Friday, January 10, 2014

One State. Two States. Three States. Four.

Michael L.

Five States.  Six States.  Seven States.  More!

I cannot help but notice that the Fresno Zionist and Dovid Efune, Editor-in-Chief of The Algemeiner, both have articles published today speaking out against the two-state solution.

I am left with the distinct impression over recent months that the taboo in opposing the two-state solution is eroding.  We have people like Caroline Glick, and Martin Sherman, and Dovid Efune and innumerable others who seem to be focusing their discussions specifically on this very issue.

And it is the central issue, to be sure, within the overall conversation around the long Arab war against the Jews.

I have always favored two states for two peoples, because Israel can be a Jewish state.  It can be a democratic state.  Or, it can be a state from the River to the Sea.

But it cannot be all three at once.

From the Age of Clinton until this very moment I have always favored two states, but what do you do when the people who claim to want a state for themselves in peace absolutely refuse to accept a state for themselves in peace?

On the one hand, the Palestinian-Arabs claim to require a state.  On the other hand, they have turned down every single offer for statehood since 1937.

What I have argued in recent years, due to the failure of Oslo and the recognition that we have no meaningful negotiating partners, is that Israel should declare its final borders to the east and remove the IDF to behind those borders.  I understand, of course, that the unilateral Gaza experience was awful because it was met with ongoing violence by Hamas and other Jihadi organizations against the Jewish minority, but there is clearly no chance for a negotiated conclusion of hostilities.  If this is true, it means that Israel must take matters into its own hands and unilaterally declare its final borders.

Both the Fresno Zionist and Dovid Efune, however, argue in opposition to the two-state solution and thus in opposition to something other than the full annexation of Judaea and Samaria.

Fresno Zionist writes the following:
I would like to make another argument, which is not heard so often because it is not politically correct: the Palestinian nation has developed a criminal national culture, a collection of aspirations, modes of thought, discourse and behavior that would make a Palestinian state a destructive element in the community of nations... 
What brought these disparate Arabs together was opposition to Zionism. The first great leader of the Palestinian Arabs was Haj Amin al-Husseini, who stirred up anti-Jewish riots and pogroms as early as 1920. The British helpfully made him Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in 1921, and he became the face and voice of the Palestinian cause. During the war, he worked closely with Hitler, raised an SS division among Bosnian Muslims, made Arabic broadcasts to the Middle East from Berlin, and did his best to encourage Hitler to conquer Palestine, where Husseini planned to set up extermination camps for Jews... 
The Palestinian nation was forged by al-Husseini, Arafat and others who took this disparate group of Arabs and united them under the banner of ‘resistance’ to the Zionists, and later to the state of Israel, who developed the idea of the nakba as a loss of honor that had to be avenged. They created a monster, a culture whose predominant memes are of blood and murder... 
In deciding whether establishing a new state here is a good idea, it makes sense to think about what the character of that state will be. And there is no doubt that ‘Palestine’ will be an aggressor and a locus of terrorism. 
A criminal culture will produce a criminal state. 
How could the embodiment of the philosophy of Yasser Arafat be anything else?
Although I still favor the two-state solution, he makes a perfectly reasonable argument.  There is no question but that Palestinian-Arab political culture is violent, toxic, and grounded in the denial of Jewish history and heritage.

Thus the creation of a distinct Palestinian-Arab country within the historical Jewish heartland would be at war with the Jewish people of the Middle East from day one.  What is the point of a Palestinian-Arab state if it will not bring peace to either the Palestinian-Arabs or the Jewish people?  What is the point of a Palestinian-Arab state if it is little more than a battleship against its Jewish neighbors?

Efune writes the following:
On Tuesday the Times of Israel reported that according to Israeli diplomatic sources, “John Kerry is behind the recent wave of European threats to boycott settlement products, and intends to use these threats against Israel should the current series of peace talks fail.”

Talk of peace comes in the form of broad unspecific platitudes, but Kerry’s warnings – should his “peace process” fail – are detailed, public, and precise. Absent a positive case for Israeli concessions, Kerry’s strategy is to artificially orchestrate a political pincer movement, and scare Israelis into accepting his proposals.

Viewed in this light and in the context of Israeli history, the choice for Israel’s citizens should be easy. The danger posed by the establishment of a hostile Palestinian Arab state in the heart of Israel by far surpasses all others. For the sake of their future generations, Israelis must simply refuse Kerry’s offer.
Israel has five options.

