Middle-East  : a “three-state” solution?

Politique Internationale — In Israeli-Palestinian relations, do you still believe in the so-called “two-state solution”? In your opinion, what policy should be adopted in the Middle East?

John Bolton — For me, the two-state solution is dead. It was probably dead even before October 7. Israeli public opinion will never accept a Palestinian state without a guarantee that it will not become a terrorist state. The attacks of October 7 proved that this risk is very real.

P. I. — If the two-state solution no longer exists, what status do you recommend for the West Bank?

J. B. — Regardless of the suggestions in the Trump plan, I advocate what I call the “three-state solution”: attaching Gaza to Egypt and part of the West Bank to Jordan.

In concrete terms, Israel and Jordan could negotiate an agreement that would give Amman a form of sovereignty or authority over the Palestinian territories in the West Bank. Such a move would be based on the existing Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty. Jordan already governed the West Bank before 1967, so there is a precedent.

Admittedly, the situation is complicated because of the Israeli settlements, but a bilateral agreement between Israel and Jordan could offer a realistic basis, much more so than an independent Palestinian state.

P. I. — So Israel would retain control over security?

J. B. — Yes, particularly along the Jordan Valley and on the surrounding hills. The rest of the territory – or at least part of it – could be linked economically and politically to Jordan. The West Bank has developed very differently from Gaza, and this must be taken into account.

P. I. — And the Israeli settlements?

J. B. — They will remain. That is a reality. Palestinian areas will have to be demarcated and attached to Jordan, but there will be no independent Palestinian state. In a sense, “Palestine” would now be called Jordan.

P. I. — But who, in your opinion, would support such a scenario? Is this the prevailing view in Israel? And what about the Arab countries and the United States? Are they really willing to abandon the two-state solution?

J. B. — For the moment, no one wants to make a strong commitment. The Gulf countries, for example, want to turn the page. They are focusing on their economic development, the diversification of their economies, investments, and they are tired of the Palestinian question.

P. I. — But Saudi Arabia, for example, is threatening never to join the Abraham Accords if the Palestinian question remains unresolved...

J. B. — That's true, and the situation is very delicate. But the reality is there: Palestine does not exist as a state. Under international law, it needs defined borders, an identified population, and an effective government. None of these conditions are met.

Some countries, such as France and the United Kingdom, may recognize a Palestinian state, but that does not make it real. October 7 marked a turning point: before that date, there was debate; after …