"We should be wary of casually stating that Arab states should house Gazans. In a difficult region many of these countries have already put themselves under enormous strain through acts of immense generosity, and none more so than Jordan."
Jordan is still a fairly poor, definitely resource poor, and not especially populous country. At independence, its population was only about half a million - a smaller number than the c. 700,000 Palestinians who fled or were expelled from the territory that is now Israel in 1948. Even today, its population is only eleven million, compared to two million Palestinians in Gaza. As your article suggests, it stands to reason that any attempt to accommodate even a fraction of the refugees of the current conflict would be severely destabilising for the Hashemite Kingdom.
However, the Arab world stretches from the Atlantic to the Persian Gulf. Egypt has a population of more than a hundred million people; it could accommodate a substantial number of refugees without experiencing a transformative demographic impact. Egypt, moreover, actually borders Gaza and controls its southern exit; it could surely permit a controlled flow of refugees through Rafah. President Sisi is reportedly anxious that the Israelis are making "an attempt to push the civilian inhabitants to ... migrate to Egypt", and Egyptian compliance in any such process would of course look terrible on the Arab street; but Egypt could make it clear that refugees will be given temporary permission to stay, for the duration of the war and its immediate aftermath only - basically until Gaza can be rebuilt.
But Egypt is still poor and under strain. The really culpable nations are the wealthy Gulf states. Saudi Arabia has a population of 35 million, lots of space, and vast oil wealth: its nominal GDP per capita is (according to the IMF) comparable to that of Spain, South Korea and Japan; adjusted for PPP, it's richer per person than Germany or Australia. It, and the smaller but even wealthier UAE, could accommodate a significant number of refugees with relative ease. And unlike in Europe, Palestinian refugees in the Gulf would share a language, creed and culture with their hosts.
As for a lasting resolution to this problem, a one-state solution is absurd; a two-state solution increasingly impractical. A Palestine consisting of two non-contiguous territorial entities was a puzzling idea anyway, even before extremists took over Gaza. And the idea of large-scale ethnic cleansing is both immoral and likely to trigger a massive regional conflict. For want of alternatives, I'm forced to embrace the idea of a three-state solution: a return to something like the situation before 1967. Gaza's prospects as the northernmost city in Egypt might not be sparkling, but they would be way better than they are now. The West Bank could be amalgamated with Jordan, although, given the demographic issues you outlined in your original article, this would probably would best as a kind of bi-national federation, with two separate regional parliaments. So it would almost in fact be a four-state solution. Its advantages would be considerable; nobody would need to flee their homes; the Occupation would end; the Arab population of the Holy Land would become citizens of viable states; and Israel would border the two Arab nations with which it has brokered a lasting peace.
One (of many things) that would also need to be resolved for a three/four state solution or absorption by the wider and Arab world is the right of return. As long as this remains a totemic part of Palestinian demands then there will be no resolution (beyond total Israeli military defeat).
Well I can't see France wanting any more. We're back on the highest state of alert already here, with a murdered teacher and travel chaos with bomb threats.
I'm travelling by train tomorrow and noticing that the possibility of an 'incident' is present in my mind. That we're in for a troubled winter here seems guaranteed, with thousands of troops back on the streets & transport hubs.
I started the article assuming that all Arab states had a cynical interest in keeping Gaza as Israel's problem and finished it very much liking the sound of the Jordanian royal family and sympathizing with them.
This is something that I think has become clearer to me over the last week - there are a number of people who would rather Palestinians remained an Israeli "problem" and are more useful to them as an avatar of suffering. It's even more cynical that I had imagined.
I see no benefit to Britain of taking Palestinian refugees -taking people from the Muslim world hasn't worked too well already and because of the Balfour Declaration etc they would have little reason to have much love for Britain. Might Europe funding decent refugee camps until Gaza can be rebuilt be better for all concerned?
