In 1967, just days after Israel’s miraculous victory in the Six-Day War — a war it neither started nor wanted — French President Charles de Gaulle publicly rebuked Jews:
the Jewish State was “war-like state bent on expansion”
impugned the Jewish people “throughout the ages” as “an elite people, sure of themselves and domineering,” who had “created ill will in various countries at various times.”
The accusation wasn’t merely tone-deaf — it was malicious in intent. Israel had just repelled a coordinated Arab onslaught aimed at its annihilation. In response, rather than offering admiration or even neutrality, de Gaulle reached for the language of old European antisemitism: that Jews are too proud, too successful, too capable — and therefore must be cut down to size.
Historian Bernard Lewis noted how this framing, after 1967, became a tool not just of European elites but of Arab leaders humiliated by defeat. The Jews had survived — worse, they had won — and for that, they were to be condemned as arrogant victors. He quoted one writer who said “It was bad enough to be conquered and occupied by the mighty empires of the West, the British Empire, the French Empire, but to suffer this fate at the hands of a few hundred thousand Jews was intolerable.”
Fast forward to today.
French President Emmanuel Macron repeats the posture of his predecessor, albeit with 21st-century polish. After Hamas butchered Israeli civilians in their homes on October 7, 2023, Macron offered sympathies — but quickly shifted blame back to Israel.
In the first weeks after Israel struck back at Hamas, Macron accused Israel of collective punishment, while never applying the same outrage to Hamas’s use of civilians as human shields, or to its decades-long charter of antisemitic terror.
And now, Macron leads calls for France to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state — not as a reward for peace, but as a diplomatic slap to the Jewish state for defending itself too well.
French President Emmanuel Macron and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
Like de Gaulle, Macron cloaks condescension in the language of law and balance. But the message is unchanged:
When Jews are victims, they earn pity. When Jews resist, they invite suspicion. When Jews win — they must be reprimanded.
To call Jews “domineering” after a war of self-defense is to rewrite the story of Jewish survival into one of guilt. France did it in 1967. It is doing it again today.
There are two wars taking place in Gaza: one is a textbook definition of a genocidal war while the other is a reluctant war of ethnic cleansing.
While critics of the Jewish State hurl the term “genocide” as a weapon, a blood libel designed to strip Israel of its legitimacy, it is an inversion: it is Hamas and only Hamas that is engaged in a genocide.
Hamas’s 1988 foundational charter is not a vague political platform. It is an open call to murder Jews. Article 7 quotes an Islamic hadith that urges Muslims to kill Jews wherever they find them. Article 13 states that “initiatives and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.” Peace is forbidden. Coexistence is a crime.
And the Palestinian people did not reject this vision; they embraced it. In 2005, they elected Mahmoud Abbas as president — a man who wrote his doctoral thesis denying the Holocaust. In 2006, they voted Hamas into power, giving the genocidal group 58% of the parliament. These were not fringe votes. These were popular, democratic choices made in full view of Hamas’s open ideology.
Then came October 7, 2023.
In the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, Hamas — the ruling government of Gaza — unleashed its long-promised war of annihilation. They murdered 1,200 people, from babies in cribs to elderly women in wheelchairs. They burned families alive, filmed their atrocities, and broadcast their bloodlust to the world. The Palestinian street erupted in celebration. Polls showed 75% of Palestinian Arabs supporting the massacre of Jews.
This was not a surprise. This was fulfillment. A generation raised on genocidal propaganda in schools, mosques, and television carried out what they had been taught. They were not rebelling against Hamas — they were Hamas. Thousands of Gazans participated in the October 7 slaughter.
Israel, faced with an existential threat, responded. It had tried the diplomatic route. It had withdrawn from Gaza in 2005. It had allowed billions of dollars in humanitarian aid to flow into the Strip. It had mostly tolerated rocket fire and bus bombings and flaming kites with modest responses. But after October 7, there was no possibility of a tepid response with a group with an increasing capacity to carry out its genocidal intent.
Israel launched a war of necessity — a war to end the Hamas threat once and for all. The goal was not genocide, but defense. Not extermination, but eradication of a terrorist force.
