No Alternatives – Really?

“No race has done better out of fidelity with which the Allies redeemed their promises to the oppressed races than the Arabs——-the Arabs have already won independence in Iran, Arabia, Syria and Trans-Jordan, although most of the Arab races fought throughout the war for their Turkish oppressors. Arabia was the only exception in that respect. The Palestinian Arabs fought for Turkish rule.”
–David Lloyd George

For too many years now, the world has been given to believe that there are no alternatives to the worn cliché of a “two state solution”. This much heralded formula had its origin in “land for peace”, meaning that Israel was expected to give up Gaza, Judea and Samaria, which had been recovered as a consequence of the Six day War against all of her neighbors, who were then expected to accept and live in peace with Israel. Readily forgotten was the nature of the that war i.e. defensive.

Even as his tenure was at death’s door, US Secretary of State John Kerry could not refrain from an obsession that masked the length of Obama’s presidency. Both Kerry and Obama blame the failed “two state solution” on Israel’s “Settlements” and “occupation” policies. Never mind that both satisfy international law and are most definitely not the root cause of the problem.

Obama’s desperation for a positive legacy, aided and abetted by the ever-present lap dog, Kerry, has undoubtedly not succeeded. Basic fundamentals suggest that in order to solve a problem, you need to understand the problem. But, not them. They have readily fallen victim to a phenomena observed by no less than Professor Einstein who recognized that one given to repeating the same failure continuously and expecting a different result, must be looked upon as a fool.

Professor Mordechai Kedar, a researcher at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies has proposed an Eight State Solution. He is suggesting that 1.8 million Arab Palestinians in Judea and Samaria and the West Bank become citizens of seven independent city-independent states. This, in view of the fact that presently Israel faces the possibility of a nuclear Iran, well over a thousand rockets and mortars poised from three directions, Iran, Lebanon, Gaza plus terrorists in Syria and Egypt.

By now any intelligent individual would recognize that the creation of an artificial Palestinian state, requiring the uprooting of Jewish families where no Arab population exists would lead to indefensible borders for the Jewish homeland. The more “moderate” PA and Fatah want a Palestinian state as a precursor for the ultimate demise of Israel. This “moderation” conforms to Arafat’s 1974 phase plan whereby diplomacy would facilitate acquisition of land in steps enabling the final destruction of Israel.

Hamas, on the other hand, is fully opposed to any agreement which establishes a border in recognition of the Israeli state. The recent attacks against Israel by Hamas are now coordinated with the militant pro-Syrian Iran-backed Islamic Jihad. In addition thereto, the Popular Resistance Committee is yet another terrorist group operating from Gaza.

The “Arab Spring” has manifested itself in a much less stable region. The emergence of the Trump regime and Mrs. May’s UK, should enable Israel to declare its own independent solution to the Arab-Israel conflict.
If Israel is forced to leave Judea and Samaria as part of a peace agreement, it becomes very possible that the more militant Hamas would eventually take over from the current PA/Fatah regime as they did in Gaza, either by elections or force. Who can guarantee otherwise?

Dr. Kedar, as an expert in the given subject, makes the following key points:

[1] The eight city-states would comprise the areas of Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah, Jericho, Tul-Karm, Kalkiya, the Arab segment of Chevron and the Gaza strip. Local residents would become citizens of these eight independent countries, which he refers to as Palestinian Emirates.
[2] The former director of the refugee agency in Jordan, Sir Alexander Galloway, actually stated, “The Arab nations do not want to solve the Arab refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore—as a weapon against Israel.” The obvious failure of peace initiatives, which have been based on false assumptions for so many decades, has only perpetuated the Arab refugee problem and human suffering.
[3] Successful Arab leadership must be independent, local and firmly rooted with a traditional and homogeneous sociological foundation. Israel and the world should recognize and support local leadership in the Arab Palestinian population centers that desire lasting peaceful relations as independent city-states.
[4] Complex problems require simple, workable solutions. The Palestinian Emirates vision is a viable alternative based on the Arab sociology of tribalism in Gaza, Judea and Samaria. This initiative will bring about a stable peace to the region and added security for Israel.
[5] Due to tribal rifts and local patriotism there will never be a successful unity government among the Palestinian Arab population centers in Judea and Samaria or Gaza. As in the case of the PLO in the past, the PA/Fatah and Hamas do not represent the true ambitions of the majority of peaceful Arabs who only want a better future for their children within a traditional framework and local governance.
[6] Historically, there never existed an Arab or Islamic state of Palestine with a capital in Jerusalem. The capital of “Jund Falastin” [ The District of Palestine] under the Islamic 7th century occupation was the city of Ramle, 30 kilometers to the west of Jerusalem.

The next option is one whereby Israel would “absorb” all of Judea and Samaria while Palestinians would continue to live there. This would resemble the original Begin autonomy plan with a slight twist. The Palestinian national identity, from passports to national voting rights, would be Jordanian, with those residing in Israel would be recognized as foreign citizens abroad. This would satisfy the desire for Palestinian statehood while allowing Israel to secure its borders. However, since Jordan includes a Palestinian majority as is, the Jordanian monarch, would need even greater support from Israel to assure his security.

