There is a widespread but false belief that Mahmoud Abbas is finally prepared to accept the two-state solution proposed by the U.N. in November 1947 when it divided mandatory Palestine into two areas: one for the Jewish People; the other for the Arab People. The Jews of Palestine accepted the compromise division and declared a nation state for the Jewish people to be called by its historic name: Israel. The Arabs of Palestine, on the other hand, rejected the division and declared that they would never accept a state for the Jewish people and statehood for the Palestinian people. They wanted for there not to be a state for the Jewish people more than for there to be a state for their own people. Accordingly, they joined the surrounding Arab armies in trying to destroy Israel and drive its Jewish residents into the sea. They failed back then, but over the years, and to the current day, they continue to want no state for the Jewish people more than they want a state for Palestinian Arabs. That is why Abbas refuses to say that he would ever accept the U.N. principle of two states for two peoples. I know, because I have personally asked him on several occasions.

In a few months, Israel will be celebrating the 70th anniversary of the historic U.N. compromise, but the leaders of the Palestinian Authority still refuse to accept the principle of that resolution: two states for two peoples.

President Trump, for his part, has expressed an eagerness to make “the ultimate deal” between the Israelis and the Palestinians. This has propelled discussions about the dormant peace-process back into the spotlight. Shortly before travelling to the Middle East – where he met with Prime Minister Netanyahu in Israel and President Abbas in Bethlehem – Trump invited the Palestinian leader to the White House. Abbas was last at the White House in March 2014 shortly before the Obama administration’s shuttle diplomacy efforts –led by Secretary of State John Kerry – fell apart.

Leading up to his meeting with President Trump in Washington, Abbas said to a German publication: “We’re ready to collaborate with him and meet the Israeli prime minister under his [Trump’s] auspices to build peace.” He then went on to voice his support for a two-state solution, saying, “It’s high time to work on the requirements for it.” This was interpreted as a willingness on Abbas’ part to accept the idea of a state for the Jewish people. Generally speaking, the international community supports the idea of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with two-states for two-peoples: a state for the Jewish people alongside a state for the Palestinians. Yet presenting Mahmoud Abbas as a supporter of the two-states for two people formulation is to deny truth. The general idea of a two-state solution – which Abbas has nominally supported – does not specify that one state would be for the Jewish people and the other one for the Arabs. Over the years President Abbas has expressed a commitment to a two-state solution – stating that he supports an Arab state along the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital – but has so far refused to accept the legitimacy of a nation state for the Jews existing by its side.

Consider President Abbas’ own words. In a 2003 interview he said: “I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I will never recognize the Jewishness of the state, or a ‘Jewish state.'” When asked about Israel being the nation state of the Jewish people (in the context of Ehud Olmert’s generous peace proposal in 2008) the PA leader said: “From a historical perspective, there are two states: Israel and Palestine. In Israel, there are Jews and others living there. This we are willing to recognize, nothing else.” And in a later interview with the Al-Quds newspaper Abbas reiterated this refusal to recognize that Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people:

“We’re not talking about a Jewish state and we won’t talk about one. For us, there is the state of Israel and we won’t recognize Israel as a Jewish state. I told them that this is their business and that they are free to call themselves whatever they want. But [I told them] you can’t expect us to accept this.”

The list of such pronouncements from the man at the head of the Palestinian Authority goes on and on. Not only has Abbas refused to accept the formulation “Jewish state,” he adamantly refuses to accept the more descriptive formulation “nation state of the Jewish people.”

Abbas is of course committed to Palestine being a Muslim state under Sharia Law, despite the reality that Christian Palestinians constitute a significant (if forcibly shrinking) percentage of Palestinian Arabs. Article 4 of the Palestinian Basic Law states that:

1. Islam is the official religion in Palestine. Respect and sanctity of all other heavenly religions shall be maintained.

2. The principles of Islamic Shari’a shall be the main source of legislation.

Writing for the New York Times on the advent of the 50^th anniversary of the Six Day War, Israel’s former Ambassador to Israel, Michael Oren said: “The conflict is not about the territory Israel captured in 1967. It is about whether a Jewish state has a right to exist in the Middle East in the first place. As Mr. Abbas has publicly stated, ‘I will never accept a Jewish state.'”

