John Donvan
This is Open to Debate. Hi, everybody. I’m John Donvan, standing on the stage at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City, about to bring onstage four superbly qualified debaters to explore a proposed way out of the mutual violence between Israelis and Palestinians that took a worsening turn on October 7th.

It’s been proposed that the ultimately necessary compromise for these two peoples to share the land they both claim will be to find a way to share the land by creating two states, which may sound very naïve at this particular moment, but in times past, this idea inspired hope and even seemed to have momentum. The question we’re debating, in partnership with our host here at the Council on Foreign Relations, is the two-state solution still viable?

So, we’re gonna begin in our first round our, uh, which is comprised of opening statements by each debater in turn. And speaking first will be Ambassador Dennis Ross. Dennis is a counselor and distinguished fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Dennis has been in the room, uh, literally, in shaping US involvement in Middle East peace process issues for decades across multiple presidential administrations.

Dennis, you’re answering yes to the question, is a two-state solution still viable? This spot on the floor is yours to tell us why.

Ambassador Dennis Ross
Let me start off by saying, if the question of there was, is a two-state solution still viable today, meaning now, my answer would be no. I would say no because the Palestinians are split. They have an ideological gap between Hamas, uh, and Fatah and the PA. Hamas is an Islamist organization. It is an ideological movement that rejects the idea of Israel, that is driven by an ideology of resistance, armed resistance, uh, and that rejects the very idea of a two-state outcome. The Palestinian Authority and Fatah accept the principle of two states, but you never hear them talking or educating about the issue and promoting coexistence. The governance of the Palestinian Authority is basically bad and it’s fully corrupt.

On the Israeli side, you have a government that does not accept the two-state outcome. It has some ministers who are working very practically on the ground to try to prevent it. If you ask the Israeli public, “Do they accept a Palestinian state today?” they’d say, “But a Palestinian state will be led by Hamas.” So, it looks bleak. But the reality is, we’re not asking, is it viable forever? We’re asking, is it viable for now? If you say now, the answer is no. If you say forever, I say, yes, there’s a possibility.

But what’s the alternative to two states? The alternative is one state. And one state, I can tell you, will never be viable, and for a very simple reason. There are two national movements competing for the same space. These are two national movements with distinct national identities. Those national identities are rooted in the land. They’re driven emotionally, historically, psychologically, and culturally. They will not coexist in the same place. They will not disappear.

Ahmad Ghunaim is someone knew who is a- a member of the Tanzim who once said, “If there is one state, either we will dominate the Israelis or they will dominate us.” And you don’t have to take my word for it. You don’t have to take his word for it. Look at the region. Look around the region. There is not one place where you have a state where there’s a national sectarian or tribal identity that is at peace. If you want the Israelis and the Palestinians to look like Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, or Levant, then you want one state. One state is a prescription for a forever conflict. Thank you.

John Donvan
And answering no to the question, is the two-state solution still viable, I wanna welcome Fleur Hassan-Nahoum. Fleur is the former deputy mayor of Jerusalem. She’s also Israel’s Special Envoy for Trade and Innovation. Fleur, welcome. You are answering no to the question. This space is yours.

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
Thank you. So, Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. And this is the problem with the two-state solution. We’ve been here before, from 1937, when the Peel Commission expressed the idea of two states and Amin al-Husseini, said, “No.” Then he went and allied himself with Hitler to see if he would help him get rid of the problem of the pesky Jews of Palestine. Then we move on to 1947, the Partition Plan of the UN. Again, it was a no by the Palestinian leadership when Israel said, “Yes.” Three horrible existential wars. They weren’t for a piece of land. They were to destroy the State of Israel.

And somehow, we hobbled with some hope on to the Madrid Conference and on to Oslo. And in Oslo there were unspeakable amount of sacrifices that Israel was ready to do, to take part of the heartland, of the biblical heartland of Judea and Samaria and give 90% of it for a Palestinian state and also divide Jerusalem, the eternal capital. We lost a prime minister along the way to get to the two-state solution. And Arafat said, “No.” And instead of going and renegotiating, we went towards an Intifada that killed thousands of innocent people in the City of Jerusalem.

Now, I’m not saying that if we would’ve had Professor Dajani negotiating, we wouldn’t today be celebrating 24 years of a Palestinian state, but, alas, that wasn’t the case. So then we tried something different, unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. We left a beautiful strip of land and instead of the Palestinians seeing this as a pilot for a state and creating Dubai, Singapore, they created Beirut. And even as the rockets were falling in 2009 from Gaza, Ehud Olmert offered another state that was rejected. And so the bottom line is that the Palestinian leadership have never wanted a state. It is not their dream. It was our dream. Maybe Ambassador Ross’s dream. Maybe even the projection of our own statehood onto another people.

The problem of the conflict is not that there isn’t a Palestinian state. The problem of the conflict is that there’s a Jewish state that the Palestinian leadership and the people have never accepted. And don’t take it from me. Look at the education system, look at the poetry, look at the songs. The problem is that the two-state solution was never their dream. And acta- after October 7th we have to conclude that they didn’t want the two-state solution. They simply want the final solution. Thank you.

