Chicago (Special to Informed Comment; Feature) – The UN General Assembly has just (September 12) endorsed the New York Declaration on the two-state solution between Israel and Palestine. A day earlier, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu vowed that a “Palestinian state will not be established.” Israel managed to secure 10 votes, including those of the United States, out of the 193-member-strong General Assembly. Where does this development lead us? Let us examine the dilemma in the light of some historical developments.
Assassination of Count Bernadotte
Israel’s increasingly aggressive stance against Palestinians and other neighboring states has now convinced most European states to stand for a two-state solution to the almost century-old Palestinian crisis. Dan Steinbock, an American political analyst of international affairs, has suggested in an article published in Modern Diplomacy a few months ago, “The two-state solution died in Jerusalem on September 17, 1948.” What is the significance of this date, 77 years ago? To understand this, one needs to explore the implications of this date.
On September 17, 1948, Israeli terrorists assassinated the Swedish diplomat and the Red Cross chief Count Folke Bernadotte in broad daylight in Jerusalem. However, unfortunately, very few people know about the remarkable man who devoted his life to the sake of humanity. The three assassins, one of whom, Yitzhak Shamir, a onetime mentor of Benjamin Netanyahu who later became Israel’s prime minister, perceived Bernadotte as an anti-Semite.
Bernadotte was no ordinary man; during the war years, he had successfully negotiated with Germany’s Nazi administration the release of about 450 Danish Jews and more than 30,000 non-Jewish prisoners from a concentration camp. Most contemporary political leaders and diplomats held him in high regard. At the newly established United Nations, he developed some principles for humanitarian action representing the world body that later laid down the foundation of the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) – an institution that most members of the international community hold with admiration but Israel accuses of being anti-Semitic. Keeping in view Bernadotte’s wartime contributions, the world body entrusted him to draft a plan to divide the territory into Arab/ Palestinian and Jewish parts to secure permanent peace in the area.
The Count was aware of the sensitivity of his mission: he knew about the plight of the Jewish people in Europe and the British desire to settle them in Palestine. He was also aware of the desires of both the United States and the Soviet Union that heavily favored Jewish migration to Palestine. After receiving the UN assignment to mediate between the Jews and Palestinians, he noted in his diary the difficulties he encountered. He wrote, “One must bear in mind the aspirations of the Jews, the political difficulties and differences of opinion of the Arab leaders” in addressing the issue. He also noted that one must keep the strategic interests of Great Britain, the financial commitment of the United States and the Soviet Union, the outcome of the war, and finally the authority and prestige of the United Nations.”
Count Bernadotte was proud of and confident in his mission. He refused to take precautions for his personal security. However, four assassins wearing Israeli military uniforms killed him in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, a day after he submitted his recommendations. He was returning to Jerusalem after a meeting where he was engaged in negotiating with various parties in the region. Why was he assassinated? Who killed him? What was the intention of his killers? What did his assassins want to achieve by eliminating him? Moreover, finally, why does Dan Steinbock think that his assassination contributed to the demise of the two-state solution? Seventy-seven years later, European leaders have again made these questions relevant for world peace today.
Why was Bernadotte Assassinated?
In accordance with the UN resolution, Bernadotte recommended the return of all Palestinian refugees, including those who were displaced during the first Nakba and those who were displaced during the 1948 war. He also recommended, as stipulated in the UN resolution, the internationalization of the city of Jerusalem. Israelis were strongly opposed to both of these recommendations. Here, one should note that Bernadotte had already revised his earlier recommendations to accommodate Jewish demands. One should also note that most Palestinians and neighboring Arabs were opposed to both the UN resolution on partition and Bernadotte’s recommendations, since Jewish settlers, who had purchased only 6% of the land in Mandate Palestine, were given vast swathes of it. However, they hardly had any weight in the UN decision-making process. Israelis received strong support from Western nations, and Bernadotte was trying to accommodate Israeli demands. In the process, the idea of the two-state solution emerged.
