Netanyahu has made a serious error in his rejection of a two-state solution

Editorial: If there was any lingering doubt about the Israeli prime minister’s opposition to the concept, he has unexpectedly – and unhelpfully – made his position clear

Coming, as it does, after months of patient diplomacy and support from the Biden administration, it feels very much like an insult (AP)

The prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, is one of the few leading figures in the world whose experience of high office stretches back to the 20th century.

He was elected to the role for the first time in 1996. He has seen peace initiatives come and go (some dispatched by him personally), as well as intifadas, military operations undertaken with varying success, and brutal atrocities, such as those perpetrated on 7 October by Hamas.

In all that time, Mr Netanyahu has been outspoken – and far beyond even that. But he has said few things as momentous, or as badly timed, as his latest rejection of the idea of creating a properly independent nation of Palestine, and of the “two-state solution” – a concept that forms the basis of US foreign policy on the issue. Coming, as it does, after months of patient diplomacy and support from the Biden administration, it feels very much like an insult, and was likely intended as such.

Perhaps irritated by constant entreaties for restraint from Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, and from President Biden himself, Mr Netanyahu has unburdened himself and asserted what had been apparent for some time: that he believes Israel must have security control over all of the territory west of the River Jordan, which would include the territory of any future Palestinian entity.

“This is a necessary condition, and it conflicts with the idea of [Palestinian] sovereignty. What to do? I tell this truth to our American friends, and I also stopped the attempt to impose a reality on us that would harm Israel’s security,” he said.

His outburst earned an immediate rebuke from the White House, which pointed out, fairly: “There is no way to solve their long-term challenges to provide lasting security, and there is no way to solve the short-term challenges of rebuilding Gaza and establishing governance in Gaza and providing security for Gaza without the establishment of a Palestinian state.”

But Mr Netanyahu had made his point, and the damage has been done – and it is considerable.

Mr Netanyahu, for no good reason, has publicly defied Israel’s most powerful ally – and the only one that, in the event of an existential crisis, could protect the state of Israel from its many enemies. It was disrespectful to America, at best. It will have enraged even more those Arab nations with whom Israel has managed to make peace, and those who, until Hamas sparked the current war, were about to sign treaties and normalise relations with Israel.

Israel can ill afford to alienate Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, or any of its other neighbours – yet this is precisely what Mr Netanyahu has chosen to do, and with an air of insouciance. Israel’s enemies will, of course, be emboldened, and will take the prime minister’s remarks as further proof that Palestine can never be established as a fair and equal state while there remains in place an Israeli government with Mr Netanyahu at its head.

Of course, there is an inconvenient truth behind Mr Netanyahu’s assertions. Because of the widespread illegal Israeli settlements on the West Bank, established over many decades, along with other incursions, the concept of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital is not as viable as it used to be – while the situation in Gaza speaks for itself.

All too often, in all honesty, Western politicians fall back too easily on talk of a two-state solution in preference to confronting the serious and immediate problems in the region, such as the impending famine in Gaza. Too often, the two-state solution thus becomes a mantra uttered in place of either thought or action.

Obviously, it has tended to be governments led by Mr Netanyahu’s party, Likud, that have permitted illegal settlements and undermined past attempts to make a two-state solution a reality. But cynicism aside, the fact remains that the factors on the ground that will determine whether Israel and Palestine are able to co-exist as sovereign states have altered radically since, say, the Oslo Accords.

Nonetheless, rather like when Winston Churchill called democracy the worst type of government apart from all the others, the two-state solution remains the least terrible, and most realistic, answer.

It is certainly superior to what Mr Netanyahu is offering, which is a form of Israeli protectorate over the occupied territories. Even if Palestinian politicians could be found to run such a colonial administration, the Palestinian entity would lack legitimacy, and would be in no position to stop terrorists from attacking Israel incessantly.

Mr Netanyahu says he wants Israel to be secure, but his conduct of the war in Gaza and his latest musings on a peace settlement are, to say the least, counterproductive. His “plan” represents nothing more than perpetual war punctuated by occasional humanitarian ceasefires. It cannot make Israel safe for its people, and at peace with the countries around it.

It may be that Mr Netanyahu is waiting to see if Donald Trump returns to the White House, and is playing games with Mr Biden. Mr Trump’s own ideas about the future of the region are, if anything, even more humiliating for the Palestinians than those of Mr Netanyahu.

The one hopeful sign in domestic Israeli politics is that Mr Netanyahu will probably not survive for long in office after the war in Gaza has wound down. As it happens, he isn’t freeing the hostages, nor is he winning the war, and he is certainly not the man Israel needs to win the peace.

Mr Biden might remind him of those facts next time they speak – preferably in private.