John Donvan
So this puts us at halfway through the opening round, and our next speaker is Professor Mohammed Dajani. Mohammed is a Palestinian scholar, a peace activist, the founder of Wasatia, a movement which seeks to promote tolerance, interfaith dialogue, and peaceful coexistence. Mohammed, you’ve been saying and are saying that a two-state solution is still viable. This is, uh, space is yours.

Mohammed Dajani
Thank you. The question I would like to raise is, why is peace elusive? Peace is elusive because we are stuck in the past and the present, as we have heard. We need to move on to the future. The two-state solution is the future. Is it s- viable or not? One hundred, uh, 146 states say it’s viable. It took momentum in the last month by five states agreeing to the Statehood of Palestine. Now, the question is, should we move on? Now, the other states which do not recognize the, uh, Palestine are want, uh, negotiations. But negotiations with whom? Between a state and the PL Organizer- Org- uh, PLO, an organization like what happened in, uh, o- in Oslo? Or between a state and the PA, an entity? No. The right way is to have negotiations between a state and a state. And that’s why it is so important to have the two-state solution.

Now, we have heard that we went out of Gaza and then rockets kept coming. Yes, but you went out of Gaza and you gave the credibility to Hamas and to the extremist with your unilateral, uh, withdrawal. If you did not withdraw unilaterally and if you would have, uh, accepted, if you would have negotiated and gave credit to diplomacy and then Hamas would not have taken the credit of claiming it throughout the Israeli army.

Now, the question is, we have 163 states that recognize Israel, 14- 145 states that recognize Palestine. Now, if we have two states, then we can have more states recognizing both states, maybe 190 states. And so it is in the best interest. It’s a win-win situation. So far, we have failed because it was, uh, either a win-lose situation or like in Gaza, it’s a lose-lose situation. If we are thinking in terms of a win-win situation, the answer is to have the two-state solution in order for us to be able to have equality, parity and, uh, symmetry within our relationship. Thank you.

John Donvan
Thank you. And finishing up this round and giving his opening statement, answering no to the question is Elliott Abrams. Elliott is a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies here at the Council on Foreign Relations, another person who’s been in the room on US policy. He served as deputy national security adviser under President George W. Bush, where he supervised US policy in the Middle East for the White House. Elliott, again, you are answering no to the question, uh, is a two-state solution still viable?

Elliott Abrams
Thank you. I wish I could be on the other team.

I wish I could believe that the two-state solution was a solution, but it’s not. For one thing, neither Israelis nor Palestinians believe in it. On neither side is there majority support. This is not a new phenomenon. It’s not a product of the… of the Gaza War. In 2006, there was a parliamentary election, the last one, um, and Hamas won with 43% of the vote. Now, if you look at the most recent polls, Hamas is still in the 40s and still has a plurality. So Palestinians aren’t for this solution. It’s also much too dangerous. I brought this piece of paper to read a- a line from Salman Rushdie. “If there were a Palestinian state now, it would be run by Hamas and we would have a Taliban-like state, a satellite state of Iran.” And Dennis, of course, said, “Oh, not now. Not now.” What’s going to change?

I wish I could say that the Islamic Republic were on its last legs. It’s not, very, very sadly. Palestinian opinion toward Israel has been the same, as Fleur said, for nearly a hundred years now, rejecting the Peel Commission, rejecting partition in ’48, rejecting every peace proposal. Why? Because the main goal of Palestinian nationalism has been negative, not positive. It has never been to build a Palestinian state. It has been about destroying the Jewish state. Not every Palestinian has that view. Salam Fayyad, when he was prime minister, ran in the 2006 elections on a state-building line and got 2% of the vote. This is a formula for more war. This creation of a Palestinian state today or tomorrow is a formula for increasing the conflict as Iran makes that state, as Rushdie said, its own satellite and a launching pad for attacks on Israel.

John Donvan
Thank you. Again, the question we’re debating here, is a two-state solution still viable? We’re gonna take a quick break. I’m John Donvan. This is Open to Debate.

Welcome back to Open to Debate. I’m John Donvan. We’re taking on the question, is a two-state solution still viable? We are talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We’ve heard opening statements from Ambassador Dennis Ross, Professor Mohammed Dajani Daoudi, CFR Senior Fellow Elliott Abrams, and Israeli Special Envoy Fleur Hassan-Nahoum. Let’s get right back to the discussion.

I just wanna sum up what I think I heard our- our- our two teams say. Um, we- we heard from Dennis Ross and- and Mohammed. Uh, their framework requires recognizing the difference of between now versus forever. They concede now it doesn’t look like a great time for everybody to be jumping on board for a two-state solution. But their argument is that this is not a permanent state of affairs, that things could change. They look back to the… to a past where there was more momentum for this idea. They’re also making the argument that if there is any hope of lasting peace there have to be two states. That’s the… that’s the only basis for which the region can ever, uh, reach peace. They, uh… And ma- make indications also that, uh, uh, Mohammed did that the Israeli have made mistakes along the way that, uh, to some degree explain the failure up to this point.

Their opponents are saying, look, it’s been tried, it’s been tried, it’s been tried. The time for trying is over. The Israelis made many many offers that the Palestinians turned down and instead offered an Intifada and that f- frankly their opinion is that Palestinians fundamentally are not interested in a two-state solution and living in peace with Israel but that their goal is the destruction of Israel. And you made an allusion to demilitarization, which I think is a topic that we wanna return to because that would be one of the terms for the conversation.

