In 1973, at the Geneva Peace Conference, the first time Israel and Arab states sat together under international auspices to begin peace negotiations, Israeli foreign minister Abba Eban said that "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." Indeed, the Palestinians have rejected every opportunity for peace with Israel, which would surely lead to a better future for their people. But earlier this month, we heard of a few local leaders in Hebron who wish to break the endless Palestinian cycle of rejectionism.
On July 5th, the Wall Street Journal published an article that quoted Hebron Sheikh Wadee' al-Jaabari saying, "We want cooperation with Israel. We want coexistence." Sheikh al-Jaabari reportedly leads the most influential clan in Hebron. He and four other leading Hebron sheikhs have expressed their desire to break away from the Palestinian Authority and sign the Abraham Accords, making peace with Israel and recognizing it as a Jewish state. This is nothing less than a bombshell, because no Palestinian leadership has ever agreed to recognize Israel as a Jewish state – not the Palestinian Authority, not the Palestine Liberation Organization, and certainly not Islamist terrorist groups like Hamas.
Since the signing of the first Oslo Accords in 1993, the PA and the PLO have paid lip service to the two-state solution, but have never agreed to an actual arrangement that would have Israel and a Palestinian state live side-by-side in peace and security. This is because they never intended to agree to a two-state solution, as their ultimate goal remains the same as it always has – the complete destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Arab state "From the River to the Sea," as the genocidal slogan goes.
By contrast, the sheikhs of Hebron are not even calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state. In fact, Sheikh al-Jaabari has gone on record saying, "There will be no Palestinian state – not even in 1,000 years." Instead, al-Jaabari and his fellow sheikhs propose that Israel recognize an Emirate of Hebron, which would, in exchange, recognize the State of Israel.
The consensus in Israel is that agreeing to a Palestinian state would be committing national suicide. Moreover, we've already had a taste of what a two-state solution would be like. The Gaza Strip was a de facto Palestinian state after Israel withdrew completely from the coastal enclave in 2005, leaving the Palestinians complete autonomy to do whatever they wanted with the territory. But instead of creating a prosperous state living alongside Israel in peace, they turned Gaza into a terrorist base from which to attack the Jewish state. For eighteen years, Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations launched attacks into Israel from Gaza, firing thousands of rockets, conducting numerous cross-border raids, and breaking one ceasefire after another. The ultimate culmination of this de facto two-state solution was the October 7th massacre – the worst mass slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust.
Thus, Israel can never agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state. Besides, recent polls show that neither Israelis nor Palestinians want a two-state solution. Yet, many Arab and Western leaders, as well as some far-left Israelis, continue to cling to this abundantly discredited arrangement. The proposal by the sheikhs of Hebron represents a fresh alternative. But of course, it does have its critics.
Last week, for example, Nafez al-Jaabari, another local Hebron leader and member of the al-Jaabari clan, issued a statement saying, "We, as the al-Jaabari tribe, declare our complete disapproval and denunciation of what was done by a family member unknown to the tribe and not a resident of Hebron," referring to Sheikh Wadee' al-Jaabari. There is also speculation that the reported torching of Sheikh al-Jaabari's car by Arab rioters from eastern Jerusalem was connected to his proposal.
Others have argued the plan is not much different than other previous schemes devised by Israel to squelch hopes for a Palestinian state. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, for example, international affairs analyst Mahmoud Jabari said of the proposal, "This isn't new thinking – it's the colonial playbook. It's divide and conquer dressed up for a modern audience."
Last week, an article appeared in the Jerusalem Post written by former Associated Press editor Dan Perry, who likened Sheikh al-Jaabari's plan to the failed "Village Leagues" of the late 1970s and early 1980s, which were designed to create an alternative Palestinian leadership to that of the PLO.
In truth, the proposal to create a Hebron emirate is very unlikely to succeed. It certainly won't end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, having the Hebron sheikhs sign on to the Abraham Accords could still represent the beginning of the end of the conflict, because making peace with some Palestinians can be a stepping stone to making peace with the rest of them, especially if Palestinians outside of Hebron see the city's residents receiving tangible benefits from signing the Accords. Furthermore, why should Palestinians who are willing to sign the Abraham Accords and make peace with Israel sit around and wait until the rest of the Palestinians come to their senses?
In fact, I would contend that no group of people, in any given country, who want to sign the Abraham Accords should have to wait for their national leadership to sign them. Let Iraqi Kurdistan sign on to the Accords and reap the benefits of doing so if Iraq's national leadership doesn't want to. Let the Druze in southern Syria and the Kurds in northeastern Syria join the Accords if Syria's national leadership isn't yet ready. In short, allow the leaderships of subnational jurisdictions – such as Sheikh al-Jaabari's community in Hebron – to sign the Abraham Accords, even if doing so is purely symbolic. After all, one not need be a country to commit to peace.