But the nature of this war is highly complex. Hamas does not engage Israel’s army on an open battlefield but underneath hospitals, mosques and homes. It warehouses missiles in schools and launches them from playgrounds. There is no ability to eliminate the terrorists without severe destruction to dual-use civilian-military infrastructure and significant collateral damage.
And that looks a lot like ethnic cleansing.
Gaza ruins
Ethnic cleansing refers to the forced removal of an ethnic or religious group from a territory. And yes, it is possible that the outcome of Israel’s war will be a Gaza without many Palestinian Arabs. Gaza cannot be rebuilt atop terrorist tunnels and booby traps. The terrorist enclave that Gazans built since 2007 cannot remain nor be replicated.
It has long been a sign of instilled antisemitism that the United Nations has accused Israel of genocide, at least as far back as 2013, as a mask for Palestinian Arabs genocidal intentions. It is a classic form of the adage “the best defense is a good offense,” accusing Israel of the crimes of Palestinian Arabs, forcing Israel into a defensive posture, both militarily and politically.
But it is another level of tragic irony that in this defensive war, Israel is open to the accusation of ethnic cleansing.
No nation on earth has faced the choices Israel faces. No other country is expected to coexist with a neighbor whose elected leaders seek its annihilation. No one wants to see civilian suffering but Israel has tried every alternative — and the price has always been paid in Jewish blood.
The world is watching a premeditated war of genocide – which it enabled and encouraged through the United Nations’ statements and actions – be defeated by a small, determined country. The contours of that victory may appear to the casual viewer as ethnic cleansing, and will certainly be marketed as such by Israel haters, as a cruel collective punishment against civilians and so-called “refugees.”
The Global North will consider “ethnic cleansing” as the lesser charge relative to the smear of “genocide” long advanced by the Global South. Will the resulting actions encourage and enable the next genocidal war against the Jewish State remains to be seen.
On February 18, 1947, senior members of the British Kingdom’s government assembled to discuss the Palestine Mandate. By this point, the British had already separated the area east of the Jordan River and handed it to the small Hashemite tribe who created the Kingdom of Trans-Jordan. The people assembled at this meeting were at an impasse of how to handle the remaining portion of Palestine in regards to the roughly 1,200,000 Arabs and 600,000 Jews.
It is worth reading the discussion in full, but I will only highlight a few points here.
By way of background, the British had assumed the Palestine Mandate as well as for Iraq in 1922, while France had mandates for Syria and Lebanon. Due to Arab revolts in Palestine which started in 1936, the British – contrary to their mandate – limited Jewish immigration to Palestine to only 75,000 during the European Holocaust; they placed no limits on Arab migration into Palestine, allowing the Arab population to grow rapidly (more than doubling from 1918, whereas Syria only grew by 50% over the period).
An interesting observation is that the word “Palestinian” appears nowhere in the discussion, as the current notion that it only means Arabs would not be concocted for decades. At this point in time, the idea of a possible “Palestinian State” would incorporate both Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews, a term without meaning today.
In discussing the desire of the local Arab population in Palestine, Bevin said that the Arabs were “unwilling to contemplate further Jewish immigration into Palestine,” even when survivors of the European Holocaust were desperate to come to the Jewish homeland. He added that the Arabs “are equally opposed to the creation of a Jewish State in any part of Palestine.“
Bevin would go on to state the position of Zionists who wanted an independent state, in line with the mandate which called for Jews “reconstituting their national home in that country.”
Again, he made the position clear that “for the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine.” He saw “no prospect of resolving this conflict by [negotiated] settlement,” consequentially leading to persistent violence. The competing demands of the Arabs and Jews made the situation “irreconcilable.”
Willie Gallacher (1881-1965), a communist who had opposed Britain’s involvement in WWII asked during the back-and-forth whether the UK’s “Balfour Declaration is recognised to be utterly unrealistic,” giving priority to Arab claims. He failed to comprehend that the declaration served as the very basis for which Britain had been handed the mandate for Palestine. The members therefore concluded that the matter should go to the United Nations General Assembly to decide how to reconcile the irreconcilable.
The discussion proved prophetic. Even today (“to the last”), the majority of the Stateless Arabs from Palestine (SAPs) refuse to accept a Jewish State “in any part of Palestine.” They continue to fight it by any means at their disposal, including war, terrorism and boycotts. Their actions do not only make life difficult for Jews in Israel but for Americans. The US embassy in Israel issued “travel advisories” suggesting people reconsider travel to Israel and the West Bank and to not go to Gaza because of the activities of various Palestinian Arab terrorist groups.