1)  The Status-Quo

2)  Two-States for Two Peoples in Peace

3)  Two-States for Two Peoples at War

4)  Unilateral Israeli Declaration of Eastern Borders

5)  Unilateral Israeli Declaration of Eastern Borders with Full Annexation of Judaea and Samaria

I recommend number four because 1) the status quo is unjust to both peoples, 2) there will be no peace within two-states for two peoples because that is not what the Palestinian-Arab leadership wants, 3) two states for two peoples at perpetual war is even worse than the status-quo, and 5) the full annexation of Judaea and Samaria will mean Jewish responsibility for that many hundreds of thousands, or millions, of additional Arabs.

Who knows what the numbers really are, but what of the political rights of those people if Israel were to annex the entirety of what Jordanians like to refer to as the "West Bank"?

Is the idea that there will be a process for a Palestinian-Arab citizenship among those who live in Judaea and Samaria?  Perhaps some form of national service in order to demonstrate peaceful coexistence?  Or will there status be something akin to the relationship of Puerto Ricans to the United States?  Will they have full civil liberties, but not full political rights, and thus no representation in the Knesset?

In any event, the annexation of Judaea and Samaria is on the table, because the peace talks were never serious to begin with.  Israel, as we know from the peace treaty with Egypt, has always been willing to trade land for peace.  What Israel is no longer willing to do - or so it seems - is trade land for war.

Naftali Bennet had the basic idea, in my opinion.  Annex some modified version of Area C, including all the significant settlement blocs, and then call it a day.

Toss keys over shoulder.


  1. There is another option. Read about Dr. Mordechai Kedar 's out of the box solution He writes " Complex problems require simple, workable solutions. The development of the Palestinian Emirates is a viable alternative based on the sociology of the different clans and tribes in Gaza, Judea and Samaria. This initiative will bring about a stable peace to the region and added security for Israel"

    I don't know about that, but I appreciate the creative thinking..

  2. In an ideal world, I would opt for the 'Jordan is Palestine' option, which is vey very close to option #5. But I do agree that option #4 is the most feasible one.

    Kedar's idea of 'Palestinian Emirates' is closer to #5, but the chances of being accepted, no matter how much I appreciate the concept, is nil.

    I guess Israel didn't go for option #4 yet for the sole reason it would surely make it loose the US veto at UN. At least with hostile fellas like Obama and Kerry in power.

  3. I prefer looking at it in terms of what you can do and what you can't do. That sounds darkly Machiavellian but it's not. We need what I can the "1+" state solution. Israel + 'whatever'. We can't, no one can predict or restrict whatever national destiny the Arabs have in store for them. Not even they can. Fair enough. So Israel is for Israel and whatever the Arabs want to do, godspeed. It really matter little to us what they call themselves whether it's a Caliphate, a Warlord state, an Islamic People's Republic, etc. What it represents to us is all the same.

    As we talk about the death of Arik today, the takeaway is that he showed us this was always the case. Israel can't manage the politics of 'not-Israel', can't worry about whether whole nations who want them all dead pretend to like them. The results are always the same. One thing Arik demonstrated is that whatever Israel does, strategically she must always act for herself. The rest is simply tactics spent debating the water level of acceptable levels of terrorist atrocities from one moment to the next.

    This is why I will always maintain that Jabotinsky got it right 90 years ago. We can't manage how nicely the Arabs hate us. All we can do is present them with a few options of what WE will do, without their approval or support.

    1. For whatever little my thoughts are worth (I'm just a Philadelphian whose number one priority right now is bugging my City Councilman to actually get somebody to finally, and for the first time ever, actually enforce the ordinances and fines that theoretically already exist in order to prevent our pavements (i.e. - 'sidewalks' to most Americans) from remaining and / or becoming disgusting, toxic dog poop wastelands), I'm gonna pretty much agree with Empress Trudy here.

      I don't care what the remainder of Judea and Samaria is called after Israel declares its final eastern borders, I only care that said border is once and for all secure and final.

      Any subsequent attacks launched from beyond that border should be responded to and dealt with in the very same fashion as any other nation in the world would respond to such an attack from a hostile entity on its borders. In such a case, Israel should also respond to any potential condemnation of same from other such nations with a certain well-known gesture involving the extension of one particular finger, and nothing else.

      If the Arabs of the land Israel chooses to leave to them would like to build economic and diplomatic, etc etc, relations and partnership with Israel, then great! Fantastic! Let's do it!

      Israel has certainly demonstrated, multiple times, in the past that it is open to cooperation in such matters with those neighbors who were deadly enemies at even just a half-past last Tuesday.

      If the Arabs in the lands Israel chooses to leave to them decide not to take advantage of such an opportunity, then too bad. That's their loss.

      My only concern is that Israel end this current situation, cut off their 'responsibility' to dictator Abbas and company, and then focus inward on continuing to strengthen and improve Israel, in each and every way.