Few diplomatic phrases are repeated more often than the two-state solution.

Politicians invoke it almost daily. Journalists write it as though everyone agrees on what it means. Yet today’s “two-state solution” is not the original “solution”. Somewhere along the way, the definition changed – but almost no one noticed.

In fact, over the past century, the phrase has been quietly redefined, and more than once. Each time the goalposts moved, the new definition replaced the old one as though it had always meant the same thing. Some call it political sleight of hand. I call it bullshit.

To understand today’s debate, let’s take a quick look at yesterday.

Following World War I, the League of Nations entrusted Great Britain with the Mandate for Palestine. The Mandate recognized “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” and called for the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people while ensuring the civil and religious rights of the area’s existing non-Jewish communities.

Simple enough. So far so good.

However, even before the Mandate was formally adopted back in 1922, Britain had already separated the territory east of the Jordan River. Under Article 25 of the Mandate, Britain administered that territory differently, and it would ultimately become the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan  – or simply Jordan – in 1946.

If you examine maps from the early 1920s, the picture is striking. The Jordan River formed the dividing line. To the east lay Transjordan (today’s Jordan). To the west remained the portion of the Mandate in which the Jewish National Home – Israel – was to be established.

Simple enough. So far so good.

In practical terms, the first “two-state” solution had already taken shape: an Arab state east of the Jordan River and the future Israel west of it.

That original understanding is rarely acknowledged today.

By the time the United Nations proposed partition in 1947, Jordan already existed. The debate was no longer about creating one Jewish state and one Arab state from the Mandate territory. It was about creating an additional – third – Arab state west of the........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)