Robert Satloff is the Segal Executive Director of The Washington Institute, a post he assumed in January 1993.
Articles & Testimony
France, Britain, and Canada have been paving (separate) roads to nowhere with their recent statehood push, underscoring the profound gap between declaring a historic policy objective and defining a strategy to actually achieve it—ironically, the same gap Israel has fallen into since October 7.
In an unusual confluence of events, recent days have witnessed a flurry of diplomatic activity on the Israel-Palestinian conflict unseen in many years. This included an outcry of anguish and protest both at home and abroad at Israel’s handling of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, the convening in New York of an international conference under Saudi and French chairmanship designed to resuscitate the moribund “two-state solution,” and the announcement by three close American allies—France, Britain, and Canada—of their intention to extend full diplomatic recognition to the “state of Palestine” at the annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly next month. These were recently joined by Australia, and New Zealand is reportedly considering a similar move. Any real connection among these events is hard to decipher. A two-state solution may offer a theoretical, long-term answer to the core dispute between Israelis and Palestinians, but rallying to its defense today will do nothing to address the food-delivery challenge in Gaza, let alone bring that gruesome war to an end. And recognition of Palestinian statehood may address some domestic political needs in Europe and Canada, but it will do nothing to assuage the concerns of the constituency that matters most—Israel’s voting public—which fears the dangers to its safety that might accompany Palestinian statehood, rejects the idea by a large majority, and has elected successive governments that reflect that view...