I- I wanna start by asking you, Dennis Ross, to- to talk a little bit about… more about this notion of, uh, the present is not necessarily the future, that things could change. Where- where do you see that impetus coming from?

Ambassador Dennis Ross
I think the impetus, in some ways, comes from how terrible the situation is for both sides. You think the people of Gaza right now are- are looking for- for more war? You think Israel, given the cost of what has happened, is looking for more war? No, I don’t think so. Is there an easy pathway? No. You know, having played a role in a lot of the failed efforts, I can tell you I know that, you know, the history gives us a reason to be pessimistic. But I also come back to the reality that I don’t hear a good alternative to two states. You can criticize two states as an outcome, but you still have to deal with the fact there are two separate national identities and the likelihood of them coexisting in one state, I think, is close to nil.

John Donvan
So i- is your argument that there’s no choice or is your argument that conditions could change so that both sides would be more willing than [inaudible

]-

Ambassador Dennis Ross
The two are re- the two are related.

John Donvan
Uh-huh.

Ambassador Dennis Ross
If both sides come to understand there’s no choice, then you create a different impetus for looking at conditions. I don’t believe this is something you can… you can change overnight. I think it does require leadership on the Palestinian side that we have not seen. I think it requires soul-searching on the Palestinian side and an introspection about learning their lessons from the past. They’ve have opportunities. I’ll just close with one thought. When we were at Camp David, uh, we had one session that I organized all night, which is two on each side, and at the end of that session Shlomo Ben-Ami came out, who was then the Minister in… of Interior for Israel, and he said, “If we were like them in 1948, we would not have a state.” What we need is to see Palestinians be prepared to assume a set of responsibilities, be prepared to do the kind of things that Mohammed does, which is actually educate for tolerance and coexistence. That’s not impossible if they come to realize how bleak the future is if they don’t.

John Donvan
Fleur.

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
I just wanna say that you’re making this very binary. What you’re saying is you either have a two-state solution or a one-state solution, which will then end the Jewish state. You’re a hundred percent right, the one-state solution would end the Jewish state. But getting stuck on this mantra that has no connection to reality, not today, not in 20 years, and I dare say not in 50 years, prevents other- other more creative solutions from coming to be. Why is it just about the one-state or the two-state solution? Why can’t we push for more autonomy, more prosperity? Why can’t we push for federation? Maybe even a regional arrangement, which by they way was another thing that the Palestinians rejected in 2020 with the Abraham Accords. That was a regional arrangement that Trump put forward.

Ambassador Dennis Ross
Trump also provided for a Palestinian state.

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
Absolutely. But they had to be milestones, milestones of taking responsibility, accountability, eliminating corruption. They were milestones. And what did they do with it? They said, “No.” There’s a surprise.

John Donvan
Mohammed.

Mohammed Dajani
Actually, we keep t- we keep talking about the past and the present and I’m more concerned about the future, because we keep demonizing each other, we keep de-legitimizing each other. So we have to put this in the past and let us think new ideas, the creative ideas you are talking about- about the future. There is, uh, there is no way that you can build a future without parity, without equality, without self-determin-mination for the Palestinians. And the Palestinians feel that they have to have a homeland, like you have had a homeland.

John Donvan
So on a… on an equal basis, you’re saying?

Mohammed Dajani
An equal basis.

John Donvan
Okay.

Mohammed Dajani
And-

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
They could’ve had one by now.

Elliott Abrams
I- I just-

John Donvan
Elliott.

Elliott Abrams
I am struck by the fact that when you listen to world leaders, the president, Tony Blinken, European foreign ministers, prime ministers, they always talk about two states, a Jewish and democratic state and a viable, independent, sovereign Palestinian state. And the word that’s missing is “democratic”. Why is it missing? Because they know that an independent Palestinian state is going to be a Hamas state and they don’t want that. Of course they don’t want that. Therefore, they’re afraid to mention the word “democracy”. That’s the problem. And it isn’t solved by creating willy-nilly a Palestinian state and then hoping that, well, maybe people will change their minds. There’s no evidence for it.

Mohammed Dajani
You know what’s the problem? The problem is that you plant weeds and you expect flowers. Now, you cannot have a- a state with occupation and then say, “Oh, this is… Look at what the Palestinians are.” If you… if you end the occupation, you give me my state and le- let me have democracy, and then decide. But, uh, you are judging me with the occupation and as a result Hamas emerges. And so, uh, you- you should-

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
Sorry, didn’t we leave Gaza? We didn’t leave Gaza in 2005?

Mohammed Dajani
Yeah, but you left that-

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
That’s exactly what we did.

Mohammed Dajani
Yeah, but you left that and gave credit to Hamas.

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
Credit?

Mohammed Dajani
Yeah, of course.

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
We- we-

Mohammed Dajani
You- you left it unilaterally and and so Hamas said-

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
We left it to the PA.

Mohammed Dajani
… “We [inaudible

] to rule them out.” It is not… you did not sit with the PA at the time and give diplomacy, uh, a chance and, um, be able to, uh, give also negotiations a chance. You just left. And so Hamas-

John Donvan
You know, uh, uh-

So just for those who-

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
We tried that in 2000, 2001 [inaudible

]-

John Donvan
I- I- I know that a lot of you know the facts on the ground, but just for those of you who don’t, Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. Uh, at that time, the Palestinian Authority, which was represented by Yasser Arafat, was supposedly in charge, but within a short amount of time there was an election. Hamas won. There was a war between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority and, uh, the Palestinian Authority was violently ousted as a result of that [inaudible

]-

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
And- and somehow that’s still our fault.