The SAPs are fighting Jews on two fronts, via the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas. The PA is fighting for a Palestinian State without a single Jew living in it. It has the United Nations endorsement, with the passing of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 in December 2016. Hamas and other terrorist groups are fighting to ensure no Jewish State exists “in any part of Palestine.”
Other jihadists – countries and groups – also rallied to fight a Jewish State “in any part of Palestine.” From 1948 to the 1970s, the Arab world routed 850,000 Jews from their nations. Most still refuse to recognize Israel. Many boycott Israel and do not allow Israelis to enter their country. Islamic countries which are not Arab – foremost Iran and Turkey – actively support Hamas. Turkish President Recep Erdogan said right after the October 7 massacre that “Hamas is not a terrorist organization, it is a liberation group, ‘mujahideen’ waging a battle to protect its lands and people.”
Jihadi groups like al Qaeda rally radical Muslims to attack “Americans and Jews” around the world because of Israel, and attack tourists and fellow Muslims in Egypt and Jordan because those countries struck peace agreements with the Jewish State. The presence of Jewish sovereignty in Palestine has generated a call to history of 1,000 years ago, with the “World Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders.“
The conflict is cast in western circles as a local conflict over land between Jews and Arabs which can find compromise, but radical Islamists see it as a global religious matter between Muslims and Jews. The violent extremists cannot accept Jewish sovereignty “in any part of Palestine” as an “essential point of principle.” Current efforts to “Globalize the Intifada” is their rallying call to end the Jewish State in its entirety, with Jews and Christians (“Crusaders”) fair marks for attack.
For decades, diplomats, academics, and international institutions have spoken in rote terms about a “two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian Arab conflict. The problem is that such framing is intellectually dishonest and dangerously outdated.
There already is a state—Israel. It is not a hypothetical solution; it is a living reality. A sovereign nation with a vibrant democracy, a powerful military, a thriving economy, and a diverse citizenry, including over two million Arab citizens. Israel has fought for its survival, defended its borders, absorbed Jewish refugees from around the world, and became the most advanced and liberal society in the Middle East.
It is not a concept to be debated—it is a geopolitical fact.
Framing Israel as one part of a “two-state solution,” as if it were an idea or obstacle fundamentally misrepresents the situation. It inherently delegitimizes the struggle of millions of Israelis who sacrificed to build their nation since 1948 and casts their future into uncertainty.
We are not in 1947.
So let’s reframe the question. The only real debate is about the SAPs—the stateless Arab from Palestine. What is the just, secure, and realistic political future for them?
That opens multiple options—not a binary choice between creating “Palestine” or “occupation,” but a nuanced discussion based on facts on the ground and historical behavior. It reorients the discussion to the SAPs who seek an answer and thereby considers THEIR statements, sentiments, and actions rather than placing the scrutiny and opprobrium on Israel, which inherently strips SAPs of agency and responsibility.
Should the SAPs get a full sovereign state even after the dominant political party engaged in genocidal acts? Can SAPs be trusted with statehood and a military while state media glorifies terrorism and denies both Jewish history and Israel’s right to exist, and tramples on human rights?
Now, under the misguided focus on Israel as part of the “two-state solution,” the United Nations Human Rights Council has a standing item (Agenda 7) focused only on Israel. Similarly, UN Security Council passed Resolution 2334, which only reviews the actions of Israel. Nowhere does the UN focus on the actions and statements of SAPs and their leadership to consider the best course for their future. It’s a fatal flaw, one of many self-inflicted tragedies that the UN has instilled into the region.
The UN fails to comment and address:
The Palestinian Authority (PA) priority on paying salaries to the families of terrorists.
The barbaric attack of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad on October 7, 2023, and overwhelming support it had amongst SAPs.
A PA media and school system that promotes antisemitism and incites hatred.
A society with various armed groups which refuse to disarm that are more popular than the PA.
Instead, the UN focuses on misdirection towards Israel and masquerades the reality of SAPs. It gives the PA seats at UN panels and committees even though it has no power, support or authority, parading a fake caricature of the situation. This does nothing to help SAPs address the failure of its society nor hold it accountable for its actions.
