Why A Two-State Israel-Palestinian Solution Is Insane

The Advocate
By Herb Denenberg, The Bulletin
Monday, June 01, 2009

This column will show you why President Barack Obama’s two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a solution, but a formula for disaster. It will also suggest two approaches that make sense and might resolve that conflict.

Israel can’t make peace with the Palestinians when they refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist, when they are dedicated to the destruction of Israel and to genocide, when their mosques, schools, media and government officials promote hatred and violence directed against Jews and Israel. Anyone who thinks peace under those circumstances is possible isn’t dealing with a full deck and is frankly irrational if not insane. But enough said about the state of American foreign policy in the Middle East. Just remember that foreign policy is being made by Mr. Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and a platoon of anti-Israel Obama advisers.

This whole matter is put in perfect perspective by two articles in Commentary Magazine (June 2009), which I happen to think is one of the best if not the very best magazine in the U.S. The two articles are by Caroline Glick, columnist and senior contributing editor of the Jerusalem Post, and Hillel Halkin, a longtime contributor to Commentary.

Ms. Glick’s article, “The Stabilization Plan,” is based on the premise that peace now with unwilling Palestinians is impossible, so the best you can do is to create a strategy to stabilize the situation and lay the foundation for future reconciliation and peace.

Ms. Glick identifies why peace has been so elusive despite endless peace plans:

“The root cause of the Palestinian conflict is the same as the root cause of the larger Arab and Islamic world’s conflict with Israel: Simply put, they refuse to accept that Israel has a right to exist. Until they change their minds — the conflict cannot be solved, it can only be managed. It cannot be resolved. It can only be stabilized. Consequently, the stabilization plan does not foresee a solution of the Middle East conflict. Indeed, it argues that the quest for a solution has blinded policymakers to the true nature of the conflict in a manner that has expanded the frequency and likelihood of war and damned the region to a state of chronic instability.”

Ms. Glick finds that the obsession with the failed two-state solution has caused Israel and America to ignore the factors that are the key to Middle East politics — the rise of jihadist forces throughout the Islamic world and Iran’s ascendancy as a regional power. Both of these factors have grown more threatening since 1993.

The Glick stabilization plan is based on three pillars: “First, it would neutralize outside radicalizing elements that exacerbate the Palestinian conflict with Israel. Second, it would exact a significant price for the Palestinians for their continued belligerence. And third, it would prevent the Palestinian leadership from using the Palestinians as pawns in their war against Israel. Here are the details on those three pillars of the stabilization plan.

Neutralizing External Factors

Now the most important external factor is Iran using Palestinians as proxies to advance its regional power. As long as Iran can influence the Palestinians, it will exploit the conflict to expand its influence. But if Iran goes nuclear, that will end the hope of peaceful coexistence between Israel and its neighbors. Any Arab state that seeks peace with Israel will be subject to Iranian nuclear blackmail. I would suggest that there should be a military attack on Iran to stop it from going nuclear and curb its influence. Ms. Glick doesn’t offer details on her suggested approach, but this would seem to be obvious as a first step.

She also recommends something be done about the institutions which were created to and have done nothing but exacerbate and perpetuate the Palestinian conflict with Israel. One such institution is the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which maintains the refugee status of the descendants of Arabs who left Israel during the 1948-49 War of Independence. As long as this conflict is fired up by UNRWA, there is little hope of peace. It should be noted that Israel settled all the Jewish refugees who fled Arab nations during the War of Independence right away. But Arab nations failed to do so for their “refugees.” They were intent on maintaining the hatred and unrest created by unsettled refugees. They were more interested in perpetuating the conflict than the welfare of these refugees.

Exacting A Price

Now Gazans live under the terror regime of Hamas. Those on the West Bank live under the tyranny of the Fatah terrorist organization. Ms. Glick writes,

“Because the two-state paradigm places all the blame for the absence of peace on Israel, and so places all the pressure for behavioral change on Israel, leaders of both Fatah and Hamas have felt free to deny their subjects basic freedoms as they pursue their war against Israel through terror, political warfare, incitement, extortion, and general thuggery — all in the name of the Palestinian people.”

This should change. Israel, the U.S. and others involved should start adopting policies to make it clear that Hamas and Fatah cannot continue their belligerent policies toward Israel and their subjugation of their people to making war instead of peace.

One of the matters most in need of addressing is the Palestinian Authority’s “systematic indoctrination of its public to wage jihad against Israel and seek the annihilation of the Jewish people.” Another matter that must be addressed is Palestinian laws, which work against peace. For example, the Palestinian land law requires the execution of those who sell land to Israel, and now any Palestinian who assists Israel in its war against terror is subject to execution.

Ending The Use Of Palestinians As Pawns

On Jordan’s King Abdullah II’s recent trip to Washington, he said, “Any Israeli effort to substitute Palestinian development for Palestinian independence cannot bring peace and stability to the region.”

This view has had disastrous consequences as it devalues and sneers at Palestinian development. First, money sent to the Palestinian Authority for improving the welfare of the people has been diverted to terrorism. Second, this approach to impoverishing the Palestinians has destroyed the middle class, the group most likely to pressure for peace and freedom.

Ms. Glick summarizes, “The stabilization plan and the policies it engenders cannot solve the Palestinian conflict with Israel. Today, the Palestinian conflict has no solution. What the stabilization plan can do, if wisely followed, is embark Israel and the Palestinians on a path to security, prosperity, and stability, which when you think about it, sounds a little like peace.”

Article continues with comments on Hillel Halkin's article in Commentary