Tahani Mustafa, a senior Palestine analyst at the International Crisis Group, said, “As long as there is an occupation, Palestinians will keep fighting…whether there is still a Hamas or there isn’t.”
This begs the question: Occupation of what territorial dimensions will the Palestinians keep fighting for?
Is the occupation any place Jews are sovereign in the Levant, as those who chant “From the river to the sea” say? Or is it anywhere a Jew lives over the Green Line (1949 Armistice Line, Green Line, or 1967 Line), including the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City and all of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria)? Or is it something in between?
In other words, is United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 still operative, where Israel was not supposed to return to the indefensible 1967 lines, or is UNSC 2334, the American policy that claims that any Jewish presence over the 1949 Armistice Line is a violation of international law, in effect, a war crime.? That was president Barack Obama’s parting gift to Israel, undermining longstanding US policy relying on 242 as a basis for the Oslo Accords. It should be obvious, but it needs to be pointed out that the UN does not nor ever should make American policy, and no future president is obligated to follow 2334.
Former president Donald Trump’s peace plan gave approximately 30% of the West Bank to Israel, taking Israeli security needs into consideration. Vice President Kamala Harris co-sponsored a bipartisan letter in 2017 criticizing UNSC 2334. “The resolution expressed grave objection [to] 2334, calling for it to be repealed or fundamentally altered so that it was no longer one-sided, demanding a two-state solution be resolved only between the parties.”
But where do they stand now? Would a Trump or Harris administration rely on 2334, 242, or neither?
Where do Donald Trump and Kamala Harris stand on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Both campaigns should state their future administration’s policy for the Middle East, including how they perceive the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the post-October 7 world. Previous administrations, except the Obama administration, chose ambiguity as their default position, calling for final territorial determinations to be negotiated between the two parties.
Would Harris and Trump support or chastise Israel’s presence in territories over the 1949 Armistice Line, including east Jerusalem?
Are Jews living in east Jerusalem or anywhere in the West Bank war criminals as president Obama’s UNSC 2334 implies, or do Israelis have legal rights and security imperatives that cannot be met if Israel withdraws from all of the disputed territories, knowing Iran is most likely to dominate a failed Palestinian state as they now do in Lebanon? Israel tried a 100% withdrawal of Gaza in 2005, and Hamas, with the support of its true believers, has answered clearly enough. For them, it’s not about territory Israel occupied in 1967; it’s about any Israeli sovereignty in the Levant, about having any Jews in the region who aren’t ruled by a fundamentalist Islamist dictatorship.
In an open debate about the two-state solution at the Council for Foreign Relations, Elliot Abrams quoted British author Salman Rushdie, who said, “If there were a Palestinian state now, it would be run by Hamas, and we would have a Taliban-like state, a satellite state of Iran.” The main goal of Palestinian nationalism has been negative, not positive. It has never been to build a Palestinian state. It has been about destroying the Jewish state...The creation of a Palestinian state today or tomorrow is a formula for increasing the conflict as Iran makes that state, as Rashie said, “its own satellite and a launching pad for attacks on Israel.”
Those in the international community and in the Democratic Party who demand a Palestinian state as part of the “day after” Gaza plan need to be asked to ask themselves for more than a vague, wishful vision of what this could mean. A February 2024 NBC News report said, “The Biden administration (was) drawing up options to enact the policy (to recognize a “Palestinian state formally”), just four months after the October 7 massacre.
If, as The New York Times says, Harris does “not stray from President Biden on (Middle East) policy (but strikes) a stronger tone on the plight of Palestinians,” would it be unfair to assume she would be more likely to recognize a Palestinian state during her term unilaterally? If Trump wins in November, Biden, as a parting gift to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, similar to what Obama did with 2334 during the lame duck period, could recognize a Palestinian state after the election but before Trump is sworn in.
In February at the Munich Security Conference, Harris said, “There cannot be, in my opinion, peace and security for that region, for the people of Israel, or the Palestinians and people of Gaza, without a two-state solution…we cannot give up on how we get there. It’s gonna matter.” How she defines Israel’s presence over the 1949 Armistice Line (1967 Line) will determine the American position on two states for two peoples and what consequences her administration will impose on Israel if they do not follow her policy.