For the UN, the answer to the question of SAPs is the creation of a new state for local Arabs which should be Jew-free. Remarkably, the global body cannot ponder that such goal is deeply antisemitic. Equally as pathetic, the failure to consider any other solution to statehood grants SAPs a free hand to commit any sort of atrocity.
The Question of SAPs must not have a forgone conclusion. That approach has failed for years at the price of thousands of lives.
Maybe SAPs can have a state-minus—something akin to post-WWII Japan: self-governance, civil services, education, cultural autonomy—but demilitarized, with security handled by an external guarantor to prevent further war and terror.
Or perhaps certain areas of the West Bank could be confederated with Jordan, whose population is majority SAPs already. Maybe Jordan itself should be divided whereby a section would be part of a Palestinian State together with parts of the West Bank.
The area east of the 1949 Armistice Lines (E49AL) might remain under Israeli sovereignty with SAPs having semi-autonomous status—akin to Native American reservations in the U.S., which have self-rule in many areas but rely on the larger state for defense, currency, and diplomacy. Or the areas get annexed and the residents get Israeli citizenship.
These are serious, legitimate proposals worthy of debate.
Buildings on both sides of Security barrier in Jerusalem (photo: First One Through)
But let’s be clear: any outcome is about solving the question of what to do with the SAPs. It is not about creating two states. Israel is already there.
The time has come to retire the “two-state solution” slogan. Not because peace is impossible—but because clarity and focus are essential.
For years, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas spared no insult for U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration. He called Trump’s peace plan the “slap of the century.” He labeled U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman a “son of a dog.” Abbas publicly refused to meet with any Trump envoy after the U.S. recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in 2017, cutting off nearly all formal ties with Washington. He refused to stop paying salaries to the families of terrorists despite Trump’s demand that he do so.
PA President Abbas issues prayer that President Trump’s “house be destroyed” in 2018
But now, in a stunning reversal, Abbas is praising Trump following America’s attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, hoping to reengage with the man he once vilified. The about-face reveals not only Abbas’s desperation but also a familiar tactic in Middle Eastern politics: appealing to the ego of strongmen to gain leverage in diplomacy.
Just two weeks ago, Abbas condemned Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel, in a letter to French President Emmanuel Macron and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Abbas had never done so before. He is seemingly attempting to distance himself from the dominant Palestinian political party which is struggling to stay alive.
Somehow, Abbas wants to bury reality and history. Just one year before the October 7, 2023 massacre, Palestinian factions agreed to a reconciliation in Algiers, Tunisia. Hamas, Fatah (Abbas’s political party), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and eleven other movements signed an agreement to “get rid of this [political] split and cancer that has entered the Palestinian body.” This move was an attempt to unify the Palestinian people under new elections with a single unified government representing all groups. The United Nations celebrated the integration of Hamas and PFLP – which the U.S. designates as terrorist groups – into a unity government.
A total of 14 Palestinian factions signed reconciliation agreement in Algiers to end their 15-year-long division. (photo: Xinhua)
But Abbas now recognizes the endgame of the current battle: Iran, Hezbollah, Houthis and Hamas have failed in their attempt to destroy the Jewish State. Abbas would have welcomed such outcome, so stayed quiet for over 600 days. Now, while his decimated fellow Muslims sort through the rubble, Abbas is attempting to distance himself from the losing side, of which he was a silently cheering member.
Appealing to Trump’s Vanity
As he throws Hamas under the bus, the nearly-90 year old unpopular Abbas is looking for a lifeboat. Imagine his dismay to realize that even after Hamas led Gaza to a war of destruction, Palestinian polls still show Hamas to be more popular than his Fatah party, and over 80% of Palestinians want Abbas to resign.
In Abbas’s worldview, perhaps aligning himself with a winner will salvage some dignity and allow a few more years of relevancy. Despite spitting on Trump’s Abraham Accords and vilifying Trump & Co., Abbas is replacing his vitriol with flattery.
This is not just a change in tone; it’s a strategic pivot. Abbas’s flattery is designed to appeal directly to Trump’s vanity. Trump craves recognition and praise, particularly when it comes from those who previously doubted him. Abbas is betting that Trump, flattered by the turnabout, might seek to craft a renewed deal between Israel and the Palestinians, this one closer to the Arab Initiative crafted by Saudi Arabia in 2002, rather than Trump’s “deal of the century.”