Excellent explanation. I do sometimes wonder whether the (only?) solution would be to give the West Bank back to Jordan and Gaza Strip to Egypt (rather than exporting the inhabitants but not the territories). No doubt there’s an intractable obstacle to this, as there seems to be to every other way out of the nightmare...
something reverting to the 1948 borders, with a Palestinian state in the West Bank, seems like the only solution which will be acceptable to large enough % on both side, but there are obviously huge obstacles, namely what to do with the old city of Jerusalem and Gaza, not to mention Israel's vulnerability in not controlling the higher land. Whether a Palestinian state would tolerate Israelis retaining military outposts for a certain period of time seems unlikely.
Wouldn’t 1948 borders imply the West Bank was part of Jordan? I’m going on the assumption that any independent Palestinian state is now a non-starter, given the current attitudes on both sides and the direction of attitudinal travel. My naïve assumption that the West Bank would be less turbulent as part of Jordan (and Gaza Strip as part of Egypt) has taken a knocking after reading your piece here, but it still maybe seems to lie a little bit more in the realm of the possible, long-term. At any rate I don’t see Israel countenancing a state called Palestine occupying the high ground and being led by the likely contenders, and I don’t see enough Palestinians countenancing a state called Israel, full stop...
Ideally the Jordanians would play a role there. The higher ground is an issue.
I'm not sure that Palestinians overall are entirely opposed to a two-state solution. I've seen a few polls suggesting support but I'm not sure how accurate they are.
As I said in my last piece, though, I just dont see it happening in my lifetime. it's really not like Northern Ireland.
Ed, Noah Smith in his Substack cites polls showing that a majority of Palestinians oppose a two-state solution and support a one-state solution ethnically cleansed of Jews. This is what “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free!” means.
The truth is that the Palestinians have never wanted a two-state solution. This most recent Hamas pogrom has confirmed what I came to understand after the Second Intifada: the goal and aspiration of the Palestinians, and not just Hamas, is the destruction of the Jewish state and the genocide of the Jewish people. They want to complete Hitler’s work.
Geopolitically there is simply no room for two viable states between the Jordan and the sea. Israel will never allow a truly sovereign Palestinian state to emerge because the threat to its security and survival -- including the probability that such a state would be taken over by Hamas or some other eliminationist group -- would be too great a risk. An existential risk, which in the wake of the Holocaust, no Israeli government will be willing to take.
The hard, tragic, reality is that you can have Israel, or you can have Palestine, but you can’t have both. Geopolitics and the tribal realities of human nature are a bitch.
I don't believe we'll see a two-state solution. if one were to be achieved, it would realistically be imposed without any democratic involvement by a more liberal (or at least, realistic) elite with the hope that normalisation and growing GDP per capita might reduce the resentment and the Palestinians will become as deracinated and decadent as we are (which is Smith's hope). I can't see that happening, but I wouldn't 100% bet against it. An independent Palestine that was safe would have enormous tourism potential, as a basic starter.
When I see politicians like Yanis Varoufakis argue for a one-state solution I simply discount everything they have ever said, ever, because it is quite simply the stupidest idea in the world.
Not just Yanis and his internationalist chums - Crispin Blunt always banged on about a one-state solution as chair of the Foreign Affairs select committee whenever asked by Radio 4 when Gaza flared up. He would always say "now is the time to face facts that a one-state solution is the only solution" when "now" was always very much the wrong time to be discussing it.
The recent editorial by Perry Anderson in the New Left Review is full of interesting insights but most interstingly it hints at the fear many in Israel have of the prospect of Palestinians asking for a one state solution with full civic rights. Extremely unlikely as it may be, it.would overturn all the old assumptions.
"Olmert was expressing the fear that Palestinians might move ‘from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one, from a struggle against “occupation” in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man one-vote. That is of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle—and ultimately a much more powerful one.’ "
I have a sneaking suspicion that if Palestinians were to agree to a two-state solution it would be oh, maybe a week before either a Palestinian or a journalist at the NYT or the Guardian claimed the Palestinians should really have the whole of Israel and a new intifada begins. After all, when Palestine was carved up the Jews ended up with only about 10% of the land, of which part was the Negev Desert. If Palestinians believe that even that measly bit of land was too much then this is probably not a question of how much land the Jews have but that they have any at all.