Oren argues that until Abbas and other Palestinian leaders can say the words “two states for two peoples,” no reasonable resolution will be reached.

The Director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency [UNRWA] in Lebanon, Ann Dismorr, poses with a map devoid of any trace of the State of Israel, instead presenting it as a map of “Palestine,” May, 2013. (Image source: Palestinian Media Watch)

The Palestinian leader’s conditional support for a peaceful resolution is also undermined by his own actions. For years, the Palestinian Authority– first under the leadership of Yasser Arafat and now under the 82-year-old Abbas – has perpetuated a vile policy of making payments to terrorists and their families.

According to the official PA budget, in 2016 the Palestinian Authority directed $174 million of its total budget in payments to families of so-called “martyrs,” and an additional $128 million for security prisoners — terrorists in Israeli prisons.

Abbas claims to be a man of peace yet in reality he incentivizes, rewards and incites terrorism.

It must also be remembered that Israel has offered to end the occupation and settlements in 2000-2001. These generous peace initiatives would have established a demilitarized Palestinian state. In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made an even more generous proposal by offering the Palestinians 97% of the West Bank but Mahmoud Abbas did not respond. For the past several years, the current Israeli government has offered to sit down and negotiate a two-state solution with no pre-conditions — not even advanced recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. Yet no substantive negotiations have taken place.

Some of the blame rests on the shoulders of Barack Obama. By applying pressure only to the Israeli side, not to the Palestinians, Obama consistently disincentivized Abbas from embracing the two-states for two-peoples paradigm. This came to a head in December when Obama allowed the U.S. not to veto the inane U.N. Resolution, under which the Western Wall and other historically Jewish sites are not recognized as part of Israel. (Recall that U.N. Resolution 181 mandated a “special international regime for the city of Jerusalem,” and Jordan captured it illegally. Israel liberated Jerusalem in 1967, and allowed everybody to go to the Western Wall.)

It is a tragedy that the international community – headed by the U.N. – encourages the Palestinian Authority’s rejectionism, rather than pushing it to make the painful compromises that will be needed from both sides in reaching a negotiated two-state outcome. Indeed, just a few days ago the U.N. once again demonstrated that it is a barrier to the peace-process. In his address at the U.N. General Assembly marking the 50^th anniversary of the Six Day War and Israel’s “occupation” of the West Bank, U.N. Secretary General, Antonio Guterres said:

“In 1947, on the basis of United Nations General Assembly resolution 181, the world recognized the two-state solution and called for the emergence of ‘independent Arab and Jewish states.’ On 14 May 1948, the State of Israel was born. Almost seven decades later, the world still awaits the birth of an independent Palestinian state.”

Guterres failed to acknowledge that “the reason the world still awaits the birth of an independent Palestinian state” is because the Arabs rejected the U.N. partition plan, which would have given them their own state, committing instead to seven decades of undermining Israel’s legitimacy.

When the Palestinian leadership and people want their own state more than they want there not to be a state for the Jewish people, the goal of the 1947 U.N. Resolution – two states for two peoples – will be achieved. A good beginning would be for Abbas finally to agree with the U.N. Resolution and say the following words: “I accept the 1947 U.N. Resolution that calls for two states for two peoples.” It’s not too much to ask from a leader seeking to establish a Palestinian Muslim state.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of “Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law” and “Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for the Unaroused Voter.”

The Palestinian Authority (PA), now officially a Nonmember Observer State to the United Nations General Assembly, will likely seek next month a Security Council resolution favoring full Palestinian sovereignty, probably as part of a cooperative Security Council initiative with France. Following such an initiative, the current U.S. president, or the next U.S. president could then be moved to accept the PA position on the grounds of some prior Palestinian “demilitarization.” Unfortunately, any such acceptance would be without any legal or practical value; therefore, no state of Palestine should ever be approved because of any apparent promise of demilitarization.

