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.
No comments:
Post a Comment