Trouble is, there’s a big gap between “not entirely opposed” and “squarely behind,” and you’d definitely need the latter, at minimum, for it to work. I mean, ideally you’d want “guaranteed not to elect an organisation committed to wiping Israel of the map to form a government,” which, as you say... not in our lifetimes... (and that’s before we even get into demographic trends in Israel tending towards long-term hardlinism).
Ed, if I were you, I'd watch the Triggernometry interview with Bari Weiss. The 2-state solution is dead. The "get these people out of here ASAP" solution is gaining traction.
You can also look at it the other way around with regard to Palestinian integration; places like Syria and Lebanon keep them separate and as refugees so they can use them as a cover for their own internal issues; "We could sort the country out and become a democracy, but the Zionists have caused us to have these refugees..."
"Is there a more back-stabbing and untrustworthy organisation in the world than the British Foreign Office? Answers on a postcode."
Same thing happened in Libya in 1969.
There were 500 British troops and airmen stationed there to protect the King. Gaddafi's few dozen mutineers came for the King. Our men were told to wait and see what happened.
Ed, doesn't the fact that the surrounding countries have already taken in such vast numbers actually show they could take more?
I see the appeals for a two-state solution but history and the facts on the ground mitigate against this. It would be easier (despite the complex issues you highlight) than pretending that the last 70 years have shown any progress - I don't see there would be any historical borders that the Israelis could ever feel would provide them security and a future Palestinian state would then be able to do more damage than the immiserated and scattered nation at present.
I'm not suggesting that this would be a just solution - but surely better than the status quo or what anyone can imagine is on the horizon. And it's not as if there isn't vast space, resources and theoretical support for the Palestinian cause across the Arab world. Any call for the Israelis to just pack up and leave as an alternative is clearly a non-starter.
I appreciate that this look as if I am hoping to wave a magic wand to scatter a people hundreds of miles away who have a deep attachment to a specific plot of land and call that a solution - but apart from empty slogans ("From The River To The Sea" and Two-State/One State solutions) what is actually being offered as a concrete solution?
Even if we were prepared to countenance that, and I personally couldn't, it could well lead to unrest in neighbouring countries and the replacement of friendly or semi-friendly regimes by very hostile ones.
People aren’t pawns that can be moved around. Palestinian terrorists are fighting for the right to live on the lands they formerly owned before being pushed out of what is now Israel. There is no humanitarian solution.
Not sure that's completely true. We have serious shortages of doctors in the Canadian healthcare systems. I think the same applies in the US (and the UK). A number of healthcare professionals right now in Gaza are dealing with extremely dangerous and challenging situations. They would find working in our system to be a cakewalk by comparison.
I would also suggest that there's still a significant talented pool of people there who would be grateful to be placed in a country where they could live and work in peace. They are not all Islamic radicals. Drain this swamp and help these people live decent lives.
I don't think it's fair to assume that all Palestinians are Hamas or that they are all committed to killing Jews. Many of them are innocent civilians caught in a brutal conflict and do not deserve to be experiencing collective punishment. Also the case that if you get them out of this toxic region, it might make it less a source of regional instability. We in the west have helped to create this problem. It's incumbent to show some leadership to help alleviate it, rather than just unfairly dumping the problem on Egypt or Jordan for all of the excellent reasons that Ed highlights.
Because nobody in the Arab world really cares about the Gazans. It’s all about the Jewish enemy. Always has been.
They do care about the Gazans, in the sense that they don't want them in their countries. Any of them.
"We should be wary of casually stating that Arab states should house Gazans. In a difficult region many of these countries have already put themselves under enormous strain through acts of immense generosity, and none more so than Jordan."
Jordan is still a fairly poor, definitely resource poor, and not especially populous country. At independence, its population was only about half a million - a smaller number than the c. 700,000 Palestinians who fled or were expelled from the territory that is now Israel in 1948. Even today, its population is only eleven million, compared to two million Palestinians in Gaza. As your article suggests, it stands to reason that any attempt to accommodate even a fraction of the refugees of the current conflict would be severely destabilising for the Hashemite Kingdom.
