Britain retained control over Iraq, and Mandate Palestine, and other territory. This secret deal was made without informing the Hashemites, who had expected control over Greater Syria as part of their post-war reward.
After World War I, in 1920, Emir Faisal, the son of Hashemite leader Sharif Hussein, briefly ruled as King of Syria. Britain allowed this never telling him the French were about to kick him out. French forces, in line with the Sykes-Picot Agreement, invaded Syria and deposed Faisal, marking the end of his rule. This British betrayal left the Hashemites without their promised control of Syria, further eroding their trust in the colonial powers.
In an effort to placate the Hashemites and maintain British influence in the region, Britain made two key moves. First, in 1921, Britain installed Faisal’s brother Abdullah as the ruler of Transjordan, which had been carved out of the original Mandate Palestine territory. Abdullah’s rule over Transjordan was established not because of any historical or cultural ties to the region but solely by British decree. The Hashemites were now foreign rulers in a territory they had no indigenous connection to, a pattern that would repeat elsewhere.
Simultaneously, Britain installed Faisal as King of Iraq, another territory where the Hashemites had no indigenous roots. Iraq, like Transjordan, was created by the British in an arbitrary manner, combining three former Ottoman provinces—Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra—each with distinct religious and ethnic groups, including Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, and Kurds. These provinces had little in common and were forced together into one country for the sake of Britain’s colonial interests. Faisal was made king to maintain British control and as an additional step to compensate the Hashemites for their loss of Syria. Like in Transjordan, the Hashemite monarchy in Iraq was created without regard to the complex ethnic and cultural landscape of the region.
This manipulation of borders and rulers by Britain and France, driven by colonial interests and strategic calculations, set the stage for decades of instability not only between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs but the entire region. Britain created arbitrary countries that disregarded the Middle East’s historical, cultural, and demographic realities. This created permanent havoc in the region that had lived for centuries in peace under the Ottomans.
The Hashemites Lose the Hejaz (1924) – A Further British Betrayal
In 1924, the Hashemite family suffered another blow when they were ousted from their ancestral homeland in the Hejaz (in modern-day Saudi Arabia) by the rival Al Saud family. The British had shifted their support from the Hashemites to the Saudis, who were consolidating power over the Arabian Peninsula, including the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Although Britain had earlier promised the Hejaz to the Hashemites, they ultimately backed Ibn Saud for his growing influence and stability in the region. The British decision was based on the control of the vast oil reserves in Arabia.
This defeat left the Hashemites again humiliated and displaced. Their loss of the Hejaz forced them to consolidate their power in Transjordan and Iraq, the territories Britain had given them to compensate for their earlier losses. The Hashemites’ expulsion from the Hejaz solidified Abdullah’s rule in Transjordan and Faisal’s in Iraq, making these British-created territories central to the Hashemite dynasty’s future.
Britain’s Creation of “Fake” Countries: Disrupting Religious, Ethnic, and Cultural Norms
The creation of Transjordan was part of a broader pattern of British and French manipulation of the Middle East, where they drew arbitrary borders to serve their colonial interests, creating “fake” countries that disrupted the region’s religious, ethnic, and cultural norms. These artificial borders ignored the complex demographics of the region, leading to long-term instability and conflict.
- Iraq: Britain created Iraq by combining three former Ottoman provinces—Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra—each with distinct religious and ethnic groups, including Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other minorities. By forcing these groups into a single country under Hashemite rule, Britain laid the groundwork for decades of sectarian strife, which continue to destabilize Iraq today.
- Saudi Arabia: The creation of Saudi Arabia was marked by Britain’s alliance with the Al Saud family, who established control over much of the Arabian Peninsula, including the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. The Al Saud family’s rise to power came with British support and at the expense of the Hashemites, who had traditionally been the custodians of the holy sites. This rivalry between the Saudis and the Hashemites continues to shape regional politics.
- Syria and Lebanon: After World War I, France created Syria and Lebanon from the remnants of the Ottoman Empire. Lebanon was designed with an artificial Christian majority to reflect France’s ties to the Maronite Christian community, further complicating Lebanon’s political landscape and contributing to future civil strife. Syria was similarly divided along sectarian lines, with Sunnis, Alawites, Druze, and Kurds all living in a politically unstable framework.
