Three State Plan: Jordan, Israel and Egypt

T. Belman. When I announced our conference in August 2017, G. Marcus commented as you see below.

He advises “The article was a private memorandum written by me at the time to serve as background material for related political circles and was not meant for publication in public media.”

“I wholehartedly support your plan as the only win-win solution. I have been pushing for the “Jordan = Palestine” solution since it came into the realm of possibility upon the Six Day War of June 1967.”

“I am ” veteran geostrategic analyst active in US political circles. Not a public persona.”

Res 242 envisaged the same solution. There was no mention of the “Palestinians”. Only Israel, Egypt and Jordan were to negotiate “secure and recognized boundaries”.

THREE CHEERS FOR A 3-STATE SOLUTION! Jordan Israel and Egypt.

2-State Plan clearly not a plan for peace, but a recipe for perpetual war and bloodshed

by G Marcus June 2011

Is the proposed Palestinian-Arab state a real option?

The only power keeping Fatah alive and preventing the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) from being overran by Hamas (just like Gaza) is the Israeli military. Accordingly, the option of Fatah rule in the West Bank is none other than international fiction and doesn’t exist in the real world.

For West Bank Arabs therefore, there are only three real options to pick from: (a) The status quo, (b) Hamas rule, or (c) Jordanian rule.

Jordan, part of the initial Palestine Mandate, was separated by the British in 1922 to create the original Palestinian-Arab state and is today one of the best functioning and most stable Arab states. The peace treaty with Egypt provides Israel with a demilitarized Sinai buffer.

“Palestinians” cannot govern themselves, because they are Greater-Syrian Arabs locked-up in refugee camps and more recently given a pseudo-national identity just to spearhead the 1974 PLO plan for the phased destruction of Israel.

Far from a nation, “Palestinians” are an “anti-nation” unable to unite or function behind any cause other than the elimination of the Jewish nation-state.

With the Oslo agreements, the Israeli left first deceived itself about the Arabs’ peace intentions, and then went on to deceive the world. But when Israel discovered the deception and went back to tell the world that the Arabs’ peace intentions were a big lie, the world refused to disbelieve. The die in world opinion was already cast!

At Oslo, when Israel legitimized its genocidal enemies, Israel delegitimized itself. From then on it became impossible to explain to the world, if Pal-Arabs were such “Peace Partners”, why was Israel still defending itself and occupying “their” land.

A pack of lies and delusions

Who said that the “2-State Solution” is viable or even possible (for either party) to begin with? For starters, one party (the Pal-Arabs) adamantly refuses to accept it, except as a means to destroy the other party (the Jewish nation-state).

In essence the so-called 2-State Solution is based on a pack of lies and delusions, as follows:

* That Israel’s conflict is only with the Arabs of West Bank/Gaza instead of Arab/Islamic Imperialism in general;

* That the conflict is “territorial”, i.e., relates to only part of the lands under Israel, instead, based on irrevocable Jihadist dogma, of being “existential”, i.e., relating to ALL lands that constitute Israel;

* That there existed a national group such as “Palestinians” deserving a sovereign state, while in actual fact by self-admission there existed only Arabs of a “Greater South Syrian” ethnic identity, that already had a state in Jordan. As articulated by a senior Fatah leader a good number of years ago:

Between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese there are no differences. We are all part of ONE people, the Arab nation. Look, I have family members with Palestinian, Lebanese, Jordanian and Syrian citizenship. We are ONE people. Just for political reasons we carefully underwrite our Palestinian identity. Because it is of national interest for the Arabs to advocate the existence of Palestinians to balance Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a new tool to continue the fight against Israel and for Arab unity.

A separate Palestinian entity needs to fight for the national interest in the then remaining occupied territories. The Jordanian government cannot speak for Palestinians in Israel, Lebanon or Syria. Jordan is a state with specific borders. It cannot lay claim on – for instance – Haifa or Jaffa, while I AM entitled to Haifa, Jaffa, Jerusalem and Beersheba. Jordan can only speak for Jordanians and the Palestinians in Jordan. The Palestinian state would be entitled to represent all Palestinians in the Arab world en elsewhere. Once we have accomplished all of our rights in all of Palestine, we shouldn’t postpone the unification of Jordan and Palestine for one second.(Fatah leader Zuhair Muhsen in a March 1977 interview with the Duthch newspaper Trouw)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuheir_Mohsen

* That the Pal-Arabs are nationalistic in any “Palestinian” sense. Fatah (part of the nationalist Baath movement) is staunchly Pan-Arabist, while Hamas (part of Muslim Brotherhood movement) is staunchly Pan-Islamist. Ultimately they aspire to become not a nation-state, but part and parcel of either a nationalist Pan-Arab Empire (in case of Fatah) or Pan-Islamic Caliphate (in case of Hamas). If any of these movements were to gain sovereignty in the West Bank, they would first set out to take over Jordan and then aim at merging with other Arab/Islamic entities even before they inevitably turn against Israel.