Whoever wins the November election, the next U.S. president will have to deal with the continuing issue of Palestinian statehood. For the moment, agreeing to any such new Arab sovereignty — a 23rd Arab state — would appear to be contingent upon some prior acceptance of Palestinian “demilitarization.” After all, for a new president to disregard this seemingly prudent contingency would immediately place the United States in stark opposition to Israel.

More precisely, it would put Washington at odds with the core requirements already laid down explicitly by Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Nonetheless, there is substantial irony to this obligation. Simply put, meaningful Palestinian demilitarization could never take place. In essence, international jurisprudence could not allow it. First, international law would not necessarily expect Palestinian compliance with any limitations on negotiated agreements concerning national armies and armed forces.

But what if the government of a fully sovereign Palestinian state were in fact willing to consider itself bound by some pre-state agreement to demilitarize? There is still a big problem. Even in these improbable circumstances, the new Palestinian Arab government could likely identify ample pretext and opportunity to invoke lawful “treaty” termination. Here are some specific examples:

Palestine could withdraw from any such agreement because of what it would regard as a “material breach,” a purported violation by Israel, one that had allegedly undermined the object or purpose of the accord. It could also point to what international law calls Rebus sic stantibus: “permissible abrogation,” known more popularly as a “fundamental change of circumstances.” If Palestine should declare itself vulnerable to previously unforeseen dangers, perhaps even from interventionary forces, or the forces of other Arab armies or insurgencies that it could claim might be trying to occupy it, it could lawfully end its previously codified commitment to stay demilitarized.

There is another reason why any hopes for Palestinian demilitarization must remain unsupportable. After declaring independence, a Palestinian government — any Palestinian government — could point to particular pre-independence errors of fact, or to duress, as appropriate grounds for invoking selective agreement termination. In this regard, the grounds that may be invoked under domestic law to invalidate contracts could also apply under international law, whether to actual treaties, or, as in this particular case, to lesser treaty-like agreements.

Further, strictly speaking, recalling the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), an authentic treaty must always be “between states.”

Above all, however, any treaty or treaty-like compact is void if, at the time of its entry into force, it conflicts with a “peremptory” rule of international law — that is, one from which “no derogation is permitted.” As the right of sovereign states to maintain military forces for self-defense is always such a rule, Palestine would be within its lawful right to abrogate any pre-independence agreement that had (impermissibly) compelled its own demilitarization.

The next U.S. president, it follows, should take no comfort from any purportedly legal promises of Palestinian demilitarization. Should the government of any future Palestinian state choose to invite foreign armies or terrorists on to its territory, even after the original government had been overthrown by more militantly jihadist or Islamic forces, it could do so not only without practical difficulties, but also without necessarily violating international law.

In the end, the core danger to Israel of presumed Palestinian demilitarization would be far more practical than legal. The illusion of demilitarization without the ability to enforce it could be a potentially lethal threat. Even now, prevailing versions of the Middle East peace process generally stem from the persistent misunderstanding of Palestinian history and goals. From the start, every Palestinian faction has regarded all of Israel as “Occupied Palestine.” From the beginning, not a single Palestinian faction has ever expressed satisfaction with a new state that would be confined to West Bank (Judea/Samaria) and Gaza.

Palestinian Authority leaders, official television, schools and media outlets often display maps showing Palestine stretching from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea. The maps do not show the existence of Israel.

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was formed in 1964, three years before there were any “Israeli-Occupied Territories.” What, then, was the PLO originally planning to “liberate?” Even now, the Palestinians remain as divided as ever; it remains unclear, therefore, who can speak with real authority for any still-plausible Palestinian state. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is in the eleventh year of his four-year term; should he agree to anything substantive, others could later legitimately claim, long after land may have been irreversibly “exchanged,” that he had no legal authority to make a decision, and they would be right.

Moreover, for Israel and the United States, this insurmountable condition of fragmentation complicates any still-lingering hopes hope for Palestinian demilitarization.

A Palestinian state — any Palestinian state — could represent a mortal danger to Israel, especially if it should appear at approximately the same time as Iranian nuclearization. This danger could not be removed or even reduced by any pre-independence Palestinian commitments to demilitarize.