However, the Arab world stretches from the Atlantic to the Persian Gulf. Egypt has a population of more than a hundred million people; it could accommodate a substantial number of refugees without experiencing a transformative demographic impact. Egypt, moreover, actually borders Gaza and controls its southern exit; it could surely permit a controlled flow of refugees through Rafah. President Sisi is reportedly anxious that the Israelis are making "an attempt to push the civilian inhabitants to ... migrate to Egypt", and Egyptian compliance in any such process would of course look terrible on the Arab street; but Egypt could make it clear that refugees will be given temporary permission to stay, for the duration of the war and its immediate aftermath only - basically until Gaza can be rebuilt.
But Egypt is still poor and under strain. The really culpable nations are the wealthy Gulf states. Saudi Arabia has a population of 35 million, lots of space, and vast oil wealth: its nominal GDP per capita is (according to the IMF) comparable to that of Spain, South Korea and Japan; adjusted for PPP, it's richer per person than Germany or Australia. It, and the smaller but even wealthier UAE, could accommodate a significant number of refugees with relative ease. And unlike in Europe, Palestinian refugees in the Gulf would share a language, creed and culture with their hosts.
As for a lasting resolution to this problem, a one-state solution is absurd; a two-state solution increasingly impractical. A Palestine consisting of two non-contiguous territorial entities was a puzzling idea anyway, even before extremists took over Gaza. And the idea of large-scale ethnic cleansing is both immoral and likely to trigger a massive regional conflict. For want of alternatives, I'm forced to embrace the idea of a three-state solution: a return to something like the situation before 1967. Gaza's prospects as the northernmost city in Egypt might not be sparkling, but they would be way better than they are now. The West Bank could be amalgamated with Jordan, although, given the demographic issues you outlined in your original article, this would probably would best as a kind of bi-national federation, with two separate regional parliaments. So it would almost in fact be a four-state solution. Its advantages would be considerable; nobody would need to flee their homes; the Occupation would end; the Arab population of the Holy Land would become citizens of viable states; and Israel would border the two Arab nations with which it has brokered a lasting peace.
The last thing Sisi wants is another militant Muslim Brotherhood offshoot.
Attempting to cross from Gaza to Egypt atm will get you shot.
One (of many things) that would also need to be resolved for a three/four state solution or absorption by the wider and Arab world is the right of return. As long as this remains a totemic part of Palestinian demands then there will be no resolution (beyond total Israeli military defeat).
Well I can't see France wanting any more. We're back on the highest state of alert already here, with a murdered teacher and travel chaos with bomb threats.
yeah France seems extremely jumpy right now. makes me worried.
I'm travelling by train tomorrow and noticing that the possibility of an 'incident' is present in my mind. That we're in for a troubled winter here seems guaranteed, with thousands of troops back on the streets & transport hubs.
I started the article assuming that all Arab states had a cynical interest in keeping Gaza as Israel's problem and finished it very much liking the sound of the Jordanian royal family and sympathizing with them.
Answers on a 'postcard'.
I would rather be ruled by a Hashemite than by any member of our ruling class.
This is something that I think has become clearer to me over the last week - there are a number of people who would rather Palestinians remained an Israeli "problem" and are more useful to them as an avatar of suffering. It's even more cynical that I had imagined.
I see no benefit to Britain of taking Palestinian refugees -taking people from the Muslim world hasn't worked too well already and because of the Balfour Declaration etc they would have little reason to have much love for Britain. Might Europe funding decent refugee camps until Gaza can be rebuilt be better for all concerned?
The mention of black gold gives me an idea. Why not ship them all to Qatar?
Well they are generously hosting quite a few Palestinians already - namely the Hamas leadership.
No point having a leadership without a few million to lead?
Chance for me to say that my Dad delivered post to King Hussein of Jordan at Harrow, again.
(I believe his servant answered, and said, “thank you, my man”).
nice!
