President Barack Obama’s visit to Israel last March likely left even his
harshest Israeli critics pleasantly surprised. He showered Israel with
compliments, joked about prior disagreements, and most importantly, made no
Still, Obama could not completely refrain from addressing the
“Israeli- Palestinian conflict,” and delivered one of his signature
lecture-speeches on the subject towards the end of his visit.
speech had little policy significance at the time, in retrospect, Obama did
something rarely attempted by foreign dignitaries: he made an actual argument
for the two-state solution, succinctly capturing the three fragile pillars its
proponents rely upon. In so doing, however, he revealed how preposterous a
solution it actually is.
“First,” Obama argued, “peace,” or more
accurately, Palestinian statehood, “is necessary.” Why? Primarily because of
demographics. “Given the demographics west of the Jordan River, the only way for
Israel to endure and thrive as a Jewish and democratic state is through the
realization of an independent and viable Palestine.”
It’s a familiar
argument in Israel, and the prospect of having an Arab majority in the country
is indeed scary for any Zionist. But the picture may not be as dire as it seems.
A study published in 2005 by the Begin Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at
Bar-Ilan University argued that Palestinian numbers had been inflated by as many
as 1.4 million persons. Further undercutting the demographic prophecy of doom,
figures released by Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics in January showed
Jewish birthrates rising and Muslim birthrates in Israel falling. That follows
reports of declining Muslim birthrates around the world.
And if the
two-state solution has any relevance as a means of solving the demographic
problem, then areas from which Israel has withdrawn, like Gaza, home to 1-1.4
million Arabs (depending on the source), must be excluded from the
But even if the numbers are as bad as is claimed, Palestinian
statehood is not necessarily the required policy response. The demographic
predictions relate to a future reality, not reality as it stands today. At most
they mean that at a future point Israel would have to withdraw from Judea and
Samaria, but not before then.
In the meantime, Israel, with the immense
powers of statehood at its disposal, has the opportunity to change the
demographic situation by enacting policies which will increase the Jewish
majority. Perhaps the most obvious of these tools would be kickstarting the
engine that created the existing Jewish population: immigration.
are today millions of Jews residing in Western countries. Hundreds of thousands
in Europe enduring Muslim violence and struggling economies. Even in the US,
numerous young Jews can’t find work in their chosen professions and are open to
alternative life plans. Israel must tell them that it wants them and it should
offer significant incentives to get them to come here.
On the other hand,
if Israel creates a Palestinian state, the new security threat would deter
immigration, discourage foreign investment and encourage emigration.
Simultaneously, it could bring tens or hundreds of thousands of Arab immigrants
to our doorstep, thereby transforming predictions about Arab demographics in
Judea and Samaria and the country as a whole into a self-fulfilling
SECOND, OBAMA argued, “[p]eace is also just.” (Again, “peace”
being Palestinian statehood). This is because, he said, “the Palestinian
people’s right to self-determination, their right to justice, must also be
recognized... Put yourself in their shoes....Living their entire
lives with the presence of a foreign army that controls [their]
But the presence of the “foreign army” in Judea and Samaria
is not due to the lack of Palestinian statehood, but to anti-Jewish violence
perpetrated by Arabs. According to a 2010 Haaretz article surveying IDF troop
levels in Judea and Samaria, it was with the first intifada, in late 1987, that
regular and reserve battalions of the IDF were deployed and even these were
reduced in the early Nineties.
In 2000, “troop levels peaked amid the
wave of suicide bombings and shooting attacks of the second intifada.”
2010, Haaretz reported that “Israeli troop levels in the West Bank are at their
lowest level since the start of the first intifada over two decades
That troop levels increase with terrorism and decrease when it
subsides demonstrates that these troops are there for one purpose: to fight
If what the Palestinians want is freedom of movement all they
need to do is stop terrorizing Jews and they will never see another
But that is not something they are interested in doing. No
matter what Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has said or will say,
the Palestinians have not relinquished their violent opposition to Israel’s
existence – but are entrenching it in their culture and inculcating it in their
youth. That is the great injustice of Palestinian life, not the army deployed to
Indeed, the Palestinians can embark on such a miserable path
because, in large part, the IDF is not patrolling their streets. In their major
population centers, or “Area A” and even “Area B,” they rule
They run their own cities, they have their own educational
system, their own oversized police force, their own parliament, presidency and
judiciary and more. As far as Israel is concerned, their individual rights to
selfrule are fulfilled.
What Israel does deny them is state sovereignty –
control of immigration, borders, airspace, a military – because that entails all
the tools which can be used to terrorize if not destroy our state. And in many
of these areas, if the Palestinians gave up their violent designs, methods could
be devised to alleviate any individual hardships.
Admittedly, the group
honor of the Palestinians will remain slighted at not being able to say the
Palestinian Authority is a true state or in being unable to threaten others with
a military, but in the contest between Arab honor and Jewish security, justice
demands that we choose the latter.
AND FINALLY, “my third point: peace is
possible.” Here, however, Obama failed to offer an argument.
admitted, “I’m not saying it’s guaranteed. I can’t even say that it is more
likely than not,” and moved on to hopeful platitudes about “a future in which
Jews and Muslims and Christians can all live in peace” and how we should
“believe in that.”
Obama most likely refrained from arguing that true
peace is likely or demonstrating how it could actually come about because it
would have sounded laughable. In the past few decades, during his tenure
especially, the Middle East has become more radicalized than ever. The
durability of even the long-standing peace agreement with Egypt is in
But even if there were some realistic scenario in which true peace
could take root, even if it was the likely outcome, that would still allow for
the significant possibility that there won’t be peace, and that by establishing
a Palestinian state, Israel will have exposed itself to a great level of risk
for which it might pay dearly.
So to declare that peace is a possibility
is also to admit that peace is not the only possibility, and more than that, not
the likely possibility.
SO IF a Palestinian state is not necessary or
just, and peace is unlikely, where does that leave us? Or, in other words,
what’s the alternative “solution”? Perhaps there is none. Our only option may be
to make the best of things. Israel will retain sovereignty in Judea and Samaria,
put down terrorism and afford Palestinians the greatest freedom possible, defend
itself against the many threats emanating from abroad, grow and liberalize its
economy, improve quality of life for its citizens, and hopefully take the
initiative in ensuring a sizable Jewish majority in the country.
not sound exciting, but it doesn’t sound too bad either.
The writer is
director of Likud Anglos.