* That the PLO gave up their Jihad for the “right of return” of 1948 Arab refugees, or that in Arab/Muslim eyes it even had the right or authority to do so;

* That there is a legal or even moral basis for such a “right of return”. Firstly, these Arab refugees evacuated their settlements mostly in order to facilitate the genocidal war declared by surrounding Arab countries against the fledgling Jewish state. Secondly, this same war eventually lead to an impromptu population exchange where Israel had to absorb an even larger number of Jewish refugees from Arab countries, that in actual fact left possessions and properties worth many times over those left by Arab refugees in Israel.

* That the PLO would recognize Israel as the Jewish nation-state, while in reality it can only recognize Israel as a state that will transform itself into the 3rd Palestinian-Arab state (besides Jordan and “Palestine”) by way of a return of Arab refugees to Israel proper;

* That it could recognize Israel even if it wanted to, since based on immutable Islamist/Jihadist dogma, it is impossible for Pal-Arabs to recognize, out of their own will, any “Infidel” sovereignty over what they consider Islamic Land (“Dar-ul-Islam”) granted to them “in trust” by Allah. According to Shariah law, the penalty for any Muslim leader that breaks this maxim is death. That’s why Jordan’s Abdullah I and Egypt’s Sadat were assassinated, that’s what Arafat and Abu-Mazen knew would be their fate as well.

3-State Solution only sustainable path?

If Arabs and other enemies of Israel alike really wanted peace and co-existence, they would not invent and nurture a non-existent “Palestinian” identity, while Jordan already covers nearly 80% of Mandatory Palestine and most Gaza Arabs are indistinguishable from Egypt’s Sinai Bedouin.

They would instead pursue the only logical coexistential and sustainable path – a “3-State Solution” composed of Israel, Egypt, and Jordan:

* Gaza: Under security and political linkage Egypt, needs to be turned into an autonomous Arab entity that can prosper as a Singapore/Dubai-like industrial/logistics hub on the Eastern Mediterranean;

* West Bank: In light of more complex geopolitics as well as looming Hamas takeover, parts of West Bank should to be linked to Jordan in some sort of federal structure; safeguarding security and settlements for Israel, demographics for Arabs, holy sites for both.

Egypt and Jordan face no alternative, because they can’t allow adjacent Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas) or national-irredentist (Fatah) regimes, respectively.

The perils of further “Palestinism” and “2-State Solutionism”

The 2-State Plan doesn’t make sense only if you think its aim is peace; it makes a lot of sense as the necessary next step for the PLO’s plan for the phase-by-phase elimination of Israel.

Any further “Palestinism” or “2-State Solutionism” on narrow sliver, therefore stands to serve none other than the PLO’s 1974 Phased Plan, whose three main stages are:

(1) Through “armed struggle” establish “combatant national authority” (ALREADY REALIZED BY OSLO ACCORDS);

(2) Continue “armed struggle” from territory of “combatant national authority” until pushing Israel to indefensible pre-67 borders (ONGOING THROUGH A SO-CALLED “PEACE PROCESS”);

(3) Provoke all-out war where surrounding Arab countries attack and destroy Israel entirely (AFTER ISRAEL IS PUSHED TO INDEFENSIBLE PRE-’67 BORDERS AS A RESULT OF THE SO-CALLED “2-STATE SOLUTION”!).

Full plan: http://www.iris.org.il/plophase.htm

Clearly, the 2-State Plan is in reality a war plan, not a peace plan. Any plan that aims at rendering Israel indefensible under pre-67 borders, while, due to unbending Jihadist dogma, both Fatah and Hamas remain sworn to its destruction, cannot be characterized as otherwise.

Initiated by State Department Arabists in the ’80s, “sanctified” by the disastrous Oslo Accords, and until recently relentlessly pushed by the Obama-Kerry administration, while being supported by a misguided Israeli left camp, any such “2-State Solutionism” aims at Palestinian-Arab statehood based on (a) Israel’s approximate retreat to indefensible pre-’67 borders, (b) while Arabs remain sworn to their Jihad aimed at destroying the Jewish State and replacing it with Arab/Muslim rule.

In short, rendering Israel indefensible while it remains under attack…

Or in other words: Advancing from Stage 2 to Stage 3 in the PLO’s 1974 Phased Plan for Israel’s elimination!