The logic is simple: Trump, the dealmaker, might relish the chance to win the Nobel Peace Prize by securing an Israeli-Palestinian Peace Agreement, alongside a broad opening of the Abraham Accords with Saudi Arabia and other nations whom would likely follow.
There is little indication that Abbas has changed his position on any of the core issues — recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and the so-called “right of return” principal among them. His newfound praise for Trump is not based on ideological alignment or shared values but on the simple belief that stroking Trump’s ego might yield results.
Israel’s View
From Israel’s perspective, Abbas’s pivot will likely be met with skepticism. Israeli officials have long regarded the Palestinian Authority as duplicitous — speaking the language of peace in English while praising and funding terrorists in Arabic. Abbas’s credibility is further diminished by years of internal repression, a stagnant economy, and a populace which despises him.
Still, Israeli leaders will watch closely. If Trump signals willingness to broker another deal — one perhaps based on regional normalization and security guarantees rather than the moribund Oslo framework — Abbas’s outreach could become a diplomatic variable worth tracking.
Conclusion: Desperation Dressed as Diplomacy
Mahmoud Abbas’s pivot from name-calling to praise is more than political theater. It’s a sign of deep weakness — a recognition that time, allies, and leverage are all slipping away. By appealing to Trump’s vanity, Abbas is hoping for a personal reprieve and a political lifeline.
But Trump will likely recall the years of insults and rejection. Whether he’s willing to forgive and forget — and whether Abbas is willing to concede more than just compliments — remains to be seen.
What is clear is that Abbas, who once derided Trump as a destroyer of peace, now sees him as his best hope to remain relevant.
On June 18, 2025, Columbia University announced that it had produced its third report on antisemitism. One would imagine that it would give people hope that the administration was seriously tackling Jew hatred on campus.
Alas.
The “Task Force On Antisemitism” did not focus on Jew hatred at Columbia; it did a poll of ALL students about how they felt about the anti-Israel encampments on campus during the 2023-2024 school year. The “antisemitism” task force wanted to understand everyone’s feelings. It was as though the Black Lives Matter movement put out a research paper that ALL Lives Matter. Not incorrect, just deaf, dumb and blind to the mission.
The report was called “Student Belonging and Exclusion Survey Report,” and polled 9,000 undergraduate and graduate students at the university in the summer of 2024. The responses were broken down between Jewish, Muslim, Christian, None and Other religious groups.
Jews fared the worst on each question.
Whether the question was about “a sense of belonging at Columbia” where only 34% of Jewish students felt welcome (compared to 41%, 54%, 51% and 49% for each of the other religious categories), or don’t feel accepted because of one’s religion where 62% of Jews felt unwelcome (compared to 53%, 13%, 3% and 11%), Jews were outliers, with Muslims trailing.
Jews were the most likely to have felt discrimination (53% versus 43%, 6%, 1% and 7%) and were uncomfortable sharing their beliefs (87% versus 82%, 64%, 58% and 58%). The fact that the majority of Columbia students were uncomfortable expressing their beliefs – including atheists – is a damning finding about university culture, beyond antisemitism.
Jews lost the most friends because of the encampments and campus environment (29% versus 16%, 7%, 6% and 9%) and had strained relationships (53% versus 30%, 27%, 22% and 20%). That is a sad state that extends to the personal student level, passed the administration and faculty.
And while Jews felt the most stress over the period, they are learning the least. The campus protest barely taught them anything about the regional dynamic. But Christian and other faiths learned a lot – of pro-Palestinian narrative.
How does one know that students have only been absorbing a pro-Palestinian narrative from a year of encampments? While half of the student body participated or supported the protests, virtually none supported Israel. The pro-Israel protests were almost exclusively Jewish. While 21% of Jews sided with the Stateless Arabs from Palestine (SAPs), a mere 1% of Christians, atheists and other faiths supported Israel. No Muslims supported the Jewish State.
Israel is a pariah at Columbia University. It is only supported by a number of Jews.
How can an institution that claims to champion an open exchange of ideas have a majority of students afraid to express their beliefs? How is it that only Jews support Israel on campus?