Excellent explanation. I do sometimes wonder whether the (only?) solution would be to give the West Bank back to Jordan and Gaza Strip to Egypt (rather than exporting the inhabitants but not the territories). No doubt there’s an intractable obstacle to this, as there seems to be to every other way out of the nightmare...
something reverting to the 1948 borders, with a Palestinian state in the West Bank, seems like the only solution which will be acceptable to large enough % on both side, but there are obviously huge obstacles, namely what to do with the old city of Jerusalem and Gaza, not to mention Israel's vulnerability in not controlling the higher land. Whether a Palestinian state would tolerate Israelis retaining military outposts for a certain period of time seems unlikely.
Wouldn’t 1948 borders imply the West Bank was part of Jordan? I’m going on the assumption that any independent Palestinian state is now a non-starter, given the current attitudes on both sides and the direction of attitudinal travel. My naïve assumption that the West Bank would be less turbulent as part of Jordan (and Gaza Strip as part of Egypt) has taken a knocking after reading your piece here, but it still maybe seems to lie a little bit more in the realm of the possible, long-term. At any rate I don’t see Israel countenancing a state called Palestine occupying the high ground and being led by the likely contenders, and I don’t see enough Palestinians countenancing a state called Israel, full stop...
Ideally the Jordanians would play a role there. The higher ground is an issue.
I'm not sure that Palestinians overall are entirely opposed to a two-state solution. I've seen a few polls suggesting support but I'm not sure how accurate they are.
As I said in my last piece, though, I just dont see it happening in my lifetime. it's really not like Northern Ireland.
Ed, Noah Smith in his Substack cites polls showing that a majority of Palestinians oppose a two-state solution and support a one-state solution ethnically cleansed of Jews. This is what “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free!” means.
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/a-three-state-solution-is-the-only
The truth is that the Palestinians have never wanted a two-state solution. This most recent Hamas pogrom has confirmed what I came to understand after the Second Intifada: the goal and aspiration of the Palestinians, and not just Hamas, is the destruction of the Jewish state and the genocide of the Jewish people. They want to complete Hitler’s work.
Geopolitically there is simply no room for two viable states between the Jordan and the sea. Israel will never allow a truly sovereign Palestinian state to emerge because the threat to its security and survival -- including the probability that such a state would be taken over by Hamas or some other eliminationist group -- would be too great a risk. An existential risk, which in the wake of the Holocaust, no Israeli government will be willing to take.
The hard, tragic, reality is that you can have Israel, or you can have Palestine, but you can’t have both. Geopolitics and the tribal realities of human nature are a bitch.
I don't believe we'll see a two-state solution. if one were to be achieved, it would realistically be imposed without any democratic involvement by a more liberal (or at least, realistic) elite with the hope that normalisation and growing GDP per capita might reduce the resentment and the Palestinians will become as deracinated and decadent as we are (which is Smith's hope). I can't see that happening, but I wouldn't 100% bet against it. An independent Palestine that was safe would have enormous tourism potential, as a basic starter.
When I see politicians like Yanis Varoufakis argue for a one-state solution I simply discount everything they have ever said, ever, because it is quite simply the stupidest idea in the world.
Not just Yanis and his internationalist chums - Crispin Blunt always banged on about a one-state solution as chair of the Foreign Affairs select committee whenever asked by Radio 4 when Gaza flared up. He would always say "now is the time to face facts that a one-state solution is the only solution" when "now" was always very much the wrong time to be discussing it.
Anyone hear Varoufakis's latest interview with UnHerd promoting his new book? It was absolute gibberish. I came away a good few IQ points lower
The recent editorial by Perry Anderson in the New Left Review is full of interesting insights but most interstingly it hints at the fear many in Israel have of the prospect of Palestinians asking for a one state solution with full civic rights. Extremely unlikely as it may be, it.would overturn all the old assumptions.
https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii96/articles/perry-anderson-the-house-of-zion
He quotes Ehud Olmert:
"Olmert was expressing the fear that Palestinians might move ‘from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one, from a struggle against “occupation” in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man one-vote. That is of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle—and ultimately a much more powerful one.’ "
It's worth a read.
I have a sneaking suspicion that if Palestinians were to agree to a two-state solution it would be oh, maybe a week before either a Palestinian or a journalist at the NYT or the Guardian claimed the Palestinians should really have the whole of Israel and a new intifada begins. After all, when Palestine was carved up the Jews ended up with only about 10% of the land, of which part was the Negev Desert. If Palestinians believe that even that measly bit of land was too much then this is probably not a question of how much land the Jews have but that they have any at all.
Trouble is, there’s a big gap between “not entirely opposed” and “squarely behind,” and you’d definitely need the latter, at minimum, for it to work. I mean, ideally you’d want “guaranteed not to elect an organisation committed to wiping Israel of the map to form a government,” which, as you say... not in our lifetimes... (and that’s before we even get into demographic trends in Israel tending towards long-term hardlinism).
Ed, if I were you, I'd watch the Triggernometry interview with Bari Weiss. The 2-state solution is dead. The "get these people out of here ASAP" solution is gaining traction.
You can also look at it the other way around with regard to Palestinian integration; places like Syria and Lebanon keep them separate and as refugees so they can use them as a cover for their own internal issues; "We could sort the country out and become a democracy, but the Zionists have caused us to have these refugees..."
in the case of Syria this Is certainly true.
"Is there a more back-stabbing and untrustworthy organisation in the world than the British Foreign Office? Answers on a postcode."
Same thing happened in Libya in 1969.
There were 500 British troops and airmen stationed there to protect the King. Gaddafi's few dozen mutineers came for the King. Our men were told to wait and see what happened.
OPEC happened.
Ed, doesn't the fact that the surrounding countries have already taken in such vast numbers actually show they could take more?
I see the appeals for a two-state solution but history and the facts on the ground mitigate against this. It would be easier (despite the complex issues you highlight) than pretending that the last 70 years have shown any progress - I don't see there would be any historical borders that the Israelis could ever feel would provide them security and a future Palestinian state would then be able to do more damage than the immiserated and scattered nation at present.
I'm not suggesting that this would be a just solution - but surely better than the status quo or what anyone can imagine is on the horizon. And it's not as if there isn't vast space, resources and theoretical support for the Palestinian cause across the Arab world. Any call for the Israelis to just pack up and leave as an alternative is clearly a non-starter.
I appreciate that this look as if I am hoping to wave a magic wand to scatter a people hundreds of miles away who have a deep attachment to a specific plot of land and call that a solution - but apart from empty slogans ("From The River To The Sea" and Two-State/One State solutions) what is actually being offered as a concrete solution?
Even if we were prepared to countenance that, and I personally couldn't, it could well lead to unrest in neighbouring countries and the replacement of friendly or semi-friendly regimes by very hostile ones.
Was the hospital explosion largely a Hamas fabrication plus a rocket launch by Hamas or one of its agents? Thoughts on the below, please?
https://twitter.com/AGHamilton29/status/1714561416298914276
👍🏼
Anyone know if Justin Shitby wailed over the sanctity of life two Sundays ago.
People aren’t pawns that can be moved around. Palestinian terrorists are fighting for the right to live on the lands they formerly owned before being pushed out of what is now Israel. There is no humanitarian solution.
Not sure that's completely true. We have serious shortages of doctors in the Canadian healthcare systems. I think the same applies in the US (and the UK). A number of healthcare professionals right now in Gaza are dealing with extremely dangerous and challenging situations. They would find working in our system to be a cakewalk by comparison.
I would also suggest that there's still a significant talented pool of people there who would be grateful to be placed in a country where they could live and work in peace. They are not all Islamic radicals. Drain this swamp and help these people live decent lives.
I don't think it's fair to assume that all Palestinians are Hamas or that they are all committed to killing Jews. Many of them are innocent civilians caught in a brutal conflict and do not deserve to be experiencing collective punishment. Also the case that if you get them out of this toxic region, it might make it less a source of regional instability. We in the west have helped to create this problem. It's incumbent to show some leadership to help alleviate it, rather than just unfairly dumping the problem on Egypt or Jordan for all of the excellent reasons that Ed highlights.