Debunking the 2-State Myth

Counting on Palestinian state to improve our security situation is absolute madness.

by: Yoel Meltzer

One of the assumed benefits of the proposed two-state solution is that the creation of a Palestinian state will finally make the Palestinians fully accountable for their actions. Thus, any acts of aggression from the new entity against Israel will be considered an attack on Israel from a sovereign country rather than from a terrorist organization. Moreover, it is this distinction, so we are told, that will not only allow Israel to forcefully respond to any acts of Palestinian aggression but also do so with the full support and understanding of the international community.

Although such line of reasoning sounds very enticing and has even managed to win over some former skeptics, we shouldn’t buy it. In fact, a quick survey of the last 20 years seems to indicate otherwise.

At the height of the Gulf War in 1991, Iraq launched scud missiles at Israel in an attempt to draw it into the conflict. This was a classic case of a sovereign Arab country attacking Israel with powerfully destructive missiles, aimed at some of its most populous regions. Nonetheless, despite the numerous missiles that landed in Israel, due to various geopolitical considerations and behind-the-door pressure Jerusalem did not respond.

Roughly 10 years later, Israel speedily removed all of its troops from southern Lebanon. At the time we were promised that Israeli positions would be taken over by the South Lebanese Army (SLA) in order to prevent Hezbollah forces from stationing themselves within spitball range of Israel’s northern border. In addition, we were assured by then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak that should Hezbollah ever commit an act of aggression against Israel our response would be very painful.

Like usual, Israel fulfilled its side of the agreement while the Arabs failed to uphold their part. As a result, rather than having the SLA parked across the border we received Hezbollah. This change of events afforded Hezbollah the opportunity to closely watch our troop movements, something they quickly cashed in on. After a mere few months of up-close surveillance, Hezbollah men dashed across the border and kidnapped three Israeli soldiers.

Israeli restraint

However, despite our hard-earned justification to retaliate to such an unprovoked act of aggression and even the prime minister's own guarantee to respond with might in such situation, in the end we did very little. Thus, the promises meant nothing and unfortunately the kidnapped soldiers were killed.

Five years after the tragic kidnappings in Lebanon, Israel removed all Jewish presence from Gaza. At the time we were told that the removal of Israeli troops from the Strip would shift the burden of accountability to the Palestinian Authority, thereby forcing it to rein in the various terrorist organizations. This, like every other promised benefit, turned out to be false as attacks against Israel only increased.

While Israel did eventually reenter Gaza at the end of 2008 as part of Operation Cast Lead, this happened only after thousands of missiles were fired at Jewish communities close to the Gaza border. Moreover, the promised admiration of the world we supposedly were to acquire following our unilateral pullout quickly melted away, as many in the international community hypocritically condemned Israel for its actions in Gaza.

Although there were times when Israel responded forcefully to cross-border attacks, such as in the Second Lebanon War, the growing trend through the years has been for a limited Israeli response or total restraint. Moreover, rather than winning the world's approval based upon our polite and considerate behavior, this trend has been accompanied by the growth of an increasingly hostile anti-Israel environment worldwide.

This being the case, why should we believe that things will be different next time? It is far more plausible to assume that acts of aggression emanating from a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria will be met with the usual limited Israeli response. Moreover, even in the rare instance where Israel responds more forcefully, it is safe to assume that the world will quickly condemn the Jewish state regardless of the circumstances.

In light of the above, how on earth can we use an unproven assumption as the basis for severely weakening our national security, something which is sure to happen if a Palestinian state is created in Judea and Samaria? Indeed, it's absolute madness.



Ynet News

Listen to Lieberman

Maligned foreign minister’s plan better than current notion of two-state solution

By Haim Misgav

All those people who are now calling for Avigdor Lieberman to quit, or be fired, should know that we’ve seen similar conduct by previous foreign ministers. For example, once upon a time we had Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, who worked behind his prime minister’s back and formulated the contemptible Oslo Accords without the PM’s knowledge.

I cannot recall what all those people who currently seek Lieberman’s head thought about Peres’ abovementioned move, undertaken with the help of his adjutant, Yossi Beilin. However, I’m certain that they did not demand PM Rabin fire the two, despite the diplomatic folly they dragged him into.

I have one question for all those people who now seek to crucify the foreign minister for daring to present his plan (and keep in mind this is no more than a plan at this time) – did they stop for a moment to examine it? That is, perhaps it includes some measure of logic?

In fact, what did Avigdor Lieberman tell us? The “Palestinian people” wants, in practice, a “Palestinian state” clear of any Jews (in German this was called Judenrein) in Judea and Samaria, another such state in the Gaza Strip, and yet another one, similar to the other two, across the Jordan River.

At the same time, the Palestinians (who were not recognized as a people by the nations of the world until 1967) want the State of Israel to be a bi-national state, or a multicultural one (to borrow a phrase from the anarchists from the leftist anti-Zionist camp) that would be home to a very large Arab majority, which is already demanding cultural autonomy, as well as to hundreds of thousands of refugees (and possibly many more) who shall return to their villages and to the communities they left in 1948.

This is, in fact, what Avigdor Lieberman seeks to avert.

Clearly marked borders
If there is no solution, he says, let’s turn the two states – the State of Israel and Palestine – into nation-states that are only home to the nationalities they were established for. Such solution is only possible if we see the tradeoff of populated areas. The Triangle area in northern Israel, for example, with its land and homes and residents, would be handed over to the Palestinian Authority, while areas such as Gush Etzion, Ariel, and Maale Adumim, with their residents, shall shift into the State of Israel’s territory.

We shall see clearly marked borders. All the Jews would be on one side of the border, and all the Arabs would be on the other side. A homogenous Jewish parliament without Ahmad Tibi and Taleb al-Sana. What could be bad about that?

I’m not saying this should be the solution, or that there are no other possible solutions, such as one federation from Sea to River that has two houses of parliament, a Jewish and an Arab one, as is the case in other places in the world.

I don’t know what the best, safest solution is for us Jews, who already experienced quite a few pogroms and Holocausts, not only at the hands of the Muslims but mostly at the hands of European nations. Yet I’m certain about one thing: The “solution” being offered today, premised on the current “two states vision,” would bring about the Jewish state’s demise within a very short period of time.

No security arrangements would prevent the Iranians, for example, from deploying missiles on the eastern boundaries of central Israel towns. They already did it in the Gaza Strip and in southern Lebanon after the IDF foolishly withdraw from there.

Ahmad Tibi and Taleb al-Sana will apparently be happy with such solution. But we must not agree to even hold a real public debate on issues that are crucial to our existence. And so, automatically disqualifying Avigdor Lieberman is a move that must not succeed.


Ynet News