My take on the two-state solution, the one-state solution and the folly of both.
One State, Two State, We all Fall Down
After decades of scrapping, Israel and the refugees are no closer to any kind of lasting peace than
they were in 1948. We can discuss and debate the circumstances that have lead up to this day; after pursuing the two-state solution with zero results it is time to try to come up with a new paradigm.
The idea of a one-state concept is not new. Known also as binationalism it has been floated since the 1920s as the best way for all to live side by side. Judah Magnes was one of the most fervent proponents of a one-state solution, along with leaders like Brit Shalom, and they argued that the land of Palestine was the home to two peoples and three religions, thus it belonged to “all of them.” Sounds like a good idea, all peoples living within one country, all equal in responsibility and governance, with everyone working for the common good. Binationalism could have been a workable solution, yet the Arabs at the time refused to entertain the idea of living with the Jews in any shared land. As historian Benny Morris points out, the trouble was with the inability of finding any Arab partner willing to engage this idea of a shared identity, “The problem with binationalism, however — apart from mainstream Zionist opposition — was that Brit Shalom and Magnes could find no Arab partners, or even interlocutors, who shared the binational vision or hope. As Magnes succinctly put it as early as 1932: “Arabs will not sit on any committee with Jews…[Arab] teachers…teach children more and more Jew-hatred.” In this sense, things only got worse with the passage of time, the deepening of the Arabs’ political consciousness, and the increase in Jewish immigration.”
Not only were the Arabs unwilling to sit with Jews and pound out a solution for both sides, there is also the aspect of identity. The Jewish homeland was always meant to be an expression of Jewishness, a country where you knew that Judaism permeated every aspect. Not stifling, but encompassing, a way to unify disparate Jews under one flag, giving voice to typical Jewish ideas and values. Arabs too were to have their unique culture and values expressed within their own borders. Rejected out of hand, again because Arabs had no desire to work with Jews on either a two-state or one-state solution. It was all or nothing, resulting in the suffering and degradation of the refugees we see today.
Israel, despite their vocal support of a two-state solution (both politicians and the general public) know that there are inherit problems with it, the most serious is the very real possibility that Israel would effectively cease to exist as a Jewish homeland. One of the biggest concerns for Jews is a demographic shift, due to higher birthrates among the refugees that would render Jews a minority in what many see as their own country. As quoted by Mitchell G. Baird from The Jewish Federation of North America “Palestinian Arabs already constitute almost 45 percent of the population living between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and their birth rate is double that of Israeli Jews, they would soon become the majority of the population in a binational state. The Jewish character of the nation would then erode and disappear, and Israeli Jews would lose political control over the one safe haven for Jews.” With this a very real scenario, is it any wonder that Israel has fudged when talking any type of solution, doing their part to drag out the suffering of their own people, and the refugees in the hopes that something, anything will come along that will be better than the choices at hand? Israel should not be held exclusively responsible, the representative bodies for the Arabs and the refugees take much of the blame for perpetuating the suffering of the people they claim they have at heart their best interests.
Lets also consider the underlying reason neither a one or two-state solution would work, from the perspective of the refugees, Hamas, Fatah, Hizballah and other leading political/social groups. A one-state solution would have to be predicated on Islamic values and laws, the sharia being of particular nastiness regarding Jews, Christians and non-Muslims in general. If we look at Hamas, elected government of Gaza and their charter, we can clearly understand why a one or two-state solution will never work. The Hamas Charter says, as to whether Israel should even exist in an Islamic land; "The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. " Essentially it says the state of Israel has no legitimate right to exist, and that is based in Islamic texts and tenets. The charter also says; "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors." How do you negotiate with an opponent that tells you they feel it is a waste of time to try and negotiate, that waging war against you is the only solution? The Hamas Charter also uses one of the most hateful hadiths of Muhammad to justify their bloodlust; “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim)”. For Islam and Muslims, Israel is a boil on the butt of Muslim lands and must be lanced in order for the full flower of Islam to bloom.
A one-state solution doesn’t work because Israel would be effectively committing cultural suicide. A two-state solution doesn’t work because the leaders of the refugees will not share a table with Israel, based in Islamic doctrine expressed in the Hamas Charter. If there is no workable solution that will bring the least bloodshed and the most calm and peace, what then is the solution?
You’re not going to like it, but here goes.
Hamas, Hizballah, Fatah and all those that use Islamic doctrine through the Qur’an and the hadiths of Muhammad must be destroyed. Militarily, theologically and doctrinally Islam must be crushed and then reformed to comport with all other religions, especially the other Abrahamic faiths; Judaism and Christianity. Nothing less will solve the problem. It is not intractable or impossible, but it will be very messy, and it will take decades to repair all the damage. Ultimately, the end result will be that peace and brotherhood we all clamor for. I know what you are saying, but let me be clear; no other solution has been posited that holds any kind of chance to work, that has been proven over the last 100 years. It is time to face the brutal reality of the situation and make the very tough but needed choices to solve this once and for all.
Some of you are thinking that if Israel went away instead of Islam, that would solve everything. If you believe that Islam will stop when Israel disappears, I would urge you to study the Qur’an, and the 1400 year history of Islam’s subjugation, enslavement, forced conversion and warfare of non-Muslim peoples, especially in Spain. A study of the reasons behind the Crusades wouldn’t hurt, either.
There is another, much less possible scenario for the refugees, and that is to force Jordan to make itself over into the Arab country promised almost 75 years ago. Trans-Jordan was supposed to be the land of the refugees, as part of the original Peal Commission recommendations, but was, as usual rejected by the Arab League. If this would be possible it would solve all the problems we now face. Of course, the Jordanian King would never allow this to happen despite the fact that over 60% of the people in Jordan identify themselves as “Palestinian.” They are not full citizens of Jordan, and cannot avail themselves of any benefits that comes with citizenship. That is a travesty no one talks about, but is an important part of the peace process and should be on the table.
The pain we all feel that emanates from the Middle East is not an easily solvable problem, but it is solvable if we deal openly and honestly about the underlying impetus that Muslims and Islam use to justify their actions. The problem is not about land, it is not about homes, it is not about property or buildings. These are the reasons told to a gullible West and leftists who see Muslims as the new Afro-American. It is about Islamic hegemony against those seen as enemies of Muhammad and Allah.