- Iran and Yemen: Although Iran was not directly created by British influence, Britain heavily interfered in the country’s internal affairs throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. By controlling oil concessions and meddling in Iran’s political structure, Britain contributed to the destabilization of the country. On the other hand, Yemen saw British interference through establishing the British Aden Protectorate in the south, which ultimately disrupted Yemeni tribal and political structures, contributing to future instability.
- Afghanistan: Although technically never colonized, Afghanistan was deeply influenced by British imperialism during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Britain fought three Anglo-Afghan wars to prevent Russian influence in the region, imposing border changes and policies that disrupted Afghanistan’s tribal and political landscape. The artificial Durand Line, drawn by Britain in 1893, continues to be a source of tension between Afghanistan and Pakistan, as it divides Pashtun tribal areas across national borders. The British interference in Afghanistan weakened its internal governance and set the stage for decades of conflict, and terrorism which continue to this day with the Taliban now in control.
These borders, drawn without regard for the region’s intricate religious and ethnic makeup, created unstable countries where rival groups were forced into artificial political and competing religious entities. The long-term consequences of these colonial decisions are still felt today, with ongoing conflicts, civil wars, and instability across the Middle East. This is all much bigger than just the Israel/Palestinian conflict.
Israel’s War of Independence: The Exception Among Britain’s “Fake” Countries
Unlike many of the countries that Britain created through arbitrary borders, Israel fought a war to secure its existence and maintain its promised territory. While other newly formed nations in the Middle East were handed over to foreign rulers, such as the Hashemites in Transjordan and Iraq, or established without a fight, Israel had to fight for its survival.
In 1948, Israel declared its independence after the United Nations partitioned Palestine, and it immediately faced a war of survival. Britain, expecting the surrounding Arab nations to defeat the nascent Jewish state easily, kept the Jews largely unarmed, hoping for an Arab victory. However, despite being vastly outnumbered and outgunned, Jewish forces managed to smuggle in arms and won the War of Independence. In doing so, they secured the territory that had been promised to them, unlike other countries in the region that were created through colonial machinations.
Today’s Realities
Hamas and the Palestinian Authority
Hamas’s control of Gaza presents another insurmountable challenge. While the Palestinian Authority (PA) is the nominal governing body of the West Bank, Hamas and the PA are politically and ideologically opposed. Hamas is committed to the destruction of Israel and has shown no interest in a peaceful resolution that includes Israel’s existence. As long as Hamas holds power in Gaza, any two-state solution is doomed.
A two-state solution would require both Palestinian territories to be united under a single, cooperative government willing to negotiate in good faith with Israel. The deep divisions between Hamas and the PA make this impossible. Any Palestinian state that includes Gaza would inherently pose a threat to Israel as long as Hamas remains in power, and there is no realistic path to disarm Hamas or remove it from power at present.
The Issue of Jerusalem
Jerusalem is another major stumbling block. Both Israelis and Palestinians claim the city as their capital, and it is home to some of the most important religious sites in Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. The idea of dividing Jerusalem into two capitals, or placing it under international control, has been floated in the past but is politically and religiously untenable for both sides.
From Israel’s perspective, Jerusalem must remain undivided and under its control to protect access to Jewish holy sites. Meanwhile, Palestinians see East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. The emotional and religious significance of the city makes compromise nearly impossible. Any attempt to divide or share Jerusalem would likely lead to further violence and conflict, rather than a peaceful resolution.
The Refugee Issue and the Right of Return: No Historical Precedent
One of the most contentious aspects of the Israel/Palestinian conflict is the demand for the “right of return” by millions of Palestinians, descendants of those who fled or were expelled during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. They seek the right to return to their ancestral homes in what is now Israel, a demand that holds no historical precedent in international law. No other displaced group has ever been granted such a sweeping right, which, if implemented, would lead to the demographic destruction of Israel as a Jewish state.
Historically, population displacement has occurred repeatedly during conflicts, yet no similar “right of return” has been extended to any other refugee group. After World War II, millions of Germans were expelled from Eastern Europe and forced to resettle in Germany. They were never granted the right to return to their former homes in countries like Poland or Czechoslovakia. Similarly, the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947 displaced millions of Hindus and Muslims, but neither side has ever been afforded the “right of return.”