The first question that we need to address in this connection is how the two-state idea emerged. The British Mandate authorities did not advocate partition; it was notably the first High Commissioner, Herbert Samuel, who wanted to ensure the migration and settlement of European Jews in Palestine. However, soon the Palestinians felt pressure because the administration favored the settlers over the rights of the indigenous population. Increasing Palestinian protests convinced Mandate officials to separate the migrants from indigenous Palestinians, and following a rebellion 1936-37, the authorities constituted the Peel Commission, which recommended dividing the territory between Jews and Palestinians. In 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 that formalized the idea of the partition of Palestine at the international stage. Interestingly, within less than a year, the UN mediator on the case was assassinated – a date that Steinbock identifies as the date of demise of the two-state solution. Has the world body been fooling itself with the idea of a two-state solution to the most critical crisis the world faces today? Let us examine this question further.
Israel Whitewashed the Bernadotte Assassination Episode
Israel’s representative to the world body at the time, Abba Eban – who later served as Israel’s Foreign Minister — conveyed to the UN Security Council his “Government’s profound sense of abhorrence at this brutal crime which cost the life of a servant of the United Nations who initiated the beneficent process of mediation and conciliation.” He also assured the Security Council that his government considered the case an act of terrorism and would deal with the case as a criminal act. However, all assurances were diluted with the passage of time. In fact, the perpetrators became heroes in the eyes of many Israelis, adding credibility to their political careers. As we noted earlier, one of them became the Prime Minister of Israel.
Most Western nations initially supported the idea of partitioning Palestine. However, some prominent American Jewish intellectuals, such as Rabbi Judah Leon Magnes, an expert in Jewish studies and the first chancellor and president of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, believed that the partition of Palestine would be economically nonviable and unsustainable. He also predicted that the partition would lead to endless war in Palestine. Only later historical developments demonstrated how correct Magnes was! Witnessing Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians over the past decades, many other Jewish academics, such as Ilan Pappe, Avi Salom, Jeffrey Sachs, and many more, have expressed their reservations about the viability of a poorly equipped Palestinian state and a powerful Israeli state existing side by side.
Count Folke Bernadotte at Schiphol Airport, Amsterdam, 17 July 1948. Netherlands Government. Public Domain. Via Picryl .
Moreover, the UN resolution of November 29, 1947, demanded the return of all Palestinian refugees to their original homes, and that both states maintain an economic union. Will the UN ensure this happens? Will Israel accept all conditions stipulated in the original and later UN recommendations on the subject? Will Israel accept the idea of Jerusalem as an international city under international control? The two-state solution demands a positive response to these questions.
Israel’s Faulty Narrative
Over the past decades, Israel undertook an aggressive academic and media campaign to undermine Palestinian rights. It introduced the idea of “Making the Desert Bloom,” “Security First,” “Land for Peace,” “No Partner for Peace,” We Made Generous Offer,” “Defensive Democracy,” All Palestinians are terrorist,” “Jerusalem: the Eternal and Indivisible Capital,” “A Conflict Without a Solution,” Normalization Without Palestine,” and many more. None of these ideas is rooted in reality.
Repeated Israeli propaganda convinced many Westerners, Americans in particular, to adopt an unbalanced view of Palestine situation. However, Israel’s Gaza war is now exposing those lies to the public. Therefore, in our view, the so-called two-state solution is destined to fail.
Why the Two-State Idea is Destined to Fail?
The first reason that the two-state solution fails is that Prime Minister Netanyahu has vowed to make it a failure. The UN institutions currently lack any mechanism to ensure that Israel adheres to international law. The second reason for its failure is the lawless mindset of the current Israeli government, which seems to believe that it can ignore all UN resolutions on the subject. History suggests that such a mechanism has seldom been effective; it would not work in the case of Israel now. The third reason for the failure of the two-state solution is the resilience of the Palestinians. Our knowledge of history suggests that oppression produces resistance, and we have seen new powers emerge from such crises.
Any lasting solution to such conflicts demands recognition of fundamental human dignity, and the two-state solution presented in the current context fails to recognize the dignity of the Palestinians. On the 77th anniversary of Count Bernadotte’s assassination, European nations should renew their resolve to show their respect and commitment to the humanity that characterized his vision.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved