Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) National President Morton A. Klein and ZOA Director of Research and Special Projects Liz Berney, Esq. released the following statement:

Reports yesterday indicate that President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu reached consensus on several “general fundamental principles.” Some of these principles are highly praiseworthy (see below) but others are deeply concerning.

We need to say “no” to a Palestinian state: ZOA is deeply concerned that one of the principles is Israel declaring her willingness for future Palestinian conflict resolution under a “two states concept, contingent upon the Palestinian Authority reforms.” A “two-states concept” really means creating a Palestinian Arab terror state on land to which Israel has the sovereign right under binding international law.  

The “fundamental principle” should be saying “no” to a Palestinian state, as Netanyahu (see below), Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, the Israeli people and their elected parliament has repeatedly done up to now!

After so many Israelis suffered on October 7th, and so many fought, died and suffered in the recent and ongoing wars to dramatically set back Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities and its terror proxies’ encirclement of the Jewish homeland, the last thing Israel needs is a Palestinian terror state in the Jewish heartland. After Israel suffered so much damage to stop missiles from Iran, it makes no sense to make any agreements or take any steps toward creating a Palestinian state that can and will use the Judean Hills to fire rockets into Israel’s population centers. A Palestinian state would moreover reward perpetrators of October 7th – including Fatah, the Palestinian Authority’s governing party, which gleefully participated in the October 7 massacres.

ZOA reminds all concerned that last July (2024), the Israeli Knesset overwhelmingly voted (68 to 9) that the Knesset opposes the creation of Palestinian state. (The only nine votes against this were from the Arab Knesset members.)

Further, an agreement to create a Palestinian state – even a future or conditioned agreement – will likely be illegal. Under Israel’s Basic Law: Referendum (2014) (Israel’s closest equivalent to a constitution), any agreement that causes Israeli law, jurisdiction or administration to no longer apply to territory in which they currently apply, including an agreement that involves a future undertaking, and a conditioned undertaking, must be approved by either: a majority of the Knesset plus a national referendum, or two-thirds (80 members) of the Knesset. Given the Knesset’s and the Israeli public’s strong opposition to a Palestinian Arab terror state, a Knesset vote or referendum agreeing to a “two states concept” is not likely to pass.

Praiseworthy items: The highly praiseworthy general principles that Pres. Trump and PM Netanyahu reportedly agreed to include that: “remaining Hamas leadership will face exile to other countries”; “multiple nations globally will accept numerous Gaza inhabitants seeking emigration”; and the Abraham Accords will be expanded.

Another principle reportedly agreed to (“The United States will acknowledge limited Israeli sovereignty implementation in Judea and Samaria”) is helpful, but “limited” sovereignty does not go nearly far enough. Israel has the right to Judea and Samaria under binding international law. This is home to over 600,000 Jews, and is the historic and religious heartland of the Jewish people.

Serious issues items: There are additional serious issues with several general fundamental principles reportedly agreed to:

• Only one contingency is mentioned regarding a Palestinian state (“Palestinian Authority reforms”). It is unclear what this means. There is no mention of even the pre-conditions described in President Trump’s 2019 Peace to Prosperity Vision, such as full, permanent demilitarization; overall Israeli security control; monitoring to prevent diversion of dual use items for terror purposes; ending the Palestinian Authority’s terror incitement and financial and other incentives to terrorists, etc.
• Egypt is mentioned as one of four Arab nations that will administer the Gaza strip. This is extremely concerning, in light of Egypt’s massive recent buildup of military forces and infrastructure on its border with Israel, which violates the 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty and poses a major threat to Israel. Giving Egypt a role in Gaza would provide Egypt with an expanded springboard for endangering and potentially attacking Israel. This isn’t what Israelis fought and died for in Gaza.
• There is no explanation of how or when the hostages “will gain freedom” – only a statement that this will somehow occur. By contrast, the reported principles call for hostilities in Gaza to end in two weeks.

How can hostilities end in two weeks if the hostages are still not home by then? ZOA urges the U.S. to exert massive pressure on Iran, Qatar and Turkey to obtain the hostages’ release now. There is no mention of this in the agreement.

• The security of Israel’s southern communities requires that Israel retain at least some of Gaza. But this is not mentioned.

Netanyahu’s Warnings Against a Palestinian State: For numerous good reasons, PM Netanyahu has repeatedly opposed a Palestinian state and recognized that such a state would be an existential threat to Israel.[i] For instance: 

• In June 2023, PM Netanyahu stated during a Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee meeting: “We need to eliminate their [Palestinian Authority Arabs’] aspirations for a state.” (See “ZOA Praises PM Netanyahu for Opposing Creation of Palestinian Arab (Terrorist Dictatorship) State,” June 27, 2023.)
• In March 2018, Netanyahu stated in The New York Times that a Palestinian state “doesn’t work. . . . When we leave land, Arab terror organizations take over. Immediately.”
• In July 2017, Netanyahu’s Likud Party (Israel’s largest political party) formally voted to oppose forming a Palestinian Arab state.
• In 2015, Netanyahu promised he will not allow a Palestinian Arab state, saying: “Whoever moves to establish a Palestinian state or intends to withdraw from territory is simply yielding territory for radical Islamic terrorist attacks against Israel.”
• Netanyahu correctly explained, in his famous 2002 speech to the Likud Central Committee, that a Palestinian Arab state would never keep a demilitarization agreement; would make alliances with foreign powers; would import weapons; would shoot down Israeli planes; and cause Israel to be blamed and curtailed if Israel attempted to enforce demilitarization and prevent terror. Netanyahu declared that if Israel agreed to a Palestinian Arab state, “We will thus have created with our own hands a threat to our very existence.”

[i] The sole exception was Netanyahu’s Bar Ilan University speech in 2009 suggesting he would accept a demilitarized Palestinian state under a series of conditions which the Palestinian Arabs have never met and will likely never agree to. Netanyahu made the speech under severe pressure from then-President Obama.