Any territorial concession to an independent Palestinian state will inherently be at the expense of the already geographically narrow and therefore strategically weak Israel. The larger and more viable Palestine, the smaller and weaker Israel becomes. In a hostile region, Israel cannot afford this potential threat to its existence.
In addition, a Palestinian state on the Westbank – unfavorably wedged between Israel and the Jordan River, overpopulated and economically weak – will always have the tendency to expand ‘from the river to the sea’ at the expense of Israel. A two-state solution therefore represents an existential threat to the State of Israel and is therefore unsuitable to serve as a basis for a peace proposal.
Palestinian-Jordanian Federation
A more constructive approach to the conflict should focus primarily on security, rather than on achieving peace as has been attempted since the 1994 Oslo Accords. Only in a secure and stable environment, Palestinians and Israelis can move towards peace without running the risk of a peace process being disrupted by aggression from extremists of both sides.
Since a peaceful coexistence within one democratic state (one-state solution) and also a two-state solution cannot meet this requirement, perhaps a three-state solution could lead to peace through security. This scenario assumes a third, neutral party that compensates Israel for the loss of Palestinian territory – and therefore for the loss of ‘strategic depth’ – with credible security guarantees.
If neighboring Jordan – which has been at peace with Israel since 1994 – is involved in a peace settlement, Israel will be able to transfer all Palestinian territory to a future Palestinian-Jordanian Federation. This grants Palestinians the right to self-determination within their own state. But as military control over Palestinian territory passes to the federal government in Amman, friendly Jordan will be able to guarantee Israel’s security sufficiently to make peace possible.
Israel’s vulnerable 1948 eastern border, will then be fully protected by Jordanian-Israeli security cooperation. Since this cooperation is already taking place successfully south of the West Bank, this should give Israel enough confidence to let go of Palestinian territory. Moreover, a Palestinian state within a Palestinian-Jordanian federation will have sufficient economic viability that it will not have to make additional claims on Israeli territory.
It was the late King Hussein of Jordan who advocated a three-state solution as early as 1972, but did not receive sufficient support due to the Israeli-Jordanian enmity at the time.[2] Now that Israel and Jordan enjoy peaceful relations, it is time to put this Hussein plan back on the table.
Gaza
Other bottlenecks can also be addressed with the Hussein plan. If Egypt – which has had peaceful relations with Israel since 1979 – takes control of the Gaza Strip, Palestinian territory could be pacified and economically developed. Residents of Gaza can thus live in peace and relative prosperity.
The claim to Jerusalem as the capital of either Israel or Palestine will become irrelevant once the city becomes under federal jurisdiction of Amman. In other (religious) tensions in Palestine-Jordan, the widely respected King Abdullah – like no other – will be able to use his authority to calm emotions.
Another stumbling block is the future of the Palestinian refugees, who have been waiting to return to their homes since their expulsion in 1948. In the current situation they cannot return to Israel. But as residents of Palestine-Jordan, they will be compensated with land in the West Bank or in the Jordanian hinterland.
Water
It is important that the international community provides strong economic support to this Palestinian-Jordanian Federation. The Netherlands – with its expertise in hydraulic engineering – could contribute to the ‘Dead Sea Canal’, which has been awaiting development since 2017.
This canal to be constructed between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba will provide employment, fertile land and (desalinated) drinking water. It can be expected that new Palestinian residential areas will arise on the banks of this ‘extended Jordan River’.
If the route of this canal runs along the Israeli-Jordanian border, Israeli settlements can also be established on the western side of the canal. In addition, Israel will become less dependent on the Upper Jordan River for its water supply. This makes a possible future return of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights to Syria less problematic.
Mr Guterres has to realize that a two-state solution will never lead to peace in the Middle East, because it ignores the condition for peace namely: security. Only if the peace process is protected within a stable structure of a three-state solution, both Israelis and Palestinians will be able to work towards lasting peace. The creation of a Palestinian-Jordanian federation could facilitate this.
[1] https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/01/1145807
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/1972/03/16/archives/hussein-reveals-federation-plan-israel-assails-it.html