Why are Palestinians being reoffered what they have time and again rejected?
By Peter Bailey
The leading question in answer to the European intent to recognise a mythical State of Palestine is the location of the undeclared borders of a Palestinian State, and who gets to define those borders.
The idiom “be careful what you wish for” is an earnest warning to consider the law of unintended consequences, before making impulsive utterances that could have results totally opposite to the desired outcome.
French President Macron and many of his European partners assert that they will recognize the State of Palestine in September. Such recognition could well fall victim to the aforesaid law of unintended consequences. The whimsical recognition of a state without defined borders by the Europeans, offers far less than the recognition and borders offered by Israeli prime ministers Ehud Barak in 2000, and Ehud Olmert in 2008, both of which were spurned by the Palestinian leadership.
Our friends in Europe should not forget that Fatah, with Yasser Arafat as one of its founders, was established in 1957, 10 years before Israel captured the West Bank during the Six Day War of 1967. The PLO, currently in control of the Palestinian Authority, and the potential rulers of an independent State of Palestine, was founded by the same Arafat in 1964, also before the Six Day War. Both Fatah and the PLO were not interested in a Palestinian state in the West Bank, but in the destruction of the State of Israel. While Hamas was established much later, in 1987, one of its objectives was the dismantling of the State of Israel, and replacing it with an Islamic Brotherhood state ruled by Sharia Law. Nothing to do with the West Bank or Gaza, which are merely stepping stones in its quest for the end of the Jewish homeland, Israel, the realisation of the Zionist dream.
Between 11 and 25 July 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak met with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and U.S. President Bill Clinton at Camp David, in an effort to end the ongoing Israel-Palestine dispute. While reports differ as to the precise final offer on the table, there can be no doubt that this was a serious and significant offer of peace by an Israeli Prime Minister and for the establishment of an independent Palestinian State within a very large part of the West Bank. Barak recalls that Arafat never negotiated, but continually said “NO” to every offer or concession. Barak and Arafat met again in December 2000 and January 2001, in a last-ditch attempt at peace again chaired by President Bill Clinton. This was shortly before Israel’s election on 6 February 2021, with Barak dependent on a peace agreement to have any chance of re-election.
The Jewish Virtual Library presents a long article on the December 2000/January 2001 meeting, featuring a portion of President Bill Clinton’s autobiography, “My Life”, published in 2005. In the excerpt from Clinton’s book that follows, he is scathing of Arafat’s refusal to accept a peace deal saying “Arafat’s rejection of my proposal after Barak accepted it was an error of historic proportions. However, many Palestinians and Israelis are still committed to peace. Someday peace will come, and when it does, the final agreement will look a lot like the proposals that came out of Camp David and the six long months that followed.”
The full article can be viewed at:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/president-clinton-reflects-on-2000-camp-david-summit
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas in Jerusalem in September 2008 to discuss peace and the establishment of a Palestinian State. Olmert recalls that he presented a plan which included withdrawal from almost 95% of the West Bank, while Israel would retain 6.3% of the territory in order to keep control of major Jewish settlement blocs. He further offered to exchange about 5.8% of Israeli land in return for the settlement blocs. The offer also included a land bridge connecting the West Bank with Gaza. During a 2015 interview on Israel TV Channel 10, Abbas is reported to have said of his reaction to Olmert’s offer “I did not agree, I rejected it out of hand.”
The European leaders who seem obsessed with a State of Palestine within undefined borders, but presumably within the area Jordan named as the West Bank after Israel’s 1948 War of Independence, seem unfazed by the Palestinian rejection of all and any offers for a State of Palestine within the West Bank and Gaza. The rejection of the principle of ‘Two States’ as a solution to the problem was made obvious 78 years ago, when the League of Arab States, speaking on behalf of the Palestinian Arabs, refused to accept the 1947 United Nations partition Vote, which the Jewish authorities did accept, albeit with great reluctance. The Arab League chose instead to wage war on the nascent State of Israel immediately after its Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948. It should be clearly understood that the war was for control of the area now popularly defined by pro-Palestinian activists as the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean coast. There can be no doubt that Israel ended up with far more territory after the 1948 war than it would have had, were the Arabs to have accepted the partition plan.
Following the 1948 war with the nascent State of Israel, Jordan illegally occupied, and then on 24 April 1950, illegally annexed the territory, naming it the West Bank (of Jordan), to distinguish it from rump Jordan, east of the Jordan River. The illegal annexation by Jordan was only ever recognised by Great Britain and Pakistan, and ended with Israel occupying the entire West Bank during the 1967 Six Day War. Between 1918 and 1948, the sovereign power had been Great Britain in terms of its Mandate over Palestine. Britain’s relinquishment of its Mandate in 1948, left no sovereign power in control of the region, hence Jordan’s vain and illegal attempt at annexation. Then, with Jordan’s King Hussein on 31 July 1988 renouncing all claims to control of the West Bank, it effectively ended Jordan’s illegal occupation of the territory since the Armistice Agreement signed with Israel on 23 March 1949. This effectively reversed Jordanian occupation, bringing the entire former Mandate of Palestine territory west of the Jordan River under Israeli control. This would have been the de jure situation after Britain’s withdrawal from Palestine, followed by Israel’s Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948, had the Arabs not attacked Israel.
Then, as has happened so often with Israel’s wars since 1948, the Western European nations, the Soviet Union and the United States brought intense pressure to bear on Israel for a cease fire and an end to the war. Prime Minister Ben Gurion steadfastly refused to recognise the Jordanian occupation or annexation of the West Bank. Israel has never referred to the Armistice Line with Jordan – dubbed the Green Line – as an actual border. This approach remains an unchanging factor of Israeli policy with regard to the West Bank, which Israel regards as Judea and Samaria, including the Jordan Valley. Notwithstanding this, numerous offers with differing minutiae have been made for the establishment of a Palestinian State, all of which have been spurned by the Palestinian leadership.
The calls for the recognition of a State of Palestine in the wake of the 7 October 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas, is incomprehensible, as it will result in all of Israel being subject to threat by a Hamas type insurgency sometime in the future. There can be little doubt that the calls for the recognition of a Palestinian State within the non-existent pre-1967 so called borders, is a response to the global mass hysteria calling for “Palestine to be free, from the river to the sea”, effectively negating the existence of the State of Israel. European recognition of the State of Palestine is thus nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to populist calls for an end to the State of Israel, in the vain belief that this will satisfy the pro-Hamas constituency in their own countries. European leaders need to internalise that Arafat in 2000, and Abbas in 2008, refused very generous offers to accept a Palestinian State in the West Bank, simply because they wanted all of Israel, not just the West Bank, and that remains the case today.
The migration of Muslim Arabs to Europe has changed the population demographics and created political realities far removed from traditional European politics. The modern-day anti-Israel fanatics across the world, who have been activated by Hamas, the PLO, Iran, Qatar and others, to call for a State of Palestine between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea will not be satisfied with a State of Palestine in the West Bank. They want it all with no Israel. European leaders beware; the route you are choosing is littered with obstacles and pitfalls beyond your worst nightmares. European meddling in the borders of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Israel over the last 100 years, have brought bedlam, mayhem and war to the region. Ignoring the lessons of history, the current crop of European leaders are rushing in where angels fear to tread. They must face one reality, the Palestinian leaders do not want a state within the West Bank, they’ve said so often enough, so start believing them.
About the writer:
The writer, Peter Bailey, a military history buff, was a Major in the South African Army Reserve before making aliyah in 2013. He is the author of two books: Street Names in Israel; and Men of Valor: Israel’s Latter Day Heroes.
While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves. LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).