Another option, as proposed by Naphtali Bennet, The Jewish Home party leader recognizes the overwhelmingly Jewish population in Judea and Samaria, designated “Area C” following the Oslo Accords. In consequence thereof, he recommends Israel annexing this region while allowing Arab autonomy within the area. The latter could be based on a tribal leadership system. The logic for this alternative plan is governed by the fact that Area C will never be evacuated.

An established Israeli ME political journalist, Caroline Glick, advocates Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria with residency rights and a path to citizenship for non-Jews living there. This would need to include an appropriate certification program to prevent the democratic undermining of the Jewish state from within.

David Singer is a Sydney attorney and Foundation Member of the International Analysts Network. His 2010 evaluation and proposal for an alternative to the unreal Two State Solution is both insightful and realistic. His introductory statement serves as a less understood criteria. “This policy [Two State Solution] – with one notable exception – has failed for one reason – Arab refusal to accept anything less than sovereignty in 100 % of the territory available for allocation between Jews and Arabs.

That one exception was Arab acceptance of the League of Nations decision on September 23, 1922 denying the Jews any entitlement to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in 77% of Palestine – laying the groundwork for the creation of an exclusively Arab State there in 1946 which is today called Jordan. Sovereignty in the remaining 6% of Palestine less Gaza, the West Bank is still up for grabs.”

It can be said that today, Jordan lives peacefully with a neighbor Israel who has the same aspirations for normal life. A fair and just resolution of the stated issue suggests a division of the sovereignty between Israel and Jordan for the following reasons:
* It will restore Jordanian governance to the major part of the West Bank as existed from 1950 up to its loss to Israel in the Six Day War in 1967.
* It will bring the overwhelming majority of its 2 million West Bank Arabs under Jordanian protection, free them from Israeli control and restore the freedom of movement and citizenship rights enjoyed by them between 1948 – 1967.
* Not one Jew or Arab will have to leave his present home or business in the West Bank.
* Issues presently seen as contentious such as water, refugees and Jerusalem have already been identified and proposed solutions flagged in the 1994 Treaty.
* Drawing the new international boundary between Israel and Jordan to end sovereign claims by Jews and Arabs in the West Bank should be capable of being achieved within three months.
* There will be a dramatic and immediate change in the current status quo which most agree in dangerous and untenable.
* Jordan is the only Arab partner that can honor and enforce any agreement on the West Bank that Israel is prepared to sign.
* It will finalize the allocations of sovereignty of former Palestine between the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine.

David Singer’s concluding statement; ” Jordan has been part of the problem surrounding the issue of sovereignty in the West bank since 1920. It is now time for Jordan to step up to the plate and take responsibility for being part of the solution.

Gideon Saar’s, “Goodbye, two state solution”, which appeared in the Jerusalem Post edition of January 20,2017, echoed the same thoughts as David Singer. He was given to say that a Jordanian -Palestinian federative solution would offer the Palestinians space in addition to their autonomy. A joint Israeli-Palestinian economic framework could also be considered.

Indeed, there are many ideas which could be constructed as a result of quiet serious work with the backing of a supportive US administration. Saar also sees valued the claim of sovereignty over Area C. “We must present an alternative to the current paradigm that is supposedly like no other.”

Rachel Neuwirth’s, “A Win-Win Solution to the Arab-Israel Conflict [Free Republic, 2005] focuses on Saudi Arabia rather than Jordan. She asks a fundamental question; ‘What if the “Palestinians” were offered a homeland territory, drawn from land donated by one of the more spacious Arab contrives, one expressing continuous concern, love for, and outrage at the treatment of these very same folk?”

Neuwirth draws attention to the fact that Saudi Arabia comprises some 800,000 square miles with a very low population density of only 33 per square mile verses 1,000 for Israel including the “territories”. She points to the fact that if a modest 4% of Saudi Arabia land was set aside for the “Palestinians”, they would have a state of 13 times the size of the present proposed Palestinian area with ample space for natural growth. With this, all of the intractable problems facing both Jews and Arabs, arising under the present schemes, would be eliminated. This would include the legitimate “right of return” to exit the “territories”, and refugee camps, while migrating back to their ancestral home in Arabia, closer to Mecca and Medina.

All of this would represent a fraction of the cost of countless billions spent on weapons by the Arab governments. While Arab leadership would undoubtedly reject the subject plan, it should be noted that various studies have shown that 71% of the “Palestinian” people would be induced by adequate compensation.

In 2002, the Saudi’s initiated a “peace plan” brought forth by Abdulla ibn abd al-Aziz, future emir of Saudi Arabia meant to broker a comprehensive peace between Israel and the Arab nations in the Middle East. It turned out to be a no brainer in that it discounted every Israeli requirement. In fact Rachel Neuwirth, who is an internationally recognized political commentator and analyst specializing in the Middle Eastern affairs addresses all of the given issues in her essay. She does this through a series of “Demonstrably false arguments ” covering trading land for peace to create yet another Arab country, the “Palestinian” claims as a distinct separate people deserving their own country, having a viable “Palestinian” state in the so-called West Bank and Gaza next to a viable Israel and the legality of Arab possession of their 22 countries over 5 million square million miles not to be challenged.

While Israel can take advantage of the emergence of the Trump regime, it will also necessitate the full cooperation of the two Arab nations, Egypt and Jordan, with whom peace agreements have prevailed for a significant number of years.