Some 19 percent of Jewish Israelis prefer to see a Palestinian state in Jordan rather than in the West Bank, but only 7% really think it could happen, according to a Maagar Mochot poll commissioned by Professors for a Stronger Israel.
“There are alternatives; we are not sitting with a gun to our heads,” said former National Union MK Arye Eldad, as he addressed a daylong conference on Sunday that debated all aspects of the question of two states for two peoples on two banks of the Jordan River.
There are more options than the standard equation of “Either we will have a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria, or we will have a bi-national state,” Eldad said.
It is also possible to have a Palestinian state in Jordan, he explained. Jordan’s King Abdullah II would not agree to this plan, he said.
But, he said, eventually King Abdullah’s Hashemite Kingdom will fall prey to the Arab Spring, which has caused the ouster of other regional leaders.
“We need to have a plan in the drawer for that moment,” he said.
Otherwise, the situation could end badly for Israel, he said.
“We have to prepare for this scenario because it is realistic,” he said.
At present, the idea of a Palestinian state in Jordan does not seem feasible, but if the Hashemite Kingdom falls in the future, it will receive wide support, Eldad said.
Mudar Zahran, a Jordanian- Palestinian political activist who lives in London, said he believed that King Abdullah II’s reign would soon end.
Based on the Maagar Mochot poll, however, only a minority of those questioned supported a two-state solution in which Palestine was on the east side of the Jordan River.
Out of those polled, 41% of Jewish Israelis preferred the status quo and 51% said they believed that the situation would stay the same. Only 11% said they preferred a two-state solution in the West Bank based on land swaps, and only 21% said they believed this would happen. Some 29% said they did not have a solution.
Maagar Mochot conducted the telephone poll on August 18 and 19 among 504 Jewish Israelis over the age of 18. It has a 4.5 margin of error.
According to the poll, 53% of Likud Beytenu supporters said they preferred the status quo, 1% wanted a two-state solution in the West Bank and 30% supported Jordan as a Palestinian state.
Among Shas and UTJ party supporters, 67% preferred the status quo, 3% wanted a two-state solution in the West Bank and 21% wanted Jordan to be a Palestinian state.
Among the Yesh Atid, Hatnua and Kadima parties, 33% preferred the status quo, 14% wanted a two-state solution in the West Bank and 8% believed that Palestine should be in Jordan.
Out of those polled from the Labor and Meretz parties, only 7% preferred the status quo, 52% supported a two-state solution in the West Bank and none of them wanted to see Jordan become a Palestinian state.
Not all the speakers at the conference believed that Jordan should become a Palestinian state.
Former deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon, however, warned that a scenario in which the Hashemite Kingdom would fall was dangerous for Israel.
Stability in Jordan is critical for Israeli and American interests, Ayalon said. Jordan acts as a buffer zone between Israel and Iraq and Iran, he said.
MK Tzipi Hotovely (Likud) said she believed the whole issue was a question for the future. What needs to happen now, she said, is for Israel to annex Area C of the West Bank.
This won’t pose a demographic threat because only a minority of Palestinians live there.
It won’t lead to a bi-national state; it will simply increase the size of Israel as a Jewish state, Hotovely said.
Israelis, she said, want Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria. Israel won’t evacuate them as it did during the 2005 disengagement.
At one time, she said, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu believed that a Palestinian state posed an existential threat to Israel.
“I assure you Netanyahu goes with a heavy heart and unwilling steps when forced into talks with the Palestinians by the US,” she said.
Based on the foregoing scenarios, the following are some topics to be considered:
1. AUTONOMY
If any autonomy is to be given to Arabs, then Israel should under no circumstances do as it does with Gaza. Israel should no longer remain in no way responsible for their livelihood.
Mr. Sharman and Mr. Lieberman think wrongly that a betterment of their economy will render Arabs peaceful, that they will no longer be involved in violence towards Israel. It will never happen.
As an example, just refer to what Arabs in Israel are doing in terms of violence and betrayal, although they live in better conditions than under Palestinian governance.
If some deal is to be made with Arabs, then it should include also Arabs inside Israel. Israel should take such opportunity to get rid of all the beasts, including Zoabi, Tibi, Zahalkha, and the like.
2. CITIZENSHIP
Forget about it. Israel should do as Jordan: revoke citizenship to all Arabs, including Bedouins. The 1,500 beasts that rioted yesterday against the IDF included Bedouins.
3. THE OSLO ACCORDS
There is no necessity to abrogate them since they were null and void ab inito: therefore the only thing to do is to ratify their abrogation.
I don’t see what the problem would be in annexing all of J&S. Israel does not owe these Arabs citizenship that they once had from Jordan which illegally cancelled it. These are Jordanian citizens and can look to their political rights to Jordan and can remain legal alien residents of Greater Israel. If they don’t like that, they have where to go. We don’t. This – Israel, is it.
The only way forward is to annex Judea and Samaria! As for the Arabs, I prefer to have a binational state run by the Jews than to have a Hamastan next door to Israel. When weighed between those two choices, its an easy call to make. The Arabs are a lot better off being ruled by the Jews than by their fellow Arab brethren.
It won’t make them ever love Israel! But its the only real path that offers a secure and peaceful future to both peoples in the same land. A separate Palestinian Arab state will never lead to peace.
According to this poll, many Israelis prefer the status quo. I submit that there is no such thing as the status quo. It is always changing.
The arabs prefer the status quo because they have an agenda of stealing the land in Area C. Creeping annexation if you like. If we want the status quo we must also have an agenda and it must be to stop the Arabs from pursuing their agenda and to pursue our own agenda of settling the land. Of course annexing part of the land would create a new status quo.
I wrote to Hotovely and Sherman:
You both are in sharp disagreement on whether we should annex C first or annex all the land without phasing.
Martin is against annexing area C because it is interlaced with Area B making it impossible to establish a border. He may have other reasons as well.
I tend to agree with Tzipi as I am concerned with the pressure we would be under to offer citizenship if we annexed it all. In this I agree with Martin. Citizenship should be avoided at all costs.
I believe that Martin’s concern can be dealt with. First forget about A, B and C. Regardless of what we annex we would be abrogating Oslo. Therefore A, B and C have no meaning.
Why not define a border which suits us, being careful to include as few Arabs as possible. The border would be an ellipse around the highly dense Arab populations. We keep the Jordan valley. This would be done unilaterally.
Then we
1. Create a new government for the Arab area excluding Fatah and the PLO.
2. Offer to negotiate autonomy for their area
3. Commence a programme of compensated emigration for the Arabs within the land we annexed. Especially Qalqilya and Tulkarn. Those communities must be removed.
4.Later we offer the same deal to Arabs in the autonomous area.
If we get rid of enough Arabs this way, we can always consider annexing the rest.