Before You Ask for a Palestinian State, Define What You’re Asking For
Further reading — related pieces of mine on this site:
UN Resolution 181 for Palestine: The Stupidest Resolution Ever Passed
No Going Back: What the Palestinians Must Accept Before It’s Too Late
Why There Isn’t Already a Palestinian State
There has never been an independent Palestinian state. Not once, not ever. The territory was Ottoman provincial land for four hundred years, from 1517 until World War I. Britain took the Mandate for Palestine from the League of Nations in 1922, administered it for a quarter century, and handed the problem to the newly formed United Nations in 1947 when it became unworkable.
The UN’s answer was Resolution 181: partition the Mandate into a Jewish state and an Arab state. On paper, the Jewish state got the larger share — 56% of the land to the Arab state’s 43% — despite Jews being roughly a third of the population. In practice, about 60% of that Jewish allocation was the Negev desert: arid, uncultivated, unsuited at the time for agriculture or urban development. The Arab state got the fertile highlands and the water table. Jewish leadership accepted the deal anyway and made the desert productive through decades of irrigation engineering most of the world thought was impossible. The Arab Higher Committee and the Arab League rejected it outright — not as an opening bid, but as a matter of principle. They chose war instead.
The man who spoke loudest for the Palestinian Arabs going into that vote was Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. He hadn’t been elected to anything. The British appointed him Mufti in 1921 and made him president of the Supreme Muslim Council in 1922 — a colonial administrative decision, not a popular mandate. When the 1936–39 Arab Revolt made him inconvenient, the British stripped his titles and issued a warrant for his arrest. He fled to Lebanon, then Iraq, then landed in Berlin, where he spent the war courting Hitler, lobbying the Nazis to block Jewish emigration out of occupied Europe, and helping recruit a Bosnian Muslim division for the Waffen-SS. He was still angling for Axis recognition as leader of a future Arab nation as late as 1943. That was the leadership structure representing Palestinian Arabs when the UN put a state on the table in 1947: a fugitive Nazi collaborator with no institutional legitimacy and no interest in building one.
There was no leadership capable of accepting a state, and there was no unified Arab position wanting one — for the Palestinians. Five Arab armies invaded the day Israel declared independence, but they weren’t fighting for a Palestinian state. They were fighting each other for the real estate. Jordan’s King Abdullah had designs on the West Bank before the war even started, and he acted on them: Jordan occupied the territory in 1948 and formally annexed it in 1950, over the objections of Arab League members who still wanted an actual Palestinian state to exist. Egypt took Gaza and ran it as an occupied military zone, not a path to sovereignty — Egyptian authorities wouldn’t even let Gazans move freely into Egypt proper. The Arab League’s own fig leaf, the All-Palestine Government installed in Gaza in September 1948, was a facade with no money and no power, created mainly to box out Abdullah. Nasser dissolved it in 1959 and ruled Gaza directly from Cairo.
By the 1949 armistice, the land the UN had earmarked for a Palestinian state was split between two Arab governments — Jordan and Egypt — not handed to Palestinian self-rule. That arrangement held for nineteen years, until 1967. Nobody in Amman or Cairo was in a hurry to change it.
The pattern set in 1947–48 repeats for the rest of this piece: every time a Palestinian state has been on the table, the obstacle hasn’t been the absence of an offer. It’s been the absence of anyone — Palestinian or Arab state — willing to accept one on terms that didn’t include eliminating the other side first.
What Role Did Israel and the Palestinians Actually Play?
Almost none. That’s the part the standard narrative skips.
The Jewish Agency accepted Resolution 181. Once Arab forces attacked, Israel’s role in the war that followed was defensive — surviving an invasion by five Arab armies who intended to eliminate the new state entirely, not negotiate its borders.
The Palestinians didn’t get a vote either — not from the UN, and not from their own leadership. No referendum was ever held asking Palestinian Arabs whether they’d accept a state alongside a Jewish one. The decision to reject partition was made by the Arab Higher Committee, an unelected body under al-Husseini’s orbit, and ratified by the Arab League. The AHC rejected not just the partition plan but also the alternative minority proposal for a single binational state — meaning it foreclosed every option on the table, on behalf of a population it never consulted.
So the two parties actually named in the 1947 plan — a Jewish state and an Arab state — split into two very different postures. One accepted the deal and then fought to survive the consequences of the other side’s rejection. The other never got asked. A handful of unelected men made the call, chose war, and the Palestinian population absorbed the loss: no state, land partitioned between Jordan and Egypt, and a leadership vacuum that would define the next several decades.
This is the first instance of a pattern that recurs through every subsequent chance at statehood: the decision gets made above the Palestinians’ heads, by people who aren’t accountable to them and whose interests don’t fully overlap with theirs.
Lather, Rinse, Repeat
The 1947-48 sequence didn’t happen once. It happened on a loop, with the same three ingredients every time: maximalist demands from surrounding Arab powers, eventual Palestinian leadership emerging to inherit the wreckage, and a return to war rather than acceptance of a deal on the table.
1967. Israel won the Six-Day War and, within weeks, was reportedly waiting for a phone call offering peace in exchange for the captured territory. The call never came. Instead, eight Arab heads of state met in Khartoum and issued their answer: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it. The Three Noes weren’t a Palestinian position — the Palestinians still had no state and no seat at that table. It was regional powers foreclosing any settlement on principle.
1964-68. Actual Palestinian leadership finally showed up in the form of the PLO, founded at a Cairo Arab League summit in 1964. Its founding charter didn’t call for a state alongside Israel — it called for Israel’s elimination. The 1968 revision was explicit: armed struggle as the only way to liberate Palestine, not a tactic but the overall strategy. For the next quarter century, the PLO’s answer to “how do we get a state” was war, not diplomacy — plane hijackings, cross-border raids, the 1972 Munich massacre, the Achille Lauro murder of a wheelchair-bound American in 1985. It took until 1988 for Arafat to even claim he’d accept Israel’s existence, and until the 1993 Oslo Accords for the PLO to put that in writing.
2000. With a Palestinian Authority now in place under Oslo, Israel made its most concrete offer yet. At Camp David, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered roughly 91-94% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, and a capital in East Jerusalem. Arafat walked away without a counteroffer. Weeks after Camp David collapsed, the Second Intifada began — a five-year campaign of suicide bombings that killed over a thousand Israelis and devastated the Palestinian economy along with it. Five months later, Clinton produced a further improved set of parameters, and in January 2001 Palestinian negotiators at Taba finally did put detailed counterproposals on the table for the first time — but Barak broke off the talks under pressure from an Israeli public radicalized by months of bombings. Even the accounts most sympathetic to Arafat place the first real Palestinian counteroffer after the violence had already started, not before.
2008. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made an even more generous offer to Arafat’s successor, Mahmoud Abbas — Israeli withdrawal from roughly 94% of the West Bank with land swaps, a shared arrangement over Jerusalem’s holy sites, and a mechanism for a limited number of refugees. Abbas didn’t reject it outright. He simply never answered it. By his own negotiator’s account, the Palestinian position was to hold the 1967 lines “without budging an inch” — a maximalist floor, not a negotiating position.
2006-2007. Palestinians did get an actual vote this time — for a parliament, not for statehood, but the closest thing to a referendum on leadership the story has. They elected Hamas, a party whose founding charter calls for Israel’s destruction. Fatah and Hamas then fought each other for control; Hamas won Gaza outright in June 2007, killing Fatah members in the process, while Fatah held on in the West Bank. Palestinian politics has been split into two governments — one that negotiates, one that doesn’t recognize Israel’s right to exist at all — ever since.
The shape doesn’t change. Regional or factional maximalists set terms no Israeli government can accept, or Palestinian leadership rejects terms without a serious counteroffer, and the interval between offers gets filled with rockets, bombings, or invasion. Every generation gets a new leadership, a new war, and the same non-outcome.
The Neighborhood
Every actor discussed so far — the Arab League, Jordan, Egypt, the regimes that set the terms Palestinians were expected to accept or reject — comes out of the same political mold. There isn’t a democracy in the bunch.
Saudi Arabia and Oman are absolute monarchies, ruled by decree with no legislature that can override the king or sultan. Jordan, Morocco, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE are constitutional monarchies — a king, emir, or sheikh sits above the system regardless of what any parliament does, and in most of them the ruling family also dominates the government ministries and the economy. Egypt is a republic on paper and a military autocracy in practice — its current president took power via a 2013 coup and has run the country through security-state methods ever since. Iran is a theocracy, with a Supreme Leader who outranks any elected president. Syria’s post-Assad government is a transitional military authority, not a democracy. Iraq holds elections, but Freedom House still rates it Not Free, given the militias, sectarian patronage networks, and Iranian influence that shape outcomes regardless of vote totals. Yemen has been a failed state and civil-war battleground since 2014.
None of these governments answer to their own populations the way a democracy does, and that matters for the Palestinian question specifically: every regional actor that has weighed in on Palestinian statehood — funding it, blocking it, using it as leverage — has been an unelected government pursuing its own interests, not an electorate expressing one.
They don’t agree with each other, either. Broadly, the Gulf monarchies — Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain — along with Jordan and Egypt have aligned with the United States and, increasingly, normalized or quietly cooperated with Israel. Iran sits on the other side, backing Hezbollah, the Houthis, and until Assad’s fall, the Syrian regime, as part of a rejectionist axis explicitly built around Israel’s destruction. Qatar plays both sides — a U.S. military-basing partner that also bankrolls Hamas. Turkey, nominally a democracy with actual elections, has drifted into its own semi-authoritarian lane under one-man rule and swings between NATO obligations and open hostility to Israel depending on the week.
That’s the board the Palestinians have had to play on for eighty years: not a unified Arab world with one coherent position, but a scattered set of monarchs, generals, and clerics, some friendly to the West and some explicitly organized against it, none of them accountable to a ballot box, all of them treating the Palestinian cause as leverage for their own legitimacy rather than a project they were actually trying to finish.
Strip away the century in between and the map looks familiar. Before the Ottomans, the region was ruled by sultanates, caliphates, and dynasties — power concentrated in a ruling family or a court, no ballot box, no accountability to the governed. The Ottomans were simply the largest version of that same model. Four hundred years of empire, a world war, a British mandate, and a wave of independence movements later, the region has settled back into essentially the same arrangement it started with: monarchs and strongmen ruling by inheritance or force, not by consent. The furniture changed. The structure didn’t.
Iran Is a Different Animal
Every other regional actor in this piece treats Israel as leverage for domestic legitimacy. Iran is the exception, and it’s worth separating out, because for Tehran, Israel isn’t actually the point.
Persia was a great empire long before Islam existed — Cyrus, Darius, a civilization that governed a hundred peoples centuries before Muhammad was born. Arab armies conquered it in 651 CE, but unlike Syria or Egypt, Persia never became Arab. It kept its language, its culture, its identity, and its memory of having run the region once. In 1501, Persia’s rulers made Shia Islam the state religion — partly theology, mostly strategy, a way to mark Persia as distinct from the Sunni powers pressing in on both sides. From that point on, Persian imperial ambition and Shia religious identity fused into one project.
The 1979 regime inherited both halves. It also inherited a problem: a Persian, Shia theocracy, isolated, sitting in a region that’s overwhelmingly Arab and Sunni. It needed a cause no Sunni government could publicly oppose. It found one in Israel. Khomeini declared an annual Jerusalem Day within his first year in power, and Tehran spent the following decades building Hezbollah and bankrolling Hamas — turning a Persian outsider into a self-styled pan-Islamic champion, and turning every Sunni government quietly coexisting with Israel into an implicit traitor by comparison. Under the banner of erasing Israel, Iran spent those same decades embedding proxy armies across Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen — infiltrating the entire region proxy army by proxy army, with a common enemy providing cover no one could openly object to.
The declared goal — destroy Israel, destroy America — is the cover story. The actual project is regional dominance: a nuclear program as the hard-power expression of restored Persian primacy, and a proxy network across Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen as the expression of Shia religious leadership. Israel is roughly the size of New Jersey. It isn’t rational for a country to spend fifty years and untold billions trying to erase a speck that small — unless the speck is the vehicle for something much larger, not the actual destination. (The fuller argument — including the Persian-Arab and Sunni-Shia fault lines underneath all of this — is laid out in more detail here.)
