Debate Magazine

One State. Two States. Three States. Four.

Posted on the 10 January 2014 by Mikelumish @IsraelThrives
Michael L.

Five States.  Six States.  Seven States.  More!
One State. Two States. Three States. Four.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 has been awful, 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.
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.

Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog