On June 29, 2003 the author penned a piece, “Only the Arabs Can Make peace” which was published by the Israel Hasbara Committee. The summation by the HIC editorial staff emphasized the ill-conceived idea of trading land for peace. This paper will build on the previous article demonstrating the validity to present times.
Moving onto July 26, 2006 and the notable appearance of Rachel Neuwirth’s major contribution, “A Win-Win Solution to the Arab-Israeli Conflict”, which addresses the subject by initially considering the 4 trendy false assertions:
 There is no validity to the creation of yet another Arab country by Israel “trading land for peace”. With 22 Arab countries and 1 Jewish country, where is the logic to this? The Arab territories are 500 times larger than Israel and the Arabs posses 98.8% of the total land mass. Does the West not realize that the so-called West Bank and Gaza comprise a minuscule 0.046 of the entire Arab empire? In fact, Moshe Aarons has recognized what is being proposed is not a two-state solution, but three Palestinian states without a single Jew in any of them; East Palestine [Jordan]. West Palestine [Judea and Samaria] and South Palestine [the Gaza Strip] i.e. four states for two people, three without Jews and one whose population is 20% Arab. [Ha-aretz, January 7, 2014]
 There are no authentic “Palestinian” people and never have been. After Israel’s rebirth, the local Arabs literally created a new identity for political purposes to undermine Israel’s rightful claim to its biblical homeland.
 Inadequate space in Judea and Samaria for a viable “Palestinian” state. The Road Map did not offer a genuine development plan including a comprehensive environmental impact study covering population growth, water resources, agriculture resources, economic development, social and political considerations etc. , with projections extending through at least the next century. Had they done so, it would have shown nothing but chaos, misery, massive population overload and a momentous political conflict destroying survival potential. Not to mention its unlimited threat to Israel, particularly making available an uncontrollable influx of terrorists.
 Arab possession of their 22 countries and 5 million square miles was largely gained through conquest. Until the advent of Mohammed, the Arabs lived in the Arabian Peninsula. Arabs entered the land of Israel around the year 638 while in contrast the Jews has established their first commonwealth under King David, with Jerusalem as capital, over 1600 years earlier. Thanks principally to England and France, the bulk of the 22 Arab states were created following WW1. In all this, there is more than sufficient evidence to demonstrate a Jewish presence in the Land of Israel from “Time Immemorial”.
Neuwirth brings forth the reminder that a far-sighted agreement was constituted “85 years ago” between Emir Feisel 1, son of Hussein, Sheriff of Mecca and Chaim Weizmann recorded in two letters acceptance of Jewish claims “as moderate and proper” while encouraging “the Jews a most hearty welcome home”. She argues “for all the parties to courageously and boldly cast off the mindless schemes of Oslo and the Road Map and return to the sanity and statesmanship of the 1919 agreement.” Her Win-Win solution for both sides entails the resettlement of the “so-called Palestinian Arabs” despite rejection and even anger and hostility at its very mention. To her this false sense of objectivity is simply a function of conditioning over the years with a layer of falsehoods. Indeed, a confirmation of Goebbels’ observation that frequent repetition can manifest itself in acceptance.
Given that Saudi Arabia has shown a willingness to accept Israel’s sovereignty, albeit on her terms, Rachel Neuwirth’s ideas surely deserve consideration. She points to the vastness of Saudi’s terrain, 750,000 square miles with an extremely low population density of 33 square miles verses 1,000 for Israel including the “territories”. Here reckoning points to the Saudis making available a modest 4% i.e. 30,000 square miles for a “new” Palestinian state. This state would be 13 times the size of that proposed under the Road Map while allowing ample space for natural growth. She also draws attention to a 2004 poll by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion which showed 37% of the Arabs willing to emigrate in return for a home, a job and $250, 000 dollars. Her plan has many advantages through the removal of the refugee camps, a reduction in spending for weapons, freeing the Arabs of Israel while providing them with sovereignty in close proximity to Mecca and Medina, the center of religious Islam.
Approximately a decade later on May 6, 2016. the Jerusalem Post published Martin Sherman’s “Political Algorithms of the Arab-Israeli Conflict”. This Op-Ed astutely addresses the given narrative as yet another viable solution to the “no alternative” of the failed “peaces process”. It is, in fact, a summation of several of his finest Jerusalem Post columns.