It is obvious why nearly two-thirds of Jews at Columbia feel unwelcome on campus. It is unclear why any Jew continues to attend.
Banner hung at Columbia University’s Hamilton Hall supporting “intifada,” violence against Jewish civilians
When she stood in Congress on Israel’s May 14 Independence Day to introduce an “Ongoing Nakba” resolution because the State of Israel continues to exist, she decided to open by quoting Peter “AsAJew” Beinart.
Rep. Tlaib introducing the “Ongoing Nakba” resolution on May 14, 2025
Beinart is not a famous diplomat or philosopher. He’s not a celebrity or TikTok star. He’s not a Palestinian or Muslim. Most of the people in Congress never heard of him.
Yet Tlaib chose to quote him as a comrade in the effort to destroy the modern Jewish State.
Most left-wing Jews left their socialist-jihadi colleagues in the wake of the October 7, 2023 massacre, like rats fleeing a sinking ship. They were appalled at the moral depravity of people shouting to “Globalize the Intifada” and “Glory to the martyrs” after the savage killing of 1,200 people in Israel. Only the most radical fringe of the fringe remained; those who could bury their being a Jew and a human being far below the thrill of being beatified as a living saint by jihadists.
Those seeking the destruction of Israel have migrated from quoting the forgery Protocols of the Elders of Zion to Amnesty International to “AsAJew”s. The anti-Israel antisemitism has transmogrified from niche raw Jew hatred to generally accepted at the United Nations to Jewish-endorsed with a kosher seal of approval.
The crucification of the Jewish State may not have started with Jews, but the jihadi gospels being written now are putting AsAJews front-and-center nailing it to the cross.
United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres is first and foremost a politician, not a human being. What else can be the reasons behind his ignoring the slaughter of 1,200 people in Israel, burning entire towns, raping women and kidnapping 250 people, other than serving his constituents of the Global South whom he has learned are rabid antisemites?
When a radical socialist-jihadi gunned down two young Israeli diplomats outside a Jewish event in Washington, D.C. in May 2025, Guterres immediately issued a statement condemning the murders. It was something he did not do after the massacre in Israel on October 7, 2023. Or October 8. Or October 9. Or October 10.
But he rose to the occasion in May 2025 after the targeted killing of the Israeli couple by a lunatic yelling “Free, free Palestine,” as if he were surrounded by fantom college campus agitators. Perhaps anticipating blowback from the anti-Israel horde he leads (read serves), Guterres explained this statement “reiterat[ing] his consistent condemnation of attacks against diplomatic officials.”
THIS particular antisemitic murderer should be “brought to justice” because he killed diplomats, a Bozo no-no. In this circumstance, the UN “extends sympathies to the Government of Israel,” because members of the sacred circle of high brow governmental officials were gunned down, not Jews having breakfast with their kids in their kitchens.
The thousands of butchered and injured people in Israel by over 3,000 Gazans in October 2023 were just Jews and therefore deserved no sympathy from the United Nations. Guterres could not offer any words of condemnation or consolation to the Jewish State for such barbarity; he has been so trained by the Global South. His office would not demand that thousands of Gazans “be brought to justice”; they are the UN’s protected wards.
When the head of the United Nations explained to the world that he decided to quickly condemn the murder of two Israelis when he ignored the butchering of 1,200, because of unity among diplomats, he further exposed the profound inhumanity of the cancerous global institution.
On May 23, 2025, France said it is “determined to advance the implementation of the two state solution.” The June conference in New York that it will chair with Saudi Arabia titled “the International Conference for the Peaceful Settlement of the Palestinian Question and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution” is designed to focus on IMPLEMENTATION. France made clear that it expects “Irreversible steps and concrete measures for its implementation” to make the future a reality.
The combined effort of a western country and the dominant force in the Arab world to spearhead the effort, might lead to a balanced consensus that can help the parties forward. To be successful, the team must be realistic about the goals and constraints of both Israel and Palestinian society, and move on a realistic timeframe. Most importantly, it must work on an ENDURING peace that will last, not simply getting to an agreement.
