(JNS) The editorial writers at The Washington Post support establishing a sovereign Palestinian Arab state next to Israel. They continue to say this even as Israel approaches nearly two years of war with Hamas in the Gaza Strip following the Hamas-led terrorist attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

Unfortunately, they don’t seem to understand that Oct. 7 has changed everything.

The most alarming statement in the Aug. 24 editorial may be this groundless claim: “A two-state solution remains the only viable option to end decades of continuous bloodshed … .”

For decades, the debate over creating a Palestinian state revolved around two major issues: the intentions of the Palestinian Arabs and the actual borders of such a state.

Statehood supporters claimed that the Palestinian Arab leadership and the majority of Palestinian Arabs would live in peace with Israel if they were given a sovereign state.

Until the 1993 Oslo Accords, nobody knew whether that claim had merit. Nobody knew for sure how the Palestinian Arabs would behave if given self-rule. But since 1993, the question of their intentions has been tested, and they have failed that test. Miserably.

The first test was during the years of 1993 and 1995, when Israel signed the Oslo Accords and surrendered control of 40% of Judea and Samaria to the Palestinian Authority. The behavior of its leader, longtime PLO chief Yasser Arafat, and his successor, Mahmoud Abbas, was supposed to show that it was safe to give them a full-fledged state.

Instead, it exhibited the opposite. The PA has sheltered and paid terrorists; sponsored terrorist attacks through Fatah’s Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade; incited hatred of Jews through their media and schools; and undertaken massive arms smuggling, such as the infamous Karine A in 2002, with its 50 tons of weapons. People who sincerely want peace don’t need 50 tons of illegal rockets, guns and bombs.

The second test of Palestinian intentions was Israel’s surrender of Gaza—most of it in 1994, the rest in 2005. What did Palestinian Arab control of Gaza tell us about giving them statehood? They built a terrorist army, they bombarded Israel with rockets, and on Oct. 7, they invaded.

So much for the intentions of the Palestinian Arabs. Now, what about the actual borders of the proposed state?

Every map of a “two-state solution” requires an Israeli withdrawal to the nine-mile-wide borders of 1949 to 1967. The reason those lines are inevitable is that PA cities such as Tulkarem and Qalqilya are nine miles from the Mediterranean Sea—and the PA is not going to give up those cities.

Nine miles wide means that Israel’s strategic midsection would be virtually indefensible. Israel’s major cities and Ben-Gurion International Airport would be within easy rocket range of terrorists stationed on the “Palestine” side of the border. If Israeli forces chased those terrorists across the border, Israel would become the target of severe international condemnation. The United Nations would almost surely threaten sanctions, as would the European Union.

And who would prevent “Palestine” from importing Iranian missiles or “volunteer” troops from Yemen? Could any international body be trusted to intervene? Would the American public be ready to get mixed up in such a conflict? Not likely.

Israeli security is not the only consideration. Historical facts are also important. A Palestinian Arab state was established in 1922, when the British unilaterally severed the eastern 78% of the Palestinian Mandate from the rest of the country and changed that region’s name to “Transjordan.” Later, they changed it to “Jordan.”

But changing a name doesn’t change the identity of its citizens. The vast majority of Jordanians are Palestinian Arabs according to their history, culture, language and religion. In other words, Jordan is already the Palestinian state that The Washington Post’s editors are shouting for. The only obstacle to Palestinian statehood is that Jordan is ruled by a king who refuses to restore the country’s rightful historical name.

If any Palestinian Arab residents of Gaza, or Judea and Samaria, ever decide that they actually do want to live in a sovereign state where everyone speaks their language, worships according to their religion, and shares their history and culture, then 78% of historic Palestine awaits them, just a few miles to the east.

The Post’s editors wrote: “In a perfect world, every group that wants a sovereign state could have one. But in the real world, they shouldn’t.”

Almost every country in the world has one or more ethnic minorities that would like to have their own sovereign state: the Basques in Spain, the Quebeçois nationalists in Canada, some Native American tribes in the United States, the Kurds in Iraq, the Tibetans in China, the Kashmiris in India … the list is almost endless.

In some cases, the reason they should not be given a state is a simple matter of right and wrong. In Israel’s case, for example, the Jewish people’s historical, religious and legal claims to the Land of Israel are far stronger than those of the Palestinian Arabs.

In other cases, some aggrieved people genuinely deserve a state; however, giving them one would endanger the well-being of others or undermine the country’s very existence. So their theoretical right has to give way to reality.

The Palestinian Arabs are unique: They already have a state in the eastern 78% of Palestine and yet demand a second one in much of the rest of the country. Their demand, too, has to give way to reality.

The Washington Post needs to recognize this reality. Their editors need to accept the fact that the world has changed. A “two-state solution” today means a situation in which Israel will be threatened with an Oct. 7 every single day. That is something no reasonable nation can accept.

Want more news from Israel?
Click Here to sign up for our FREE daily email updates