India Must Rethink Two-State Stand On Palestine: An Israel-Based Solution Is Optimal

Ever since the state of Israel was created in the late 1940s, India has been politically on the side of the Palestinians and in favour of creating an independent state for its people.

In the wake of the ongoing and brutal Israel-Hamas war, India has reiterated its preferences for a two-state solution.

It is time to rethink this situation, not only from the perspective of Indian strategic interests, but also from the point of view of the viability of any two-state solution and possibilities for peace in West Asia.

From India’s perspective, Israel is a friend and strategic defence and technology ally. Palestine, on the other hand, is no real friend. It is unlikely to stand with India on any issue of our national interest. It has, for example, not once supported our stand on Kashmir.

Worse, once created as an independent state, Palestine may well start taking up anti-India positions, firing from the shoulders of India’s Muslim population. 

We must also acknowledge a previously unacknowledged position. While a head-in-the-clouds secularist like Jawaharlal Nehru developed a pro-Palestinian stand purely on the basis of principle, the unstated truth is we have been pro-Palestine only (or largely) because of our substantial Muslim population. Our official pro-Israel tilt is the result of our Hindu majority, which largely empathises with Israel.

In short, our heart is with Israel, but our mind tells us that we must practice a balance with one wary eye on our own Muslim citizens, whose heart may be with Palestinians.

But leaving our strategic imperatives aside, how viable is a new Palestinian state, created out of a tiny strip of land adjoining Egypt (Gaza) or on the West Bank, likely to be? 

According to Jewish sources, the total number of Palestinians in the world is about 15 million, of whom about 10 million live in the historical area called Palestine (which includes Israel), while another five million live outside.

Five million of those who live in historical Palestine live in the West Bank and Gaza, 3.2 million live in Jordan, and just under two million in Israel.

The question simply is this: what would be the logic of creating a separate Palestinian state in two pieces, one in Gaza and another on the West Bank, which Israel will anyway oversee, since the latter includes parts of Jerusalem? Were East and West Pakistan able to stay together when separated by large swathes of Indian territory?

So, at the very least, we will end up with a three-state solution, Israel, Israeli-overseen West Bank, and Gaza, where Egypt presumably will play big brother. This will still leave large numbers of Palestinians in Jordan.

There is no way Israel is going to allow this demographic influx to congregate in one state and destabilise either the West Bank or any other piece of land given to Palestinians.

The simplest solution is actually a one-state solution, where Israel is the successor state to the old Palestine, with “Palestinian Arabs” living in Israeli-run protectorates or shifted to Egypt and Jordan permanently — where they anyway currently reside.

Israel and America can then fund their economic revival without creating another geopolitical crisis in West Asia.

The Palestinians who live within Israel and those who live in Israeli-run protectorates will actually enjoy much better lives if their economic fortunes are linked to a dynamic Israel, rather than live in eternal hostility to Israel.

The one-state solution is best for both Israel and Palestine. Not all people deserve a state of their own, especially an unviable one.