Even more relevant to the Middle East is the case of the Jews who were expelled or fled from Arab countries in the years following Israel’s establishment in 1948. Over 850,000 Jews were forced to leave countries such as Iraq, Egypt, Syria, and Yemen, where many had lived for centuries, often under precarious conditions. They lost their homes, businesses, and property, yet no UN resolutions called for their right of return. Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees, while Arab countries, with few exceptions, refused to resettle the Palestinian refugees, using them as political pawns instead. This hypocrisy remains glaringly absent from the global conversation about justice for displaced peoples in the region.
UN Bias and Setting a Dangerous Precedent
The UN’s intent in passing this resolution was to reverse the establishment of the Jewish state by creating a Palestinian majority within Israel. By pushing for the return of millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants, the UN aimed to shift the demographic balance, ultimately undermining Israel’s status as a Jewish state. What this really does is create a one-state solution with Palestinian Arabs taking control of Israel as their state, reducing Jews to a minority. This effort, rather than fostering peace, seeks to erase Israel’s Jewish character under the guise of addressing the refugee crisis, a move that disregards the rights of Jewish refugees and ignores the historical context of their displacement from Arab lands. The fact that the Palestinian refugee issue remains the only instance in which the UN has maintained a dedicated agency—UNRWA—exclusively for Palestinians, perpetuating their refugee status for generations, speaks to a broader bias within the international community.
The existence of UNRWA (the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees) has, in fact, worked to institutionalize the refugee status of Palestinians, in contrast to the global norm. While the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) is responsible for resettling refugees worldwide, helping them build new lives in other countries, UNRWA has kept Palestinians in a perpetual state of refugeehood. This has helped fuel the unrealistic expectation that the continually growing millions of descendants of the original refugees will someday return to Israel.
Moreover, the UN’s biased approach has set a dangerous precedent in international diplomacy. By applying the right of return only to Palestinian Arabs, the UN has created an expectation that this group is entitled to something no other refugee population has ever been granted. The Jewish refugees from Arab lands, who lost far more property and were similarly displaced, have no comparable right. Holocaust survivors have no similar right. This selective application of justice is not only unjust. It perpetuates the conflict by maintaining the illusion that a mass return of Palestinians is viable. At the same time, it would spell the end of Israel as a Jewish state which no Israeli government will allow. It guarantees conflict and war will continue indefinitely.
Conclusion: A One-Sided Narrative, The Impossibility of the Two-State Solution, and the Only Viable Path Forward
The demand for the right of return, which lacks historical precedent and has been applied only to Palestinians, is one of the primary reasons a two-state solution within the current boundaries is impossible. The Palestinian Arabs refuse to compromise on this very issue. Arafat walked away from an agreement in 2000 where he got everything he wanted, but one thing, the right of return. He rejected that offer with no counteroffer and started the 2nd Intifada (rebellion and terrorism). Peace initiatives have been dead ever since. And if they start again they will fail again because this limited territory is impossible to divide and be fair to anybody.
The political divisions between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, the impossibility of a compromise over Jerusalem, and the lack of a single cohesive Palestinian government capable of negotiating in good faith make the current concept of a two-state within current boundaries a totally unworkable solution.
The events of October 7th, 2023, which saw Hamas launch a devastating attack on Israel, resulting in the current war along with Iran’s meddling through their proxy, Hezbollah, shattered any remaining hope for the fantasy of a peaceful two-state solution within the boundaries of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. It is clear that peace cannot emerge from this fragmented and hostile environment.
Given these realities, I believe the only viable solution is for the UN and the international community to return to the original mandate maps and carve out an independent Palestinian state from Syrian and Jordanian territory. This would correct the mistakes of the past, when Britain and France arbitrarily divided the region to serve their imperial interests, leaving Palestinian Arabs without their promised state.
Again I cannot emphasize it enough, Israel is not responsible for the lack of a Palestinian state—Britain and the broader international community are. The Palestinian Arabs deserve justice and the state they were promised, but not at the expense of Israel.
By shifting the focus to creating a Palestinian state out of territory that was originally meant for Palestinian Arab governance under the British Mandate, we can achieve a more just and sustainable solution. Only by acknowledging and addressing the errors of history can the international community move beyond the failed two-state paradigm and work towards a future that provides security for both Israelis and Palestinian Arabs
Excellent analysis that I have never seen before. Keep up the good work.