No Holds Barred: Time to dump the failed two-state solution

Such change, moreover, couldn’t have come at a more fitting time.

By
April 27, 2019 21:57
PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY PRESIDENT Mahmoud Abbas greets the audience during a ceremony in Ramallah

PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY PRESIDENT Mahmoud Abbas greets the audience during a ceremony in Ramallah on December 31, marking the 54th anniversary of Fatah’s founding. (photo credit: MOHAMAD TOROKMAN/REUTERS)

 
X

Dear Reader,
As you can imagine, more people are reading The Jerusalem Post than ever before. Nevertheless, traditional business models are no longer sustainable and high-quality publications, like ours, are being forced to look for new ways to keep going. Unlike many other news organizations, we have not put up a paywall. We want to keep our journalism open and accessible and be able to keep providing you with news and analysis from the frontlines of Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World.

As one of our loyal readers, we ask you to be our partner.

For $5 a month you will receive access to the following:

  • A user experience almost completely free of ads
  • Access to our Premium Section
  • Content from the award-winning Jerusalem Report and our monthly magazine to learn Hebrew - Ivrit
  • A brand new ePaper featuring the daily newspaper as it appears in print in Israel

Help us grow and continue telling Israel’s story to the world.

Thank you,

Ronit Hasin-Hochman, CEO, Jerusalem Post Group
Yaakov Katz, Editor-in-Chief

UPGRADE YOUR JPOST EXPERIENCE FOR 5$ PER MONTH Show me later

For just about as long as there have been efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, calls for a two-state solution have choked the global conversation. So much so that many have come to believe that there’s no other way to achieve peace.

Suddenly, though, it seems those aren’t the only voices in the room.

First, Israelis heard their prime minister vow days before a general election that Israel would be extending its sovereignty over all of Area C, which constitutes the bulk of Judea and Samaria, and which would serve to hold those lands firmly under Israeli security control.

More surprising than the prime minister’s remarks was the fact that the United States didn’t condemn them. While prior administrations made the two-state solution a staple of their Middle East policies, President Donald Trump, elected as a businessman to find new solutions to age-old problems, seems to have a different vision. Asked whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s pledge to annex Area C would interfere with the administration’s peace plan, America’s top-diplomat, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, responded with a simple, “I don’t.”

Other administration officials have also chimed in with their own suggestions that suggest America’s strategy in achieving regional peace is about to get a face lift. Addressing the annual AIPAC conference, Ambassador David Friedman urged Israelis to seize the chance to sign a deal under this administration, and not one that “may not understand the need for Israel to maintain overriding security control over Judea and Samaria and a permanent defense-position in the Jordan Valley.”

Then, just this past week, Trump’s chief Middle-East negotiator, my friend Jason Greenblatt, noted that it was “unhelpful” to use the term “two-state solution” in peace talks, since both sides understood the term so differently.

It may have been Pompeo himself who gave the greatest indicator when he said that Trump’s peace plan would “put forward a vision that has ideas that are new, that are different, that are unique, that tries to reframe and reshape what’s been an intractable problem.”

The truth is, it isn’t hard to understand why the Trump administration might depart from the traditional notion of peace-by-two-states: it’s simply a non-solution. They’re trying to achieve peace, yet every step taken to in the direction of two states has brought bloodshed and conflict, terror and war. 

That last fact is also simply understood.

Think about it: Every step taken toward the establishment of a state involves forking over massive amounts of land, money, resources and legitimacy to whomever is going to be leading that state. When the leader of such a state is a Mandela or a Gandhi, it usually isn’t a problem. Men of peace deserve all of these things. When, however, it’s a Mugabe, a Gaddafi, an Arafat, the exchange is bound to tally itself in blood.

FOR THE Palestinians, tragically, those with the highest political profile are usually those with the most Jewish lives notched on their surging resumés of terror. Men like these shouldn’t be trusted to roam the streets, let alone exercise the powerful reigns of a state.


Yasser Arafat – with whom Israel signed the Oslo Accords, laying out the base work for a Palestinian state – was not for a moment in his life concerned with achieving peace. He spent most of his first 64 years directing terrorist operations against Israeli civilians. By the time he joined a now-infamous three-way handshake with then-president Bill Clinton and prime minister Yitzhak Rabin on the White House lawn, Arafat had personally ordered the murder of hundreds of innocent Jewish civilians in countless terrorist and rocket attacks.

Afterward, he would continue to wreak violence upon his partners in “peace,” orchestrating the murder of nearly 1,000 Israelis in the Second Intifada, even being caught red-handed importing Iranian weapons on a freight ship called the MV Karine A. Amid all that murder, he managed also to amass an investment empire estimated by Time Magazine to have been worth three billion dollars.

Arafat may have died, but policies antithetical to peace have continued to thrive in the Palestinian Authority. It still teaches hatred in its schools, names parks and competitions after the most horrendous terrorists, and pays out a reported 8% of its annual budget to convicted terrorists and their families.

And indeed, forking over money, land, resources, legitimacy – and a shocking 15,000 Kalashnikov machine guns – to a man like Arafat would eventually sink Israel into decades of terror.

As for the alternative to Arafat’s hateful Fatah Party, there’s only the even-more hateful and bloodthirsty Hamas. In the wake of the Oslo Accords, Hamas responded to Israel’s patent overtures of peace with a years-long spree of suicide bombings. Somehow, even they got their hands on something of state in the enclave of the Gaza Strip. As expected, they’ve been warring with Israel ever since, using the millions of Palestinian under their control as human shields over their command centers and missile sites that betray a one-track-minded Jew-killing agenda.

The Middle East can hardly contend with another failed state. The Jewish people, finally safe in their own land, certainly shouldn’t be forced to.

Now, thanks to President Trump, it seems the five decades-old peace process might be in for a change.

Such change, moreover, couldn’t have come at a more fitting time.

This week, Jews around the world celebrated the festival of Passover. Passover, boiled down, is a time of transitions. In Israel, it comes just at the start of spring. The weather warms, the rivers run full, and budding blossoms turn the landscape green. It’s also a time we celebrate not only our current state of freedom, but more precisely, our Exodus from a state of slavery. It’s a time of celebrate the flux inherent in maturation, a time of turning the page, of starting a new chapter.

For the Jews leaving Egypt, that new chapter marked the beginning of the gradual return to the land of their forefathers in Israel. Thankfully for us, that’s a chapter we’ve already completed. What lies ahead is the formulation of plan that allows us to remain here, safely and in peace in our eternal and unquestionable Jewish homeland.

Join Jerusalem Post Premium Plus now for just $5 and upgrade your experience with an ads-free website and exclusive content. Click here>>

Related Content

June 25, 2019
Armenia’s Jewish problem

By JESSE BOGNER

Cookie Settings