Over the years, the trend has been to discuss geographic and Demographic issues as separate entities. To deal with both simultaneously implies an imperative as stated; “Israel needs to be viable both geographically and demographically”. This translates to Israel not being able to withdraw to indefensible borders, accounting for withstanding invasion as well as attrition. In recognition of this one must concurrently study the impact on the Arabs. Of course, the same can be said for assuring Israel’s demographic needs.
By way of reinforcing his arguments, Martin Sherman draws attention to two papers, “The Myth of Defensible Borders” by Profs. Omar Dajani and Ezzedine Fishere [Foreign Affairs, January 5, 2011] and “The Future of the Two-State Solution” by Maj-Gen Giora Eiland. He quotes from the former, “A policy of defensible borders would—–perpetuate the current sources of Palestinian insecurity, further delegitimizing an agreement in the public’s eyes. Israel would retain the discretion to impose arbitrary and crippling constraints on the movement of people and goods—–For these reasons, Palestinians are likely to regard defensible borders as little more than occupation by another name.” From the latter, Sherman quotes, “When we talk about the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we see a paradox —– the maximum that any government of Israel will be ready to offer the Palestinians——is much less than the minimum that any Palestinian leader can accept.”
The concluding facts established by Sherman in consideration of the forgoing are thus:
Israel’s essential requirements for defensible borders as established by a formidable array of former IDF generals and senior diplomats, determined that to defend Israel adequately, within economic constraints, Israel must retain control of the western slopes of the highlands of Judea-Samaria, commanding the Coastal ; the eastern slopes commanding the approaches to the Jordan Valley; as well as the airspace above and the electromagnetic spectrum throughout both of them. This understanding differs little from that of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Now, in the matter of demographics, in order to delegitimize the Palestinian narrative, a massive public assault will be required. Included would be a reduction in the Palestinian-Arab population through encouragement to immigrate accompanied by financial assistance.
The wrier believes that the diplomatic effort could commence through a recall of several major historical events:
[a] A review of the British disregard of the intent of the Mandate for Palestine and subsequent abuses is surely in order. In a determination of borders, the creation of Jordan clearly violated Article 5 which stipulates that “no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under control of, the Government of any foreign Power.” While clearly this action cannot be reversed, it can be used in arguing the case for no further land concessions by Israel.
Article 6 required Britain to “facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions” and “close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.” Time and again this stipulation was violated including the Holocaust years which facilitated the brutal treatment and horrific death of thousands of Jews. The enactment of laws on illegal immigration applied solely to Jews and not to Arabs.
Article 7 on nationality law [Palestinian citizenship] applies exclusively to Jews via the Jewish Agency as did Article 11 on public works, services, utilities etc.
Article 18 states that the Mandatory shall see that there is no discrimination in Palestine, but apparently permitting the Arab riots against the Jews was completely overlooked.
Article 25 as it applied to Transjordan completely contradicted Article 5 as indicted previously.
[b] The specifics of UN Resolution 242 clearly refers to “very State in the area” and ” the states concerned”. There is no mention of “Palestinians”. Further reference is for “a just settlement of the refugee problem” without any specifics concerning who or how. We need to emphasize the fact that there were Jewish and Arab refugees as a result of the war. “—the establishment of a just and lasting peace” did not confine itself to a singular solution viz. the ill conceived and unworkable two state solution.
The Arab League created the PLO in 1964 with a view to having it attack Israel. Its purpose was to destroy Israel and not with a view of supporting sovereignty for this entity. All of Israel’s neighbors [Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon] are members of the Arab League. Given that Israel enjoys peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan; and Saudi Arabia has recently expressed an interest in resolving the Palestinian-Israel, conflict, logic would suggest that these are the parties to engage in serious negotiations. The British sordid contribution to the ensuing “siege” would suggest by way of a debt to the Jewish people, active and supportive involvement in the subject negotiations.
Martin Sherman has stated that the conflict’s brutal simplicity makes it so intractable and a solution so elusive. Rachel Neuwirth has pointed to a Win-Win solution to the conflict. This piece is intended to agree with and to give meaning to both.