Steadfast and ardent supporters of the peace process believe that:
Ensuring Israel’s future as a strong, secure, Jewish and democratic state requires achieving a lasting two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Distilling out the elements, we are left with:
1. Neighbours, Palestine and Israel, living peaceably
2. Israel secure and strong
3. Conflict resolved
Hence to the Peace Formula: Two state solution = Peace = Pro-Israel
Observe how the formula lacks internal logic because of a trade-off between elements 1, 2 and 3.
• There is no working model to validate the goal of a Muslim state and a Jewish state living at peace.
• Outside of Indonesia and Malaysia, is there a working model of a Muslim country living at peace even with itself?
• There is a working model of turmoil and conflict, internal and between Muslim countries, often through proxy groups.
• Quitting the region, defeated American broker John Kerry left behind a peace framework that not just anticipates but allows for conflict between Palestine and Israel after a peace deal is in place.
• Why else would the framework pledge peace-keeping troops? Why else would Kerry’s boss trumpet “America''s unwavering commitment to Israel''s security”?
Hence elements of the peace formula collide. You cannot have a two state formula AND peace. You can have one or the other, and if you opt for two states you opt for a future of conflict.
A level of peace already prevails within and between Israel and Palestinian-run areas. Compared to what’s going down in the Middle East and North Africa, Palestinian-run areas glow as islands of tranquility.
In all, the peace formula is wonky. How is it possible to support a two-state solution AND anticipate future conflict AND be pro - Israel, all together?
Support the two-state scheme by all means. But then you anticipate conflict which, by definition is not a pro - Israel standpoint.
Peace process supporters must therefore amend the wonky formula to make it hold together logically.
Two state solution = Conflict = Anti-Israel