Two-State Solution Today

“When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian state? It was either southern Syria before the 1st World War, and then it was a Palestine including Jordan. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist. ” {Prime Minister Golda Meir].

” No one is going to uproot 750,000 middle-class and upper-middle-class Jews from their homes.  [The Two-State Solution: It is Never Going to Happen by Rabbi Dov Fischer June 1,2021.]

The Times of Israel published “Doc or no doc, we need to steer the ship towards a two-state solution ” on June 1, 2021 Throughout Steve Greenberg’s blog, there is no reference to geography or names for his assertion. Obviously, one party Israel, already has its capital in Jerusalem and presumably, the other party is the so-called Palestinians.

In fact, back on December 30, 2014, Stephen Roberts advanced similar arguments on the given subject with his ,”Without a Palestinian state, Israel can never be Jewish or democratic.” Both of these papers suffer from the same malady by ignoring history. The real issue is who is indigenous to the geography in question.

When Gaza was handed over to Hamas with a complete infrastructure by Sharon as a test case it turned out to be a lesson not to be repeated, So, if there is to be a two-state solution, it has to be distant from Israel and is clearly the responsibility of the creators of the “Palestinians”, the Arab League.

There are numerous proposals for a Palestinian State, two examples:

[a] Middle East Eye July 6, 2018 – Sisi holds key to Trump’s Sinai Plan for Palestinians by Jonathon Cook.

[b] Think-Israel July-Aug 2004: A Win-Win Solution to the Arab-Israeli Conflict by Rachel Neuwirth.

For history, I would suggest from my archives: “http://www.think-israel.org/rose.rootcause.html”

The November/December2019  edition of Foreign Affairs featured Michael S. Doran’s “Why Ceding Land Will Not Bring Peace” from which he notes that both President Truman ignored the “foreign policy establishment” opposition in their support of Zionism. They recognized that their actions could alienate the Arab states and drive them into the arms of the Soviet Union. Undoubtedly, many of the voices making these arguments were so-called “diplomats and experts” with deep ties to the Arab world and had little sympathy for the Jews.

Doran takes us through all the subsequent ensuing wars, where in every case, Israel was the defender and winner. In the case of the Johnson administration, the president elected to avert the crisis by linkage to the broader regional conflict. Thus, the Arabs would get back much of the territory they had lost, but only  in return for recognizing Israel within  secure boundaries and ending the violence. What is forever forgotten, is that with every peace treaty, Israel included a clause on the need for the subject Arabs to stem their educational systems inclusion of hatred and anti-Semitism references , which incidentally, they never did.

Michael  Doran recalls when Begin and Sadat received the Nobel Peace Prize, Carter wrote in his diary, “I sent Begin and Sadat a congratulatory message after they received the Nobel Price jointly. Sadat deserved it; Begin did not.” Further , he remembered that in2,000, the Palestinians turned back to violence. The 2nd intifada’s grisly campaign of terrorist attacks directed against cafes, pizza parlors, discotheques, and other civilian gathering places killed over 1,000 Israelis and injured many thousands more, leaving deep scars in Israel’s national psyche.

“The median Israeli voter became convinced that ceding land to the Palestinians brought conflict rather than peace, and unsatisfying withdrawals  from Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005 only reinforced the feeling”. In  retrospect, the ultimate failure of the Oslo process should not have been surprising.

Doran does not include any discussion on the  questionable 2 key summits involving Barak and Arafat in the year 2000 and  Abbas and Olmert in the year 2009. There are numerous conflicting reports on the outcome of the 1st, which is not the case for the 2nd. “The Jewish Virtual Library— 2000 Camp David Summit : Background and Overview” by David Shyovitz” appears to be among  the most reliable. As does The Guardian’s “Arafat didn’t negotiate, he just kept saying  no” by Benny Morris.

The Camp David Summit commenced on July 11, 2000 at the presidential retreat in Camp David, MD. Attending were President Bill Clinton, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and PA Chairman Yasser Arafat. The intention of the gathering was, ostensibly, to negotiate a final settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in accordance with the 1993 Oslo Agreement.

The parties were unable to come to an agreement, however, and a wave of Palestinian violence soon engulfed Israel. Another round of talks was held subsequently held at the White House from December 19, 23, 2000: again aimed at negotiating a final settlement. On December20. Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami and PA negotiator Saeb Erekat met with President Clinton to attempt hashing out terms acceptable to the principals.

The 3 leaders met at the White House in December and a final settlement proposal was offered. The US plan presented by Clinton and endorsed by Barak would have given the Palestinians 97% of the West Bank [either 96% of the West Bank and 1% from Israel proper or 94% from the West Bank and 3% from Israel proper], with no cantons, and full control of the Gaza Strip with a link between the 2; Israel would have withdrawn from 63 settlements as a result.  In exchange for the 3% annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third. Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state , and refugees would have the right of return to the Palestinian state, and would receive reparations from a $30 billion international fund collected to compensate them.

The Palestinians would maintain control over the holy places, and would be given desalination plants to ensure them adequate water. The only concessions Arafat had to make was Israel sovereignty over parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews [not the entire Temple Mount], and 3 early warning stations in the Jordan Valley, which Israel would withdraw after 6 years.

Clinton did an about face on Arafat at the conclusion of his presidency, In his last conversation with Clinton, 3 days before his term ended, the PA chairman told Clinton that he was “a great man”. “The hell I am,” Clinton responded. “I am a colossal failure, and you made me one.”