The next U.S. president will need to be prepared to do whatever is necessary to prevent the creation of another enemy state. Palestine would have a high probability of quickly becoming a new launching point for jihadist terror attacks around the region, and possibly the world.

Louis René Beres is Emeritus Professor of International Law at Purdue University.

Great civilizations existed in northern Nigeria before the West ever set foot there. The Kanem Bornu Empire (700-1900) stretched to present-day Chad, Libya, Niger and Cameroon, and was bound by trade and ethnic similarities and religion.

Present day Northern Nigeria is home to the large Hausa ethnic group. The Hausa language is spoken by more than 50 million people across the present-day Sahel (north Central Africa, spanning much of Niger, Nigeria, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Togo, Chad, and Sudan). Hausa is still the region’s second language of trade; the primary languages come from the region’s colonizers: English, French and to a degree, Arabic.

In the early 19th century, a towering Islamic figure, Sheikh Uthman ibn Fodio (1754-1817), emerged in what is now northwest Nigeria. Although of ethnic Fulani extraction, he galvanized support across the Hausa-dominated regions and parts of the old Kanem Bornu Empire. In this multi-ethnic region, he had a uni-directional purpose: Islamic evangelism, imperialism and dominance. He ended up creating an Islamic Caliphate.

In the mid-20th century, the Western powers partitioned West Africa, and other parts of the African continent, into nation-states that had nothing in common with each other apart from geographical proximity. The ethnic groups that made up the old order still consider themselves as distinctive nations, regardless of the fragmentation of the Caliphate into multiple nation-states. Under such splintering, it was easy for the ideas of Islamists Sayyid Qutb or Osama Bin Laden violently to re-order the region through Jihad to reverberate and gain a following.

Although shattering the Caliphate succeeded in collapsing it geographically, the general consensus among the Muslims in the now-fragmented Caliphate was that the West won not by the superiority of its ideas or civilization, but by its sheer superiority in organized violence. This reasoning has played into the hands of extremist Islamic groups such as Boko Haram and Al-Qaeda, as they galvanize support across the region. These new groups also exploit thorny and delicate issues such as casting a negative obsession with Israel and its sovereignty as a way to unite Muslims, as many Islamic groups have been doing for decades.

Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau (center) in one of the group’s propaganda videos.

Above all, there has been no way for people to reject the past Empire and Caliphate in West Africa as failed systems because they were not replaced by better systems.

In the mid-20th century, most of the West African colonies were given independence. Whatever democratic values were handed to these newly independent states, however, were short-lived, trampled by military incursions. Military leadership suppressed freedoms in every aspect. This in itself served as a gag to protest the rule of any aspiring terror group. Now Africa, especially West Africa, would like to democratize; amid the madness of terrorism, it is calling for freedom. But is anyone listening?

Expectedly, the violent idea of jihad has taken on a regional dimension and therefore should necessitate a regional solution. Nigeria has played a leading role, based on the platform of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), in peace-keeping missions and restoring democratic rule in many West African countries. ECOWAS should be the linchpin for greater integration and the possible eradication of terror. The following, in no particular order, can help to root out those elements of terror and foster greater cooperation among states in West Africa:

• The worsening of environmental conditions in West Africa have increased the rate of violent crimes. Desertification and the shrinking of the Chad Basin have significantly affected the means of livelihood of tens of millions of people in this region. There is simply less arable land and grazing land. This has immensely contributed to the increasing number of unemployed youths. As a result, many have turned to joining various terror groups. Others go into cattle rustling. ECOWAS member states should encourage the spread of modern agricultural methods that work with limited supplies of water — a specialty of Israelis — and revive the Chad Basin so as to boost trade. That would deplete the pool of people from which terror groups get easy and unquestioning recruits.
• Each country in West Africa should strengthen their various “transitional justice mechanisms.” This is paramount for Ivory Coast and the Central African Republic, which recently experienced violent civil strife with religious undertones. Such upheavals are created and exploited by various terror groups. Committees and courts of law should be put in place to handle matters of genocide, secular education, rule of law, equal justice under law, property rights, freedom of expression, separation of religion and state, and also establish “truth and reconciliation” commissions to heal past wounds. Taking a cue from the Gacaca Court in Rwanda would be helpful.
• Islamic clerics should be included in this exercise. It will be an adventure in futility if this critical group is neglected, because a single sermon from a revered preacher could roll back whatever gains are achieved. Some clerics may see any improvement in the economy as a threat to their hegemony, and any democratic values as a threat to their power, but many moderate clerics have been killed by Boko Haram, as well. In essence, there should be room for reward and sanction. A preacher is responsible for any incitement they engage in — on or off the pulpit. Kaduna State in northern Nigeria is proposing a bill to license preachers.
• A highly motivated joint military task force comprising all member states should be established to patrol the porous regional borders — especially the borders between Mali and Libya.
• The ECOWAS Community Court should be empowered to deal with cross-border crimes and the prosecution of terrorists. So far, this court is merely an expression on paper.
• Financial institutions. After the 9/11 attacks, there were calls in banking institutions for “due diligence” and “know your customer” in opening accounts. This forced terrorists to go underground and use the informal system of hawala. One can bring cash to a hawala broker in Lagos, and a designated person can collect the same amount from a money broker in Jos. Terror groups still use this medium to fund their operations.

David C. Faith at Global Security Studies estimates that over $7 billion enters Pakistan through the hawala system every year. The true number is likely higher. And because of hawala‘s unregulated nature, it is impossible to verify the amounts used to finance terrorism.

Worries about terror financing led the Central Bank of Nigeria to strengthen its anti-money laundering laws. Transactions above the threshold of $5,000 for individuals and corporations are flagged, and details sent to Nigerian security services on a weekly basis.

Democracy is gradually becoming rooted in West Africa, especially in Nigeria, Senegal and Ghana. Demands for transparency and accountability are growing with visible positive results. The ECOWAS Commission has a robust strategy on counter-terrorism and anti-money laundering. The Institute for Security Studies West Africa explained that the ECOWAS Commission has identified three pillars of counter-terrorism:

PILLAR ONE — PREVENT: It constitutes the central pillar of the strategy. Its main goal is to prevent terrorism before it occurs based on the concept of “DID” -Detect, Intercept and Deter.

PILLAR TWO — PURSUE: The second phase of actions seeks to ensure timely and effective responses to terrorist acts. It is anchored on military and non-military approaches to terrorism, as well as the criminal justice system. One of the key objectives of this pillar is to eliminate impunity and ensure that all those who participate, support, finance and facilitate terrorists acts, whether directly or indirectly, are investigated, prosecuted and punished to the limit allowed by the law.

PILLAR THREE — REBUILD: seeks to restore society and re-assert the authority of the state after terrorist attacks. This strategy is based on regional and international cooperation including mutual legal assistance to meet the shortfalls and disparities in states’ capabilities. Above all, it requires cooperation in the areas of intelligence, investigation, prosecution and counter-terrorism.

The success of the Nigerian military in recent months is an indication that a coherent and enduring policy can see the end of these terror groups.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, a Cameroonian Muslim clergyman emerged in the northeast of Nigeria: Muhammad Marwa, popularly known as Maitatsine, Hausa for “the one who damns.” He, like Boko Haram, also rejected Western education. He and his movement were crushed by military firepower. Nigeria’s current President, General Muhammadu Buhari, was appointed at that time to neutralize Maitatsine. Nigeria’s military captured Maitatsine, and his movement collapsed. This feat endeared Buhari to the people of northeast Nigeria, who had suffered greatly under Maitatsine. Not surprisingly, Boko Haram emerged in the same place 30 years later with the same ideology,

In 2015, Muhammadu Buhari was elected president in the hope that he could repeat his success.

Unfortunately, Iran’s nuclear deal has emboldened the terrorists, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has also been increasing its presence in Nigeria by sponsoring Sunni clergymen in their institutions of learning.

Military campaigns alone cannot bring a lasting solution to terrorism in the West African sub-region. The political will seriously to address the issues above will make joining these criminal and heartless groups far less desirable.

Nuhu Othman is a senior consultant at Atta Zubairu & Associates, in Abuja, Nigeria. He can be reached at nuhuothman@gmail.com