Do I want a Palestinian state more than the Palestinians do?

For many Palestinians, the desire to destroy Israel is stronger than the wish to build their own State. Not only is this bad news for Israel, but it's bad news for the Palestinians too.

Photographed by the writer; Saeb Erekat meeting a group of graduate students studying in the USA, at his office in Jericho, December 2018

The first person to reach out to me on October 7, 2023, to inquire about the safety of my family and me was a Palestinian friend. This moment has stayed with me, and I have clung to it as a sign of hope that, perhaps, change is possible.

I know many Palestinians, and I can attest that they are good and decent people. While we may disagree on various issues, such differences do not preclude mutual respect or the discovery of common ground based on shared values.

However, I am not naïve. There are also many Palestinians who would prefer that, as both a Jew and an Israeli, I would no longer have a place in the Middle East—or worse. I did not need the events of October 7, 2023, to recognize this reality. I have encountered such individuals personally, and some have stated their views openly to my face.

I have visited places where, had my true identity been revealed, I would have had serious doubts about whether I would have returned home to my family unharmed.

In late December 2018, I sat in the office of Dr. Saeb Erekat, then Secretary-General of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), in Jericho. I was leading a multinational group of graduate students from a prominent Ivy League institution.

During our meeting, Erekat explained that the Palestinians had always been ready for peace, that they had never rejected a peace offer, and that the failure to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rested entirely on Israel's shoulders. A cursory review of the historical record would cast doubt on these assertions, but I chose nonetheless to remain silent and listen.

Erekat went on to make a significant claim. He argued that the only viable solution to the conflict was a two-state solution: a State of Palestine alongside a State of Israel. He elaborated that Palestinians were ready for the immediate implementation of such a solution and that Israel alone bore full responsibility for its failure. He then proceeded to outline his vision of how this solution might be implemented.

First, he declared, there must be a resolution to the status of Jerusalem, which he stated should be divided or shared between Israelis and Palestinians.

Second, the final borders must be drawn based on the 1949 Armistice lines, which had left the West Bank under Jordanian occupation and annexation, and Gaza under Egyptian occupation. Erekat acknowledged that while the Green Line (the de facto border between Israeli-controlled territory and that held by Egypt and Jordan from 1948 to 1967) should serve as a foundation for any agreement, the exact course of the border could be modified based on "facts on the ground." This meant, according to Erekat, that parts of the West Bank could be annexed to Israel, on the condition that equivalent areas of Israeli territory would be annexed to the new Palestinian state.

The conversation then turned to Israeli settlements. Erekat described them as a major obstacle to peace, yet, critically, he also asserted that they were not an insurmountable one.

He explained that, because the largest Israeli settlement blocs were near or adjacent to the Green Line, these settlements could remain in place, together with their residents, with the Green Line adjusted to incorporate these towns and villages into Israel. In exchange, equivalent areas of Israeli territory would become part of the Palestinian state. Erekat further noted that only a minority of the Israeli settlers, those living deep within the West Bank, would need to be removed from their homes and relocated within Israel’s borders.

As Erekat spoke, I was struck by the significance of his position. Here was the Secretary-General of the PLO and the chief negotiator for the Palestinians in Oslo, calmly explaining that contrary to the claims of anti-Israel activists, Israeli settlements were not an insurmountable barrier to peace, and that most Israeli settlers could remain in their homes as part of a two-state solution.

Erekat’s statement that no Jews could remain in the new Palestinian state seemed problematic to me. After all, if more than 20% of Israel’s citizens are Arab-Muslim, surely a small Jewish minority could live within a Palestinian state, especially if such an arrangement would pave the way for the creation of the state itself.

Despite these reservations, I was genuinely encouraged by Erekat’s words and was interested in what else he would say about overcoming barriers to a 2-State solution. However, he declined to elaborate further and instead concluded his words by reiterating that he had now demonstrated conclusively that the Palestinians were ready for peace and that if Israel would only come to the negotiating table with the same intentions, peace would follow immediately.

As members of the group began to ask questions about what he had said, I deliberated whether to ask Erekat a question about something that he had chosen not to say. On the one hand, I was weary, as an Israeli and as the group leader, of being perceived to be challenging the speaker. I also wanted to allow members of the group to reach their own conclusions. However, there was one burning issue that I felt needed to be addressed directly in order for the group to fully assess Erekat's position.

So, I asked:

To read the rest of the article, visit Simply Complicated on Substack by clicking here