During the campaign, Harris and Trump should be asked:
- Would they rule out unilaterally recognizing a Palestinian state?
- Do they believe Israel has legal rights to any territory over the 1967 line (Armistice Line)?
- Do they think Israel can defend itself if it withdraws to the 1967 line, knowing that Iran’s proxies, Hamas and PIJ, have infiltrated and already control large cities in the West Bank as part of their encirclement of the Jewish state and are looking to destabilize Jordan, an American ally?
- Are all Jews who live in east Jerusalem over the 1967 Line and live in the large settlement blocs like Efrat illegal colonialists?
Critics of Israel who support two states and believe that the primary problem is Israel’s “occupation” choose to play dumb and ignore the historical record of Israeli offers for a Palestinian state in less dangerous times, which were repeatedly rejected as US dollars continued to be used to reward the families of suicide bombers (Pay for Slay).
Do the campaigns envision two states, as stated in UNGA Res. 181, calling for a Jewish and an Arab state, or is it two Arab states, the preference of the Palestinian Authority leadership, who use the “two-state” term to mislead naïve Western audiences? This is important because the US-Israel relationship will continue to be strained as Israel is pressured into concessions in the “day after Gaza” based on an American, not a Palestinian, definition of two states.
The occupation is essential to precisely define because there are those like longtime Israel critic Tom Friedman of The New York Times who claim the occupation was a cause of October 7. “Hamas’s surprise attack on Israel on October 7 was triggered in part by reckless Israeli settlement expansions.” No occupation will ever justify rape as a weapon of war, cutting off women’s breasts or the beheading of babies, and ill-considered statements like Friedman’s are counterproductive at best.
So, is this conflict about an occupation of the West Bank or all of Israel? Harris and Trump each need to take a stand clearly and not depend on vagueness to muddle through the election.
To the Palestinian Authority, ending the occupation means creating two Arab states. As PA President Mahmoud Abbas told US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice in rejecting 100% of the West Bank, Gaza, and east Jerusalem as its capital – supposedly everything the Palestinians want – Abbas said, “I can’t tell four million Palestinian [descendants of refugees] that only five thousand of them can go home.” That means there is an unlimited right of return to demographically destroy Israel because the armed struggle has so far failed. In translation, this is not two states for two peoples but the end of Jews living in a free-world first-world society in the Levant.
The leading Palestinian pollster on June 24, 2024, found that 68% of Palestinians oppose “a Palestinian state alongside Israel”; in other words, it isn’t about the occupation. When asked “What is the best means of achieving Palestinian goals in ending the occupation and building an independent state?” 52% said “armed struggle,” which makes sense, since 73% of Palestinians still believe that Hamas’s decision to attack on October 7 was the “correct” one. To Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, Jews are the thieves of all the land, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.
Recently departed Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh was portrayed by mainstream media and the UN as a moderating voice. His words of reasonableness, “The Hamas movement will lead intifada after intifada until we liberate Palestine – all of Palestine, Allah willing. Allahu Akbar and praise Allah.” A NYT news article said, “Mr. Haniyeh was seen by regional analysts as a more moderate figure within the Islamist movement… willing to push for mediation [and] ceasefire talks with Israel.”
Hamas should be commended for its honesty, making it clear it wants every inch of Israel within the 1967 lines, “From the river to the sea.” If Israel returned the West Bank to PA control, within a very short time it would come under Hamas control, directly leading to the Lebanonization of the West Bank under Iranian influence, creating another failed state to encircle Israel.
I believe a pathway to Palestine’s independence is appropriate. But it is up to new Palestinian leaders to prove to Israelis and Americans they are committed to accepting a Jewish state, remain demilitarized, end the pervasive incitement in their education system to one that teaches acceptance of a Jewish Israel, and end the rewarding of terrorist actions with American taxpayer money.
So, what say you, former president Trump and Vice President Harris?
You should tell the American people where you stand and not wait to learn after the election if you value the US-Israel relationship for American security interests.■
The writer is the director of MEPIN, the Middle East Political Network, and has been briefing members of Congress and their foreign policy aides for over 25 years.