What’s In It For Them
If none of these governments are accountable to their own people, the obvious question is why they’d keep fighting over a strip of land roughly the size of New Jersey. The answer isn’t sentiment. It’s leverage.
An unelected government needs a source of legitimacy that doesn’t come from a ballot box. “Standing with Palestine” has been one of the cheapest, most durable ones available in the Arab world for eighty years — a cause that costs a regime nothing in cash or territory, unifies a population that might otherwise be asking why it doesn’t get a vote either, and gives an external enemy to point to whenever the internal numbers look bad. The Arab League formalized this instinct into policy: as far back as the 1950s, member states adopted a deliberate rule that Palestinian refugees would not be granted citizenship anywhere in the Arab world, on the stated rationale that assimilating them would dissolve their claim to return and, not incidentally, would recognize Israel by implication. That’s not a policy designed to help Palestinian families rebuild their lives. It’s a policy designed to keep a stateless population in reserve as a permanent talking point.
The record backs up the cynicism. Lebanon still refuses Palestinians citizenship after three generations born on its soil, keeping hundreds of thousands in camps like Ain al-Hilweh that the Lebanese army itself periodically raids. Syria offered residency rights but never naturalization. Egypt ran Gaza for nineteen years and never so much as floated Palestinian self-rule there. And when Palestinian leadership stopped being useful — or actively inconvenient — the hospitality evaporated instantly: after Arafat publicly sided with Saddam Hussein during the 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Kuwait expelled roughly 400,000 Palestinians, most of whom had lived and worked there for decades, in a matter of months. It was, by proportional scale, one of the largest single displacements of Palestinians since 1948 — inflicted by a fellow Arab state, over a political dispute that had nothing to do with the people it punished.
None of this reads like a region that ever put Palestinian welfare above its own governments’ interests. It reads like a cause that’s been useful precisely because it never gets resolved — a grievance regimes can keep pointing at instead of a population they were ever in a hurry to actually see governed, housed, or free.
It’s also a convenient theme for occupying the subjects of these same regimes. Cast Israel as the villain and the Palestinians as the perpetual victim, and a king or a general gets something he can’t manufacture domestically: a righteous cause, a common enemy, and free sympathy — all without holding an election, building an institution, or answering for the state of his own country. It’s a lot easier to keep a population angry at Israel than to explain why a monarch’s family owns the economy, why a general who took power in a coup still runs the country a decade later, or why there’s no parliament worth the name anywhere in the neighborhood. The Palestinian cause does the work that a free press and a ballot box would otherwise be doing. Every regime in the region has figured out that it’s cheaper to rent a grievance than to earn legitimacy.
What Do You Propose?
Before getting to a proposal, ask the honest question: what has Israel actually gotten for the risks it’s already taken?
In 2005, Israel didn’t wait for a treaty. It unilaterally tore down every one of its 21 settlements in Gaza, forcibly removed 8,000 of its own citizens — some of them dragged out of their homes screaming — and handed the entire territory to Palestinian control with no Israeli soldier, settler, or checkpoint left inside it. Critics point to a Sharon aide’s since-disputed remark that the withdrawal was designed to freeze the peace process rather than advance it — but motive is a debate for historians. Outcome isn’t. Whatever Sharon’s internal calculus, the facts on the ground were a full, unilateral withdrawal with nothing held back. That’s about as close to “just give them a state and see what happens” as a country has ever tried. Within two years, Hamas had seized Gaza in a coup against its own Palestinian rivals. Within eighteen years, that same territory produced October 7 — the deadliest single day for Jews since the Holocaust, and the first large-scale invasion of Israeli territory since 1948. Rockets, tunnels, and a cross-border invasion force were the return on a unilateral land-for-peace bet nobody forced Israel to make.
