Israel/Palestine After the End of the End of History
Yitzhak Rabin declared, even after the Oslo Accords, that his intention was not to establish a Palestinian state, but rather an autonomy that is less than a state. Even today, this model is the most generous that Israel can offer. Israel must have supreme security control over the areas of the Palestinian Authority in order to stop terrorism and jihadism, while international norms state that a Palestinian state would have security control over its territory, which for Israel is an unthinkable poison pill, certainly after the October 7th events.
The feeling that leads so many in Israel and around the world to not be satisfied with the autonomy that the late Rabin proposed is that the idea of "occupying another nation" is intolerable to them. It contradicts their sense that the end of history has arrived. If a Chabad follower tells you that the Messiah has arrived in the form of his deceased Rabbi, you would think he is completely delusional. But people with a liberal-humanist worldview constantly say that the Messiah has essentially arrived, and no one looks at them like they are delusional, but rather as having the sensible and reasonable opinion, today's bon ton. They see the Messiah in our time in their true belief that after countless generations of wars, oppression, massacres and hellfire, we are in a rules-based world order, where the international community prevents violence, determines agreed upon borders for states, curbs oppression of minorities and acts of genocide. And woe to those who deviate from this order.
Indeed, in the period after the collapse of the Communist bloc, it seemed that the end had actually come to the bloodshed and chaos, what Fukuyama called the "end of history". This is the period when it seemed logical to Rabin to bring Arafat from Tunis to head the Palestinian Authority, but even then Rabin understood that it was too dangerous to give this entity the definition of a state.
However, it seems that the end of the end of history has arrived. The end of history was dictated by the supremacy of American liberal democracy, and the loyalty of the US and Europe to liberal values. Things have changed since then. First, the US is no longer supreme. China has a military no less powerful than the American one, and is also building a huge nuclear arsenal. It is not certain that the US will be able to defend Taiwan against China, and the fall of the island could open an era of a new cold war, and perhaps even a hot war.
Russia invaded Ukraine, thereby defying the sanctity of international borders. Although Ukraine fought back impressively and using the advantages of Western weaponry, it cannot recapture its cities that fell into Russian hands, and will likely have to come to terms with part of its territory being torn away from it by force. While the 2014 annexation of Crimea somehow flew under humanity's radar, the attack on Ukraine is the most brutal violation of the world order imaginable. It was done by one nuclear superpower and was backed by the Chinese superpower. This essentially completely undermines the logic of a Palestinian state. If signing border agreements means little to powerful nations, what would Israel gain from signing one with the Palestinians, even if it were possible?
The indifference of the Chinese-Russian axis to basic international humanitarian norms and international borders was also reflected in their favorable attitude towards Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7 and their indifference to the Houthi rampage in Yemen. China and Russia, fortunately for us, are not in a position where they set the main tone in our region, but without them Iran would have difficulty providing tailwind to terror.
We are left with the United States. But the United States is divided between two parties. The Republican Party led by Donald Trump also treats the international order with disdain. This is why Trump supported the annexation of the Golan, but also the reason why he might pressure Ukraine to accept a surrender agreement with Russia. Even if Trump is a unique extreme figure, other more classic Republican figures like Nikki Haley or Ron DeSantis are no longer of the George W. Bush type, and certainly not George H.W. Bush. They will support Israel in any situation against Muslim barbarism, regardless of the imaginary rules of the international community.
In the Democratic Party there is a progressive wing that is growing stronger, certainly among young voters, and it too has little interest in international norms, but for the opposite reason of the Republicans. It will always support the struggle of non-white people against white people. The nuances and specific circumstances do not move it too much. In a war that began with a jihadist attack of torture, murder and rape of secular youths celebrating a music festival, the darker-skinned side is still the one that will win its natural sympathetic sentiments. Such a view does not give Israel any incentive to allow a Palestinian state. The diplomatic credit that Israel will receive for flexibility is meaningless compared to the moral credit that Israel will never receive due to the overly light skin color of a large part of its residents. In 2005, anyone who said that there was little value to international credit for the disengagement plan, because many Israelis have light pigments, would have seemed crazy. In 2023, this is a reality in certain circles in the West.
In Europe, it seems that the backlash to mass immigration from the third world has reached a peak, and in parts of the continent forces that despise Islamic movements with all their might will rule. How important is a Palestinian state to a continent whose leaders include figures like Viktor Orban, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders, and among whose ruling parties are movements like the Sweden Democrats and perhaps in the future also Marine Le Pen's party in France and Alternative for Germany? Not important at all. Especially when the prevailing rule in the European Union is that important decisions are made only by consensus. The possibility that Europe will express its displeasure with Israel's rule over the Palestinians through painful sanctions does not seem realistic at this stage. Certainly such a concern is not a consideration against the enormous security risks involved in a Palestinian state. Moreover, the Russian threat and the Chinese-Russian-Iranian axis will force Europe into close security cooperation with Israel. After all, the "David's Sling" was sold to Finland, and the Arrow system to Germany. Certainly security interest is at the forefront of the continent's concerns at a time when the Trumpist right in the US scorns its commitment to NATO.
And yet, it cannot be denied that the four forces we have listed - the Chinese-Russian axis, the Republicans, the progressives and the European Union - are not everything. There is a fifth force, which in these days still sets the tone in the world. This is the mainstream wing of the Democratic Party in the US. The two-state vision is a real obsession for it.
Therefore, a wise Israeli leader will always know how to walk between the drops, take a step forward or backward as needed, set conditions that the Palestinians have no chance of accepting, but will sound good to the ears of the normative reader of the New York Times. Certainly, acts of madness and Bibistic narcisism like the judicial reform that will leave the impression that Israel no longer functions as a liberal democracy in its internal relations should not be considered.
On the horizon there are enormous risks to global stability, including a global nuclear arms race due to the US losing its commitment to stop Iran; an acute crisis in the oil countries because of the electric car and the transition to green energy (Bloomberg recently devoted a huge article to how the electric car is taking over China, not for climate reasons but because it is cool and worthwhile); population growth concentrated in the third world; mass immigration to the West and the sharp backlash to it; polarization in the United States to the point of a constitutional crisis, and first and foremost the continued territorial expansion of the Chinese-Russian-Iranian axis.
None of these risks will be blunted by the establishment of a Palestinian state, and on the other hand there is a risk, perhaps almost certainty, that such a state will be a playground for Iran and its axis. Israel's only rational strategy is to insist that death, that is, terrorist and jihadist organizations, shall not have a state.