Great day for Israel & the civilised world: Netanyahu bids a final farewell to the 2-state “solution” that he (although never his government) spoke of in his infamous, Obama-era Bar-Ilan speech.

See the New York Times, NPR (National Public Radio), Israel National News, as well as  organisations – ZOA and United With Israel – for coverage.

The quote to remember is this:

“You can bring theoretical models (which) say it will be good if we give them (Palestinian Arabs) a state.

Empirically — it doesn’t work!”

The reasoning is this:

A. A “state” has absolute military powers; this is impossible to provide in the Judea-Samaria hilly region located a mere bike-ride away from Tel-Aviv, Jerusalem and Israel’s sole international airport.

B. While a few states like Costa Rica and Japan are de-militarized, ALL de-militarized states including these two,  have an inherent right to re-arm whenever they want. A “state” that agreed to be de-militarized can re-arm at will, simply by changing its constitution — or even simply by ignoring its constitiution, which is probably what the Palestinian Arabs here in the Land of Israel would do, the minute they were given a state.

C. Then – if the entity that has re-armed itself is a “state” – what can Israel do about it? Well if the entity is a “state” – Israel can do nothing, big fat zero.

Because in international law, there is no procedure to “undo” a state. It’s like a new parent returning her or his infant to the hospital after s/he’s had  it because they’ve changed their mind – things simply don’t work that way, once a “state” has been established.

D. To clarify: If Israel were to apply its sovereignty to the entirety of Judea-Samaria  then subsequently and from a position of sovereignty, establish a strictly limited  “autonomy” in specific Judea-Samaria cities – as suggested by Adv. Elyakim Haetzni, Dr. Kedar and others — that is considerably safer, because an autonomous area established by a sovereign state (Israel) is reversible the second things stop going well.

E. So, the take-away message is exactly what does a “state” mean in international law – it means total independence to run an area in your own (terrorist) way. Including applying military force to whomever  you want (Israel, Jewish communities abroad), however you want (rockets? nukes? drones? homicide bombers in public places? cyanide? anything), whenever you want, at your own sole discretion, and no-one can do anything about it – once you’re a state. Impossible for Israel to agree to. Opposed by Nobel Peace Prize laureates Rabin and Begin. Should be opposed by all civilised governments. SHOULD BE OPPOSED BY THE BOARD OF DEPUTIES!!!

Please continue to send me (I’m easy to find on internet) the link to any media outlet or blog or columnist which is helping to inform the public that Israel’s prime-minister has bid farewell to the 2-state “solution”. Information is golden, and thus far many media outlets have yet to see the light (or to entitle their readers to do so). “But the New York Times HAS published this revelation”, did you say? True, but buried at the bottom of a long article and without capturing the essence in the headline. As the New York Times used to do in the 1940’s to the Jewish people’s detriment. So, the New York Times does deserve a lot of credit compared to other media outlets, yes they definitely do, but not top marks.