What Caroline Glick’s one-state plan unfortunately misses

Caroline Glick has a new book out entitled ‘The Israeli Solution: A One State Plan For Peace In The Middle East.’

As someone who has enjoyed her writing and clear thinking on this subject for some time, I regret to say that while she gets most of her facts right, I think she makes some unfortunate if well meaning miscalculations as far as her idea for solving the situation goes.

Ms. Glick’s solution is simple; forget about the Two State solution. Israel should annex all of Judea and Samaria, put it under Israeli law, depose the Palestinian Authority and offer the inhabitants Israeli citizenship and, as she puts it, a better life for themselves and their children in “a pluralistic, liberal democracy with a first-world economy.”

Here’s why her solution is impractical at this point. First off, let’s not forget that Israel tried this between the ’67 was and the First Intifada, thinking they could live with these people in peace. Israel built schools and universities, hospitals, created jobs and a decent economy for the locals. And in the end, it was a horrific failure. It will even be worse now, with two decades of indoctrination by Arafat and Abbas, and Hamas (whom these people voted for to rule them in a free election) to stir the pot.If most of them weren’t willing to buy into what she’s offering then, why would they now? Even in Israel itself, there are almost 300,000 Arabs whom identify themselves as Palestinians and refuse to take Israeli citizenship. How successful to you think Israel is going to be with 1.5 million or so Palestinian Muslims who have been radicalized to hate Jews like poison for twenty plus years?

In fact, my lil’ Birdie within the Palestinian Authority e-mailed me laughing about this just the other day. He’s said for a long time that Abbas should disband the PA and just drop the whole mess in Israel’s lap. Abbas and the Old Guard with their Jordanian passports and the money they’ve stolen would mostly depart, but the Hamas and Fatah commanders who would be left would embark on another massive war against Israel’s civilians. The massive terrorism and the inevitable Israeli crackdown, complete with the biased press coverage and a plentiful supply of Pallywood ‘bleeders’ would make things infinitely worse while solving NOTHING. Remember, the Palestinians now have two fully equipped and trained combat infantry brigades courtesy of Gen.Keith Dayton and the American Taxpayer. The IDF could certainly defeat them, but the cost in PR and bloodshed would be horrendous.

Also, she assumes that the UN, President Obama and the EU would accept an Israeli annexation of this kind. All of them are totally invested in the idea of a second Arab Palestinian state, and in the case of the EU there are Muslim voters to consider.And as dysfunctional as ‘Palestine’ is and as much money as it costs them, it’s what they want whether it makes sense or not. The Israelis unfortunately started this when they bought into Oslo, and the international backlash would be intense.You would see real claims of ‘occupation’ at that point and a spur for Obama, the EU and the UN to actually do something about it.

Annex Judea and Samaria and put it under Israeli law? Sure. Make the Pals Israeli citizens? The majority would never accept it. And those whom did would be subject to bloody retaliation by Palestinian terrorists as ‘collaborators’ .

There’s a far better solution,and one I’ve been repeating for what, fifteen years now? As desirable as Israel having all of Judea and Samaria might be, Oslo pretty much ended that, and swallowing the poison pill of 1.5 million mostly hostile Arab Muslims is no road to peace, no matter what the demographics favoring a Jewish majority.

This is about a divorce.

Israel should forget about the mythical two state solution, and simply delineate the borders it needs unilaterally. That would probably entail leaving Area A and perhaps a little more territory to the Palestinians to make whatever they wanted out of it, while annexing Area C, the Jordan Valley and any parts of Area B Israel deemed necessary. At that point, Israel could simply remove any Jews on the Arab side of the line to Israeli territory and any Arabs whom are not Israeli citizens to the Arab territory (perhaps with compensation for property), and then defend those borders appropriately, warning Abbas or whomever takes over that any attacks on Israeli territory or Israeli citizens will be dealt with appropriately.

The international feedback would certainly occur (after all, in much of the EU and UN anything short of a successful jihad against Israel is going to provoke that) but Abbas is already on record as having a totally rejectionist stance anyway, and that and having a ‘Palestine’ to point to point to would eventually make a lot of the international reaction fade away. As that old Middle East saying goes, the dogs bark and the caravan moves on.

This, by the way, is the way every single refugee crisis in history has been successfully solved, and exactly why the refugee crisis resulting from the 1948 attack against Israel has not been. And I think this makes a lot more sense than Israel assuming custody over what the Palestinian Authority has created.


About the Author
Rob Miller's work has appeared in The Jewish Press, American Thinker, The Los Angeles Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The San Francisco Chronicle, Real Clear Politics, Andrew Breitbart.Com's Big Peace and other publications.
Related Topics
Related Posts