Ambassador Dennis Ross
What Mohammed is saying is had Prime Minister Sharon announced i- in principle he was withdrawing from Gaza but he was going to negotiate the withdrawal so that the Palestinian Authority was assuming responsibilities in advance of the withdrawal and demonstrated the re- the fulfillment of those responsibilities in advance of the withdrawal, then you would be building up those who believed in coexistence, as opposed to simply withdrawing and allowing Hamas to say, “You see? Our violence worked”

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
Like we did in the West Bank in Judea and Samaria in 2000, 2001, when the Palestinian Authority was formed, wasn’t that exactly what we did? Ninety-four percent of Palestinians are living under the Palestinian Authority. Isn’t that exactly what we did?

Ambassador Dennis Ross
It is… it is, yes, partially. Did you give full autonomy to the Palestinians in [inaudible

] that time?

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
We kept security control because we had no choice.

Ambassador Dennis Ross
It wasn’t just security control. Did you allow-

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
In Area A and B, yes, it was. Area C is a different story.

Ambassador Dennis Ross
And you… and you allowed them to b- to go ahead and to export goods with no Israel controls and you allowed movement with no Israel controls at all?

Elliott Abrams
If you- you’re arguing in a sense that Israel should walk out, now it walked out in Gaza and it gave that territory to the PA, which governed it for two years, remember. Hamas didn’t take over the next day. The PA had two years to show it could do something positive and constructive and failed.

Ambassador Dennis Ross
Yes. But one of the points that he’s making and I’m reinforcing is maybe if there had been more coordination on the issue of withdrawal, you would’ve seen could they fulfill the responsibilities that were… they were being given, number one. Number two, you look at someone like Salam Fayyad, who in fact was ready to build the state from the ground up, and it’s not a question of Israel simply has to give and not maintain any control or not have demonstrations. He was asking for the Israelis frequently, allow me, put me in a position where I have to deliver. Put me in a position where I have to fulfill my responsibilities. And frequently, Israel did not do so. They did not act in a way that would’ve built up the authority of someone like Salam Fayyad.

Elliott Abrams
You know, Dennis, that was true of the United States as well. And why was it true? Why is it that the United States did not focus on helping Fayyad do that? Because we were negotiating the two-state solution. All the energy went into the diplomacy rather than building from the ground up. And again, I would say to you, remember that Fayyad got 2% in the election with his state building formula. It was not popular. People did not want to do that.

Ambassador Dennis Ross
You’ve made the argument that the Palestinians don’t have the will, and I think you may have said the Israelis have lost the will-

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
They’ve lost the will.

Ambassador Dennis Ross
… to make this work. Um, I happen to have been, uh, an ABC News correspondent based in Jerusalem in the 1980s, and when I first went out there, Menachem Begin was the prime minister, and his government’s policy was to establish settlements, uh, with the express… literally express purpose of call- uh, what he called creating facts on the ground to ensure that there never could be a contiguous Palestinian state. Things changed when Rabin came along, but then Rabin got assassinated by somebody who didn’t like the fact that he was creating a Palestinian state. Netanyahu, at the time, was warning against the creation of a Palestinian state and has continued in the policy of making it very difficult to create a Palestinian state.

So I just wanna check in with you on whether the will among Israelis really was ever there or not.

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
The will was there, I would say, in Oslo, and the public opinion for a Palestinian state during Oslo was probably at its highest, 60, 70%. Also, the Palestinian will for a two-state solution, at least the polling that was done then, was more positive than it’s ever been today. And this is the tragedy of the situation. This is why I say that Yasser Arafat has a lot of blame here. Because if he hadn’t walked away and if he hadn’t unleashed suicide bombers in our city, we could be celebrating today 24 years of a Palestinian state. That was the moment when he cut off the legs of the two-state solution and, uh, Mahmoud Abbas punched it in the stomach and Yehiya Sinwar shot it in the head.

Ambassador Dennis Ross
Look, I was there. (laughs) I wrote a book that described that Arafat said no when he should’ve said yes. The Palestinians have not had a leadership that was prepared to assume responsibility. They haven’t had a leadership that was prepared to socialize for- for peace and education. They haven’t had that. But it doesn’t mean they can never have it. What I don’t wanna do is foreclose the possibility.

Elliott, I’m a huge believer and you build from the ground up. I mean, I also agree that some of our mistakes in the past is we’ve spent too much time negotiating and not building the substance of a state from the ground up, which is what Fayyad wanted. He wanted to build a state from the ground up so no one could deny it. We didn’t do enough to help in that regard.

We’re at a point, given everything that’s happened, we have to have a group-up effort. We also have to have a top-down effort. The creative solution, Fleur, that you talk about, I’m not against those. I think those could be, a, they could be an outcome, they could be a way station to an outcome. What I don’t wanna see is an approach that produces one state and leaves no other possibility. And I’m afraid some of the things I see, for example, Minister Smotrich doing, creating that kind of an outcome.

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
And I just don’t wanna commit suicide.

Ambassador Dennis Ross
I don’t want you to. (laughs)

John Donvan
Elliott-
… you were talking about demilitarization. You were talking about the- the- the details.

Elliott Abrams
Let me… let me just say, I- I think, you know, the- the- the problem is this has been going on for a long time, right? Since 1967. I mean, we all named Fayyad. He’s wonderful. But we don’t see much other than Fayyad. Many people have said this. The need for change is in Palestinian society, yet plazas and schools are still being named after murderers, yet the Pay to Slay program is still there, where Palestinians who have committed acts of terrorism are paid salaries, by the PA, not Hamas, by the PA, while they are in prison, and the amount they are paid rises with the severity of the crime. This has been going on for decades and it hasn’t stopped.

Mohammed Dajani
The PA cannot but pay people, not because they are terrorists [inaudible

], because they are human being and so their families. And you c- uh, they don’t want them to… it’s say a humanistic, uh, thing to support, uh, the families of those who were killed or who are in prison. That is a-

Elliott Abrams
No, humanist is- is… would be based-
You can have a welfare system that says, “Tell me how many children you have and we will… we will give you a certain amount of money.” When you pay it in accordance with the… with the grossness and brutality of the crime, that’s not a humanistic system.

Mohammed Dajani
Well, this is… you- you- your creation. The problem is you are the ones who are supporting the PA, you are the ones who created in Oslo the PA. And so this is-

Elliott Abrams
Blame him.

Mohammed Dajani
And so bas-

Mohammed Dajani
And so basically (laughs) basically-

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
So let me get this straight.

Ambassador Dennis Ross
Yeah, I- I didn’t-

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
So let me get this through.

John Donvan
Let the audience listening know that a finger was pointed to Dennis Ross. (laughs)

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
So let me get this straight.

Ambassador Dennis Ross
I- I didn’t wanna corrupt PA.

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
We get blamed for creating the PA, we get blamed for not letting the PA rule, we get blamed for letting them rule, so basically we get blamed for everything. And this-

Mohammed Dajani
No, no. You are- (laughs)

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
… is the bottom line of the problem with the conflict-

Ambassador Dennis Ross
Is that accurate?

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
… that there is zero accountability. There is only the infantilization of the Palestinian people propping up an education system that is teaching glorification of martyrs, that is teaching anti-Semitism, that is teaching that the only-

Ambassador Dennis Ross
Fleur, can I-

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
… solution-

Ambassador Dennis Ross
… can I… All right.

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
… the only solution-

Ambassador Dennis Ross
Can I ask you a question?

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
… is… the only solution is the right of return and from the river to the sea. This is the school book funded by the UN.

John Donvan
Right. All right.

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
Funded by countries around the world.

John Donvan
You- you’ve- you’ve made a very strong point.
Wait, wait, wait. In the interest of time only (laughs) I wanna let Dennis speak. Thanks.

Ambassador Dennis Ross
I wanna ask a question. Because everything you just said, by the way, I agree with. But my question to you is, what if in fact we’re able to create a new educational system there?

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
I wish-

Ambassador Dennis Ross
What if, in fact, you being to see a different narrative emerge from the Palestinians? Would it change your view?

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
Absolutely. But I’m realistic. I live in this world and not in La La Land. Yes.

Ambassador Dennis Ross
Okay. Let’s think about the role that country, like the UAE, can actually play with the Palestinians. What if in the aftermath of Gaza, uh, what if one of the things… what if they’re one of those who in on the ground in Gaza? What if they-

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
I would love that.

Ambassador Dennis Ross
… assume responsibility for the educational-

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
It would great-

Ambassador Dennis Ross
… ministry that would be set up there?

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
Absolutely great. The UA are an example of a de-radicalized Muslim society, where Iran haven’t managed to get its tentacles in.

Ambassador Dennis Ross
All right. So think in terms of being creative, think about the roles that Arab states can play with the Palestinians from the perspective of, in a sense, helping to shape what is the future, a reformed Palestinian Authority.

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
That would be great, but the-

Mohammed Dajani
We go back-

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
… Palestinian’s Authority, but who are the people from the Palestinian Authority they’re gonna work with? Because the people currently in the Palestinian Authority all, like Biden, wants to call it, revitalize, are still preaching that Jews are monkeys and pigs.

Ambassador Dennis Ross
There is… The issue is not revitalization.

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
These are people today from the revitalize Palestinian Authority.

Ambassador Dennis Ross
The issue is not revitalization. It has to be reform and transformation.

John Donvan
I just wanna get to a piece of your argument, Elliott, that has not surfaced, and that’s kind of the geopolitical-

Elliott Abrams
Right. The demilitarization of, um-

John Donvan
Yeah. In Iran.

Elliott Abrams
Well, it’s very important, because everybody who proposes a Palestinian state says, needless to say, it has to be demilitarized. That is it’s not an Israeli demand, everyone says it. And it’s completely unrealistic. You know, uh, we know what a society looks like that wants to demilitarize. Costa Rica. We also know what a society looks like when the people do not want to and it is imposed on them, and that’s Germany after the Versailles Treaty. That is a revanchist state.

There is no reason to believe that Palestinians would accept this permanently. I think that is what is more likely to happen is it would have to be enforced. Who’s gonna enforce it? UNIFIL or some other UN agency?