Here are seven constructive steps that could lead to a stable two-state solution:
1. Disarm All Palestinian Militias
Peace starts with law and order. The Palestinian Authority has no monopoly on violence in the territories it claims to govern. Hamas and Islamic Jihad still run Gaza. In the West Bank, terrorist groups like Lion’s Den and the Jenin Brigades run wild with guns and explosives.
France needs to lead an international push to fully disarm all terrorist militias, not just generic phrases of “condemning violence.” All arms must be placed under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA), or there’s no point in talking about sovereignty. No state — and certainly not Israel — can accept a terror enclave as its neighbor, as has existed in Gaza since 2007.
2. Elections With Rules
The last Palestinian elections were held when Justin Beiber became legally allowed to drink alcohol. Mahmoud Abbas was elected in 2005… for a 4-year term. He’s now on year 20.
New elections must be held, but not every group gets to play. Hamas — a terrorist organization by U.S., EU, and Israeli designations — should not be allowed to run, just like Nazis weren’t allowed to run in post-war Germany. The party should be outlawed.
France and Saudi Arabia should insist on clear criteria: no party that promotes violence, antisemitism, or the destruction of Israel gets a seat at the table. There is no pathway to an enduring peace if there is an underlying state of war.
3. Reform Education — Stop Teaching Hate
An Enduring Peace isn’t signed on paper; it’s taught in classrooms and instilled in society.
As part of de-Hamasification of Palestinian society, schools — especially and including those run by UNRWA — a complete overhaul of Palestinian education, with international oversight to remove antisemitic and violent content. IMPACT-SE has written about this problem for years, and concrete steps must be taken to allow a future of coexistence.
4. Stop Treating Jews Like Foreigners in Their Homeland
Palestinian schools aren’t the only problem. The United Nations is rank with Jew-hatred and one cannot expect Palestinians to be less anti-Israeli Jews than the global body.
UN Security Council Resolution 2334 outrageously declared that Jews living in eastern Jerusalem and east of the 1949 Armistice Lines with Jordan (E49AL) are somehow illegal — a modern form of antisemitism dressed up in legalese. UNSC 2334 should be renounced and rescinded as part of the steps towards an enduring peace.
France must reject the idea that Jews should be banned from parts of their ancestral homeland. At the same time, to facilitate compromise, a cap on Jewish residents east of the 1949 lines — say 15% of the overall population — could be introduced to avoid major demographic shifts in a future Palestinian state.
5. End the So-Called “Right of Return”
The Palestinian demand that millions of descendants of refugees be allowed into Israel is not about peace — it’s about destroying Israel demographically. It’s a fantasy rooted in grievance, not reality.
France must take the lead in declaring the Palestinian “right of return” over. In its place, a compensation fund should be set up — funded by Israel, Arab countries that started the 1948 war, and international donors. A similar fund should be set up for the descendants of Jews from Arab countries which were expelled in the decades after 1948. Work should begin now to compile a list of the properties which were lost and the related descendants who will collect associated reparations.
6. tighten the border framework, including jerusalem
The Saudi Peace Plan of 2002 suggested that Israel retreat to the 1949 Armistice Lines — a temporary ceasefire line, not a border. That’s not a starting point. That’s a non-starter.
France and its partners should endorse a realistic territorial framework: borders will fall somewhere between the current Israeli security barrier and the 1949 lines, through mutual negotiations. Land swaps are fine — as long as they reflect demographic realities and security needs.
UNRWA, the UN agency that was supposed to help refugees, has become a sprawling, corrupt bureaucracy that perpetuates dependency and fuels incitement. Its existence undermines the Palestinian Authority and entrenches the myth of perpetual refugee status.
France and Saudi Arabia should lead the call for a phased shutdown of UNRWA, starting in Gaza and the West Bank. Services should be handed over to the PA — and resettlement should begin for Palestinians in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, with annual caps to avoid regional overload.
UNRWA offices in Jerusalem (photo: First One Through)
Bottom Line
France says it wants permanent changes on the ground. Good. The Middle East has had enough of circular negotiations, terrorism-as-usual, and international hypocrisy.
If France is ready to be honest, clear-eyed, and courageous, it can help move the region toward peace. But if it sticks to the same old script — blaming Israel, indulging Palestinian rejectionism, and hiding behind the UN — then we’ll just keep getting the same instability, bloodshed, and failure.