That’s the actual track record being asked to repeat itself. So when the word “genocide” gets thrown around by people who couldn’t find Gaza on a map two years ago, consider the source doing most of the certifying. The UN Commission of Inquiry finding and the rest of the UN apparatus that laundered it into headlines are not neutral arbiters — as I’ve written elsewhere, the UN is a political body that packages its outputs as objective fact, run by a General Assembly stacked with the same autocracies and theocracies cataloged above, none of which answer to an electorate and several of which have spent eighty years treating the Palestinian cause as leverage. Their institutional “finding” isn’t a verdict. It’s a vote, dressed up as one. What actually happened is a war Israel didn’t start, against an enemy that hid its command structure under hospitals and its rocket stores under schools, fought in a strip of land nine miles across at its narrowest point, where every square mile is within range of the enemy’s own weapons. That doesn’t make the civilian toll anything less than a tragedy. It does make “genocide” — a word with a specific legal meaning involving intent to destroy a people, not a byproduct of urban warfare against an enemy using civilians as cover — a term doing propaganda work for exactly the governments with the most to gain from Israel staying occupied with an unwinnable war of optics.
So what’s the actual proposal? Not another summit that produces a signature and no enforcement. Every failed attempt in this piece — 1947, 1967, 2000, 2008 — had the same design flaw: it assumed good faith and asked for none of it to be verified. A state gets recognized, or funded, or armed, and everyone hopes the other side behaves. That’s not a peace process. That’s a bet placed with someone else’s chips.
The alternative is sequencing tied to verified performance, not promises. Concrete steps happen first — demilitarization of Gaza, dismantling of the tunnel network, an internationally verified end to the flow of Iranian weapons and cash — monitored by a mechanism with actual enforcement power, not a UN resolution nobody enforces. Statehood, if it comes, comes after that record is established and verified, not as a leap of faith that a fundamentally different outcome will emerge from the same unverified promises that failed in 1993, 2000, and 2008. Israel doesn’t owe anyone another unilateral experiment. The next one, if there is one, gets earned in the order that keeps Israelis alive first.
Before You Ask, Define It
So here’s the question back to anyone demanding “a Palestinian state” as if it were a simple, overdue fix: what does that actually look like?
Because it’s been offered. Repeatedly. In writing, with maps, with percentages attached. 1947: a state on 43% of Mandatory Palestine, rejected before it existed. 2000: roughly 91-94% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, a capital in East Jerusalem — rejected, no counteroffer. 2008: an even larger offer with land swaps and a mechanism for refugees — never answered at all. Every time, the state was on the table and the answer was war, or silence, or both. That’s not a people waiting for someone to finally propose a state. That’s a leadership structure, generation after generation, that has had the thing demanded of Israel and turned it down.
So when someone says Israel needs to “allow” a Palestinian state, ask them what they actually mean. A state that recognizes Israel’s right to exist, demilitarizes, and lives beside it — the thing offered three separate times and rejected three separate times? Or a state built on the actual charters of the actual parties who’d run it — the PLO’s founding document calling for Israel’s elimination, Hamas’s charter calling for the same — where “Palestine” is understood, in the plain language of its own leadership, to mean all of it, with Israel gone?
Because those are two entirely different proposals wearing the same three words. The first one keeps getting offered and keeps getting rejected. The second one isn’t a state — it’s the removal of eight million Jews from a country roughly the size of New Jersey, nine miles wide at its narrowest point, with nowhere else to go and no army in the world currently pledged to escort them out at gunpoint. Ask the people demanding a Palestinian state which of the two they’re actually picturing. Most of them have never had to answer that question, because nobody’s made them. Somebody should.
And worth considering: a country that’s had its neighbors try to erase it from the map in 1948, 1967, and 1973; that’s absorbed suicide bombings through the 2000s; that unilaterally handed over Gaza in 2005 and got Hamas and October 7 in return; and that just spent 2026 fighting a war against an Iranian regime that has spent decades and billions of dollars trying to finish the job — that’s a country that has some grounds for asking what’s actually different this time. Statehood has been offered before, more than once, on real terms, and rejected every time. So before the demand gets repeated again, it deserves a real answer: what, specifically, do you want Israel to do that it hasn’t already tried?
Check out my new app that unlocks the bias in articles: Bias Unlocker