The United States? You are creating a monster here. You are creating a state, partly, largely, because of the Islamic Republic of Iran. That will be a launching pad for more serious attacks on Israel. The demilitarization of a people who do not want to be demilitarized won’t last.

John Donvan
Mohammed, I- I hear… I heard your opponent say it would be creating a monster to create a Palestinian state and the I just wanted to get your reaction to that.

Mohammed Dajani
That… They keep saying the same thing. If there is, uh, occupation and you expect things to be better, no, they will not. Uh, I want to go back to the, uh, curriculum. I asked the Palestinian Minister of Education, “Why do you have this curriculum that teaches about martyrdom and death?” He said, “Because this is a national education.” I’m against this national education. I would like to have a curriculum that will teach peace education. We have to pave the way to peace and by paving the way pu- to peace is education. And so… but this is something that we are, uh, fighting for in order to bring ba- to bring about a better future for our children.

John Donvan
We’re gonna take another short break. Our question, is a two-state solution still viable? I’m John Donvan. This is Open to Debate. We’ll be right back.

Welcome back to Open to Debate. I’m John Donvan here with Ambassador Dennis Ross, Professor Mohammed Dajani Daoudi, CFR Senior Fellow Elliot Abrams, and Israeli Special Envoy Fleur Hassan-Nahoum. We’re now in the question and answer portion of the program. Our question overall is, is a two-state solution still viable?

And if you could stand up, a mic will come to you.

Speaker 8
It seems that both sides agree that the Palestinian Authority is a corrupt leadership that must go. So why is it that the US government views and bolsters the credibility of the Palestinian Authority to be the solution when in fact the Palestinian Authority is the source of the problem?

Ambassador Dennis Ross
To be fair, the administration use the term called “revitalization”. I don’t buy that term. I think it’s a mistake. But they- there- there was an understanding the PA has to be reformed. Its governance is terrible, it’s characterized by corruption, it presides over an educational system that promotes incitement, not education. So you build a rule of law, you- you build a transparent economic approach, you create a different kind of educational system.

John Donvan
Elliott, would you like to respond?

Elliott Abrams
Yeah. I- I- I worry, uh, here about the idea that this is a transient problem. Palestinian people obviously object to the corruption. It’s why the PA is so unpopular. But there’s no evidence, none, that the vast majority of Palestinians actually want a peace-seeking government. That’s a real problem.

Mohammed Dajani
I think that it is very sad that this is the way… the other thing, I think that if we keep thinking that way, then we are… and this is where peace is elusive. Because, basically, we think… we- we are thinking we are good, the other is bad. We are just, the other is unjust. We are not corruptible, the other are corruptible. We have to take this formula and throw out and start thinking anew. Now, uh, give the Palestinians the state they want and then judge them. Take away the occupation and then judge them. And if you keep the occupation there, then… and then you expect us to- to be angels, it will not happen.

Elliott Abrams
And who takes the risk that that state you’re creating will not turn into another Gaza, another Lebanon with the Hezbollah there? You’re imposing that risk on people who have just seen their children murdered and they don’t wanna take that risk. And I can hardly blame them.

Miriam Safi
Hi, uh, Miriam Safi. So my question is on the one-state solution. If demographics is destiny and there’s a- a non-majority Jewish state, how viable is it to have a Jewish democracy that’s equitable, secular, the way the US is structured in other countries?

Ambassador Dennis Ross
Uh, you end up with a population where there’s, in a sense, two different kind of legal and social systems. I think there is a way to get there. I mean, what really separates us is there is a- a belief that, think of my… of my colleagues over there, who feel the Palestinians are never able to adjust because they really reject the idea of a Jewish state.

Jeff Schaffer
Jeff Schaffer. All of you agree that two-state solution can’t happen now. Will it be possible at all as long as Iran is Iran?

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
Nope.

Elliott Abrams
No, no.

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
No. That’s the problem, that pan-Arabism kind of morphed into Islamism. And let me just give you some bad news. Iran is winning right now. Iran, its strategy is going very well. They’ve got pawns, they’ve got Hezbollah, they’ve got the Houthis, they’ve got Hamas, they’ve got Iraq, Shias in Iraq. It’s working and we really, uh, need to understand, I hate to sound like a doomsday merchant, but we need to understand that Iran is- is the Hitler of today, and until we deal with Iran, none of this is gonna get results. If we deal with Iran, maybe there’s a chance.

And Dennis, I promise you, if we get to the point that we find the Palestinian Gandhi, I’ll be the first one to support the two-state solution.

John Donvan
Dennis, you wanted to jump in on-

Ambassador Dennis Ross
I- I wanna… I just… I do wanna answer. Look, I think Iran creates enormous difficulties. If you really want a serious peace strategy, it also has to be related to an effective s- strategy against Iran.

Mohammed Dajani
Also, I think that it is important how to deal with it, because the United States should not do the mistake that it did in Afghanistan, where actually it was importing a western culture to an Islamic nation, and so Taliban was able to take over. We have to have de-radicalization. And in the deradi- di- radicalization you have to have a moderate Islamic culture, uh, fight a radical Islamic culture in the sense that you have to fight the Hamas, not to kill Hamas, but to kill the ideology of Hamas, in the sense the radical ideology of Hamas by trying to promote a moderate Islamic ideology from the same culture. The moderate ideology of Islam is much more powerful than the radical ideology.

John Donvan
Uh, front- front row.

Elliott Abrams
Can I just say, th- this is in a way the definition of our differences. Because what Mohammed is saying is you must create the state and then create moderation and what we’re saying is you, uh, it- it is too dangerous to create the state until you have seen the moderation.

Mohammed Dajani
Yeah, but you know why? Because look, five states recognize the State of Palestine. It boosted their morales and many people felt, uh, very good about it. Now, this is why if there will be a state, then you are talking about elections under that state, and so it will be a democratic elections and you will have new leadership, a new-

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
I- I-

Elliott Abrams
I wish I believed that.

Mohammed Dajani
… a- a- a- a new hope.

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
Uh, uh, unfortunately-

Elliott Abrams
I wish I could believe it.

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
… Professor Dajani, any moderate… a- any country in the Middle that has had democracy, it’s been an excuse for the Isla- the Muslim Brotherhood to actually get in and radicalize. So it’s one man, one vote, one time, and then it’s over. I- I wish I could believe different, and I want to commend you for the incredible work you’ve done in taking young Palestinian people and taking them to Auschwitz and doing all the educational stuff you’ve done. Like I said, if you were in charge, maybe we would’ve had two states by now.

John Donvan
We’re-

Miriam Sapiro
Miriam Sapiro. One of the motivations of Hamas on October 7th was derailing Saudi-Israeli normalization. Many people think there is a potential for greater regional stability through a framework that would serve Israeli, US, uh, Gulf, Jordanian and Egyptian interests, but the leaders of the Arab states have made it clear it depends on the prospect, the vision of a two-state solution. So how does one counter the threat, which as you said, is very grave, from Iran without, again, the prospect of some kind of coexistence on an equal basis?

Ambassador Dennis Ross
Look, we already… This is not an abstraction. On the night of April 13th ’14, Iran fired 300 projectiles, missiles, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles. One hundred of those were intercepted by the US, UK, Jordan. The Saudis, the Emiratis participated. The Israeli ethos has always been we defend ourselves by ourselves. That an ethos that isn’t gonna disappear, but what they suddenly found is when you face seven fronts and when you’re facing 300 projectiles, having others intercept 100 of them makes your task easier and more manageable. But, again, I would come at this from the standpoint, I think we can have Arab states play a role with the Palestinians to affect the Palestinians, to move them in the direction to help shape the way they approach education.

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
I- I totally agree, but you have to also admit that the Abraham Accords came because the government of the United States left the State Department Orthodoxy, that you couldn’t have normalization in the Arab world without solving the Palestinian problem first. Maybe we should learn from that.

John Donvan
Okay. That’s a wrap on the discussion portion of the program. We’re- we’re gonna go to our closing round, and that’s where each debater makes a brief closing statement of two minutes each. Dennis, again, you are up first. Ambassador Dennis Ross, for one more time, answering yes to the question, is a two-state solution still viable? His closing statement.

Ambassador Dennis Ross
Okay. Well, it’s first time I’ve ever been accused of accepting State Department Orthodoxy. (laughs)

Look, I think there is a way to think about this, and Mohammed and I may be on the same team, we may not see everything exactly the same, even though we look towards the same outcome. And in some ways we think in terms of- of how you have to transform the- the Palestinian reality. Here’s what I would like to see us do. I would like to see the United States say, “We recognize the Palestinians as a people, and as a people they have a right to self-determination.” But what comes with self-determinat and a state is responsibility. So you cannot fulfill the state until we see you fulfill the responsibility, which means the struggle between those who believe in resistance versus coexistence has to be resolved unmistakably in terms of those who favor coexistence. There cannot be independent militias who operate in the context of a state. That’s not a state. There has to be an acceptance by the way that there would be a non-militarized state.

Elliott, I can tell you, at- at Camp David we didn’t impose a non-militarized state on the Palestinian side. They accepted the idea of a non-militarized state.

My point is, there are a series of benchmarks that could be built and that should be part of a process. I would say to Mohammed, if Palestinians know self-determination is being recognized as a principle but now they have to fulfill a set of responsibilities to be able to achieve it, I would suggest there is a very good chance that they might be able to do it, especially if they have support from Arab states to reinforce a sense of accountability. The idea that the Palestinians can have a state without responsibility ultimately doesn’t serve Palestinian interest. For sure, it doesn’t serve Israeli interest. But it’s also in Israel’s interest not to take steps that makes a Palestinian state impossible. You cannot act on the ground in a way that precludes a Palestinian state and then say, “How can you have a Palestinian state?”

John Donvan
Next up with her closing statement is Fleur Hassan-Nahoum, Israel’s Special Envoy. Uh, you again are arguing no, and your last chance to tell us why.

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
So, my husband and I immigrated- to Israel in March of 2001, which was the middle of the second Intifada. Before that, I had believed in a two-state solution. When my husband and I decided we wanted to go to Israel and be part of Jewish self-determination, of a common destiny with our people, we believed in the two-state solution. We moved to Israel in the middle of a raging Intifada, with cafes being blown up, with buses being blown up, for the audacity that we had of offering everything that Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian government at the time said they wanted. And let me tell you something, I still believe in Palestinian self-determination. But Palestinian self-determination, at least in the near term or even the long-term, does not have to mean statehood. There’s so many examples around the world of different nations that don’t have complete statehood but are self-determining. And let me tell you one of them.