Peace will not be achieved overnight and “concrete” steps must be phased with reality. France and Germany gradually became allies after World War II with the benefit of the deNazification of Germany. Germany even made peace with the Jewish State over time once it was committed to avoid the hatred of its past. An overhaul of the Palestinian mindset and rejection of radical jihadism and goal of eliminating the Jewish State, under the sheepherding of Saudi Arabia can help map a better course for the region.
France must internalize the needed overhaul of the “deformity in Palestinian culture,” to quote James Zogby, President of the Arab American Institute who spoke to the UN in June 2023. Saudi Arabia must overlay the Abraham Accords on top of its 2002 Peace Plan to refine it to account for the reality of the last several years.
The emphasis of the France-Saudi chaired conference must be on the direction, not on the permanence of “concrete” and “irreversible” steps, to find a less violent and just future for the region.
How many generations should someone be called a “refugee?” Two? Ten? My parents were refugees and I consider myself the son of refugees. But not a refugee. To do so would be a mockery of millions of people fleeing homes to faraway lands where they have no family, infrastructure or knowledge of the local language.
Alas, while every year the world adds and removes refugees from the global tally, there is a permanent exception.
There are roughly 122 million displaced people worldwide (68 million internally displaced, 38 million refugees and millions of others seeking protection), and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is tasked with helping them. Its mission is clear: assist people fleeing conflict or persecution to either return home when it’s safe, or resettle in a new country where they can rebuild their lives and become citizens. Refugee status, according to UNHCR, is meant to be temporary. A tragic but manageable step toward normalcy.
But for one group of people, the rules were rewritten.
In 1949, the United Nations created a separate agency: the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). Its job was not to help all refugees, but a specific set—Arabs who left or were displaced from what became the State of Israel during the 1948 war.
Unlike the UNHCR, UNRWA never intended to help these refugees resettle or gain citizenship elsewhere. In fact, when Jordan annexed the to be named “West Bank” in 1950 and granted full Jordanian citizenship to the Arabs living there in 1954 (Jews were specifically excluded from Jordanian citizenship) —including the so-called refugees—UNRWA still kept them on its refugee rolls. Why? They were no longer stateless, no longer displaced from their community, and in most cases, were living just miles from where they or their families once resided.
No other refugee population in the world is treated this way.
The Palestinians under UNRWA are not counted based on where they live or whether they’ve rebuilt their lives. They’re counted based on ancestry—any descendant of someone who lived in Mandatory Palestine in 1946 and left during the war is considered a “refugee.” That includes people who are now citizens of Jordan who have never set foot in Israel, and those who live under Palestinian rule in the West Bank and Gaza.
This isn’t about resettlement. It isn’t about a “two-state solution.” It’s about return. Not return to a country they fled—but to homes where their grandparents once lived, in a country that has since fought multiple wars for its survival and established itself as a sovereign nation.
This has locked the Middle East into a perpetual state of conflict. UNRWA doesn’t just preserve the status of Palestinian refugees—it amplifies it, funds it, and builds an international bureaucracy around it. It has denied Israel’s right to control its own immigration, and basic principle of sovereignty.
Worse, the UN’s actions have turned a situation normally considered a humanitarian issue into a real estate dispute. By insisting that people return to a house—not a country, as outlined in international human rights law—the global political body has exceeded its own mandate. This isn’t a question of national self-determination, but one of personal property claims. UNRWA isn’t so much a champion of the creation of a state beside Israel; it champions individual return to specific homes, decades abandoned or destroyed, now occupied by others in a sovereign country.
Meanwhile, the descendants of every other refugee group in the world—from Sudan to Ukraine—are helped by the UN to find a path forward. Only the Palestinians are encouraged to walk backward, into the houses of their grandparents.
UNHCR helps refugees stop being refugees. UNRWA helps them stay that way.
Every year, new wars create new displaced people. But only one group stays on the list year after year, generation after generation.
For Palestinian Arabs, the 1948 war is still being fought. Generations of people haven’t been birthed into refugee status as much as the region is in a 100 years war. While the world may use political terminology of an UNRWA ward who has never been to Israel as a descendant of a “refugee,” Palestinians simply see a permanent property right which will never be forfeited. The UN simply provides cover under the “refugee” monicker.
First One Through 