‘Two-state’ solution less likely after Gaza War

By Steve Kramer          

ALFE MENASHE, Israel — Now that Operation Protective Edge appears to be winding down, Secretary of State Kerry again feels the need to reach a “bigger, broader approach to a two-state solution.” One would think that the United States, Israel’s closest ally and the supposed leading Western power, would have learned something from this latest, horrific conflict.

Is there any doubt in Kerry’s mind that Hamas, rulers of Gaza, provoked this war and utilized ordinary Gazans as human shields in order to try to reach their goal: an Islamic victory over the Jews? After all, it’s common knowledge that the Koran commands Moslems to make war on the Jews and either kill them or subjugate them to Islamic rule.

Yet, Kerry, no doubt following orders from President Obama, wants to broker a peace agreement between the Palestinian Authority, composed of PLO and Hamas representatives, and Israel. The charters of both Arab groups are inimical to a peaceful settlement with Israel.

Once, everyone knew how the two state solution would be resolved: Israel would withdraw to the 1967 borders (sic, the 1949 Ceasefire line); recognize Palestine/Gaza as one entity with some type of physical connection between them; and divide Jerusalem between Arabs and Jews. For its part, the PA (Palestinian Authority) would drop its demand for the “right of return” of Palestinians to live inside Israel in their former homes (that is, perhaps where their grandparents lived between 1946-8). This paradigm has now ceased to exist except in the minds of people who really want to believe it is the the only answer.

The newer concept that “everyone” knows what the final agreement will look like is that, lacking a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River, the only alternative is one state, which will inevitably be Palestinian, or inevitably Israeli. Why? Because the Arabs will swamp the Jews demographically, according to some experts, or the opposite, according to opposing experts, or various other arguments.

At a recent press conference, Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu propped up the two-state argument. He announced that there will not be a fully sovereign Palestinian state. It’s not as if Bibi didn’t realize this before. He painstakingly explained the situation in his excellent book, A Place Among the Nations (1993). But in the last few years, Bibi forgot the valid arguments in his book about false demographic predictions, the false centrality of Palestinian nationhood, the false equation of land for peace, and more.

In Bibi’s Bar Ilan speech of June 2009, he said something that no Israeli premier had said before: “In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect.  Each will have its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government. Neither will threaten the security or survival of the other.” This two-state solution was anathema to most of his Likud party supporters.

Things have changed. Bibi remembered, just four days after the start of Operation Protective Edge, what he knew in 1993. In a recent press conference on July 11, Bibi said that he sees Israel alone at the forefront against vicious Islamic radicalism and that he considers the current Secretary Kerry-led diplomatic team to be naive at best. He then declared that Israel will not give up control of the Jordan Valley, land that the Palestinians demand be included in their state, giving them control over Israel’s eastern border.

David Horovitz, editor of the Times of Israel wrote: “Not relinquishing security control west of the Jordan, it should be emphasized, means not giving a Palestinian entity full sovereignty there. It means not acceding to Mahmoud Abbas’s demands, to Barack Obama’s demands, to the international community’s demands. This is not merely demanding a demilitarized Palestine; it is insisting upon ongoing Israeli security oversight inside and at the borders of the West Bank. That sentence, quite simply, spells the end to the notion of Netanyahu consenting to the establishment of a Palestinian state. A less-than-sovereign entity? Maybe, though this will never satisfy the Palestinians or the international community. A fully sovereign Palestine? Out of the question.”

Out of the question – yes, because time after time Israelis have learned that giving up land to the Palestinians results in a vacuum that terrorists will fill, and handing over border crossings will lead to wholesale importation of weapons to use against us. There is little doubt that, not only does this stance have the backing of Bibi’s Likud party, it also expresses the desire of nearly all Israelis (at least the 80% who are Jewish) not to base Israel’s security on any entity other than the IDF. Israel asks no other country to send soldiers to protect us because international forces, such as UN soldiers have totally failed us, in Lebanon (2006) and in Sinai (1967).

According to Bibi’s new paradigm, there may eventually be a Palestinian statelet in Judea, Samaria, and perhaps Gaza. It won’t have all the attributes of a full-fledged nation. While this is a radical notion for the US State Department, it is a realistic concept for Israel, which sits among warring Arab states and Muslim sects. The latest example, of course, are the inhuman jihadist Hamas/Islamic Jihad rulers of Gaza, who could care less about the lives of ordinary residents of Gaza.

Palestine without an army would not be unique. For example, Panama and Haiti are two of the largest countries without a military force. They do not pose a threat to their neighbors.

Bibi often repeats the necessity of the PA recognizing Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. Israel’s conflict with the Muslims is not over territory. The fiasco of Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 is proof of that. Israel’s problem is the inability of Muslims to accustom themselves to a Jewish state on what they consider Muslim land.

If the Palestinians and the Arab League finally face the fact that Israel exists and a relationship with it will be beneficial, then progress towards a peaceful resolution can be made. But if Secretary Kerry and others try to diminish Israel’s security in an effort to placate the Muslims, not only will no solution be found here, but the West will itself face violent jihadism, first in Europe and then in North and South America.

*
Kramer is a freelance writer based in Alfe Menashe, Israel.  He may be contacted via steve.kramer@sdjewishworld.com