I’m from Gibraltar. So Gibraltar is a small British protectorate in Southern Spain and Gibraltar was 500 years ago Spanish, then it was handed to the British. And Gibraltar remains British today. But in the last hundred years, it has gone from being a complete colony to having self-determination, full autonomy. Call us the Puerto Rico of the UK, ’cause that’s-

Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
… ’cause we are. But, again, my point is this, that we have to open our minds. We are the startup nation. We can also be the startup nation and think innovation when it comes to peace. Let’s not box ourselves in in something which so far has not worked. And looking at the prospects in the region is not going to work. Let’s give every autonomy we can to the Palestinian people without any of the tools to destroy the State of Israel. I’m a mother of four and I want to build a future for my children as well as to the Palestinian children of my region. Thank you.

John Donvan
Thank you.

Next, we’ll hear from Mohammed Dajani. Professor Mohammed, you have been, uh, arguing for a two-state solution is still viable. Your last chance to tell us why.

Mohammed Dajani
Thank you. A king asked his minister to inscribe on his ring a statement that if he reads it when he is sad he will feel happy, if he reads it when he is happy, he will feel sad. And the k- and the minister inscribed, saying, “This time will pass.” And so we are living today, uh, in difficult times, but this time will pass. So we should not judge things on the basis of what is taking place today, uh, and the war that’s taking place not only in Gaza but in South Lebanon and in the West Bank.

Now, another king was walking in the… in the fields and he saw this old man planting an olive tree and he wanted to tease him and he said, “Old man, can… will you be eating… will you be benefiting from the fruit of this tree?” And the old man said, “Our grandparents planted, we ate, and we plant so that our children will eat.” Now, this is exactly what we need to do. We need to plant seeds of peace so that our children will live in peace. Unfortunately, we inherited this war and this conflict and this hostility and this enmity from our grandparents. This is not the heritage we want to leave to our grandchildren. And so, basically, this is exactly where we stand.

Two Jews came to a ra- to the rabbi and, uh, for- (laughs)

… in order to judge among them in a problem they had. And the first said their side of the story and the, uh, rabbi said to him, “You are right.” The second said his side of the story and the rabbi said, “You are right.” After they left, the wife asked the rabbi, “But how can they both be right?” He said to her, “You are also right.”

This is… this is exactly our situation.

This is a… We are both right, but in the sense we see things from different perspectives and that’s how we can build a better future so that we can be light to the nations. Thank you.

John Donvan
I did not see that coming.

John Donvan
Elliott, you get the last word.

Elliott Abrams
Thank you.

John Donvan
Elliott Abrams-

Elliott Abrams
Ah.

John Donvan
… uh, arguing that a two-state solution is not viable. Your last chance to tell us why.

Elliott Abrams
The last word. In 2002, President George W. Bush said a number of the things that have been said here tonight. He said to the Palestinians in public speeches, “If you will build, if you will promise to build, if you will try to build a state based on tolerance and liberty, that fights corruption, that prevents terror, the United States will support you.” And we tried to push Arafat aside and we tried to help Salam Fayyad come in as prime minister, 22 years ago. Progress? How we all wish there had been progress, but there hasn’t been progress. In fact, look at the polls from then to now, steady support for Hamas and for this idea of replacing the Jewish state, not building a new, sovereign, independent Palestinian state based, to use those words again, on tolerance and liberty.

I wish I did believe what Mohammed Dajani is saying. I really wish I do. I wish the two-state solution were a solution. But I think that when you create that sovereign, independent state, what you have created, like Gaza when Israel left there, like South Lebanon when Israel left there, is a launching pad. A launching pad in the heart of Israel this time, not far north, not a- in the heart, near the international airport, near Jerusalem, near the coastal plane where the economy is. You will be creating a launching pad for another generation or two or three or four of war. That is the last thing any of us should want to do. Thank you.

John Donvan
So- so I’m about to call it, but before I do, I- I wanna say, these four debaters brought their truth, uh, they brought facts they brought reason, they brought passion and commitment, but most of all, they brought intellectual honesty, uh, and they brought mutual respect for one another, and that’s what we are aiming for. And so to our four debaters, to Dennis and Mohammed and Fleur and Elliott, thank you so much for taking part and for taking part in the way you did. We deeply appreciate it.

And a big thank you to you, our audience, for tuning in to this episode of Open to Debate. As a nonprofit working to combat extreme polarization through civil debate, through good argument, like the one you just heard, our work is made possible by listeners like you, by the Rosenkranz Foundation, and by supporters of Open to Debate.

Robert Rosenkranz is our chairman. Our CEO is Clea Conner. Lia Matthow is our chief content officer. Elizabeth Kitzenberg is chief advancement officer. This episode was produced by Alexis Pancrazi and Marlette Sandoval. Editorial and research by Gabriella Mayer and Andrew Foote. Andrew Lipson and Max Fulton provided production support. The Open to Debate team also includes Gabrielle Iannucelli, Rachel Kemp, Erik Gross, Vlad Virtonnen, and Linda Lee. Damon Whittemore mixed this episode and our theme music is by Alex Clement.

I’m your host, John Donvan. We’ll see you next time on Open to Debate.