The introductory paragraph from The Guardian’s: “Arafat didn’t negotiate, he just kept saying no” by Benny  Morris, reads as follows:

Ever since the start of the second Palestinian intifada, a row has raged over who was responsible for the breakdown of the peace process. Now, for the first time, former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak has weighed in, accusing Yasser Arafat of being a liar who talked peace while secretly plotting the destruction of Israel. [Interview by Benny Morris]

Clinton’s proposals included the establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state on some 92% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip, with some territorial compensation for the Palestinians from pre-1967 Israeli territory; the dismantling of most of the settlements and the concentration of the bulk of the settlers inside the 8% of the West Bank to be annexed by Israel; the establishment of the Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem, in which some Arab neighborhoods would become sovereign Palestinian territory and others would enjoy “functional autonomy”; Palestinian sovereignty over half the Old City of Jerusalem (the Muslim and Christian quarters) and “custodianship,” though not sovereignty, over the Temple Mount; a return of refugees to the prospective Palestinian state though with no “right of return” to Israel proper; and the organization by the international community of a massive aid program to facilitate the refugees’ rehabilitation.

Arafat said no. Enraged, Clinton banged on the table and said: “You are leading your people and the region to a catastrophe.”

As for the subsequent Olmert-Abbas 2008 summit , a very recent account by Times of Israel dated  25 June, 2021, “Abbas never said  ‘no’ to 2008 peace deal says former PM  Olmert” by Lazar Berman serves adequately.

Apparently, Olmert was prepared to divide Jerusalem into 2 Israeli and Palestinian controlled cities, and to relinquish sovereignty over the Temple Mount and the entire Old City. He proposed that the ‘Holy Basin’ be overseen instead by a 5 member, non-sovereign international trusteeship, comprising Israel, the PA, Jordan, the US and Saudi-Arabia.”He described the offer to give up  Israeli control of the Old City as the hardest day of his life.

In the paper several contradictory remarks are made concerning the reason or reasons for Abbas ‘s reluctance to a final agreement :

[a] Olmert’s offer to accept a symbolic number of Palestinian refugees into Israel did not resolve the issue since descendents number in the  millions, many scattered across the region.

[b] Abbas said ,”I’m not an expert on maps. How can I sign something before I show it to the experts on our side to examine it?”

[c] Olmert though that Palestinian terrorist groups may have deterred Abbas from making a deal.

Neither of the aforementioned summits should have occurred in the manner described.  After all, how many Israelis would entertain a division of Jerusalem or another neighboring Hamastan? Our intentions for peace should be predicated on the basis of our being indigenous to the Land of Israel supported by historical facts.

In the Middle East Quarterly of Summer 2012, David Bukay addresses, “Founding National Myths Fabricating  Palestinian History”. He asserts that the vast literature proving the historic Jewish connection to the Land of Israel has been extensively manipulated and distorted as part of the Palestinian politics of nationalism. Propaganda, indoctrination, and socialization, both domestically and internationally, are essential parts of the strategy and tactics of asserting Palestinian nationhood and statehood. By appropriating to themselves the values, traditions, and historical facts that belong to the Jews, Palestinians have managed to fabricate a “legitimate” history and political traditions out of nothing while denying those of Israel.

This they have achieved  by stealing Israel’s heritage, history, and values, and denying its legitimacy as a people and a state. The Palestinian objectives are to disqualify Israel’s historical standing and to inherit its belongings by delegitimizing and even dehumanizing its national identity and personality.

Even after the 1967 Six Day War, United Nations Resolution 242 of November 22, 1967 mentions only “refugees,” not even “Arab refugees”—let alone a Palestinian people and a Palestinian state. Calls in earnest for a Palestinian state did not begin in the United Nations or elsewhere until the late 1960s or the early 1970s. The Palestinian leaders claim lineage from ancient history, describing the Canaanites as their direct ancestors.

Perhaps the most conspicuous fact regarding the novelty of the Palestinian nation is that when it was within their power, the Arab leaders never seriously sought to create a Palestinian state during the 1940s, and after the establishment of the State of Israel, from 1948 until 1967, when the West Bank and Gaza were under Egyptian and Jordanian direct rule

The important question is what the Palestinians really want. What are the Palestinians’ political objectives, and how do they wish to realize them? All their leaders’ declarations and policies clearly show that they have never moderated their primary objective, which is to eliminate the State of Israel. From the Abadan (“never”) rhetoric of the 1920s through 1948 to Arafat’s “phased strategy,” adopted at the June 1974 Palestinian National Congress, Palestinians still lay claim to a land “from the river to the sea.”

Victor Sharpe writes about “The Counterfeit Arabs” in Arutz 7, emphasizing “There is no such thing as a Palestinian people; no such thing as a Palestinian history; and no Palestinian language exists. There has never been any independent, sovereign Palestinian state in all of recorded history.”They are the Arabs who call themselves :Palestinians. They are indistinguishable from those Arabs who live in the surrounding artificial  states such as Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia or the other entities throughout the Middle East created by the colonial powers, Britain and France.

Sharpe asks, “If “Palestinians” allegedly are the historic inhabitants of the Holy Land, why did they not fight for independence from Roman occupation as Jews did? How is it possible that not a single “Palestinian” leader revolted against the Roman invaders or is mentioned in any historic record?