T. Belman. The author suggests that Bennett’s plan leads Israel to an apartheid solution which forces Netanyahu to stand by his “two states for two people” solution. Ironically, just this week I posted Mike Wise’s draft “One State Plan” and a discussion between Wise and Martin Sherman who backs compensated emigration and myself who backs Bennett’s ideas. We all concluded that the worst option is the two-state solution. We also concluded that Bennett’s plan of annexing Area C is the easiest sale leaving the question of what to do with Area’s A and B for later. This would be no more apartheid than the Oslo Accords.
The choice for Israelis then would be, do they prefer absorbing 1.7 million Arabs into Israel from the river to the sea or spending $150 billion to induce Arabs to emigrate.
With radicals pushing for either a multi-national state or an apartheid one, the two-state solution might finally have its political day in the sun.
By Carolina Landsmann, HAARETZ
This time it was U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry who forced Benjamin Netanyahu to express public support for the idea of two states for two peoples: “The solution is a demilitarized Palestinian state that will recognize the Jewish state,” he claimed.
Experience teaches us that Netanyahu most likely won’t stand by his claim. But the context in which he made it – cornered into rejecting the alternative of a binational state– could indicate the evolution of the two-state solution, and signal its revival.
Generally speaking, one can say that in the last 50 years Israel has been presented with a single viable solution to the problem of the occupied territories and the Palestinians living within them – the two-state solution.
The political map has been consistently divided between supporters and opponents. Generally, the left supported it and the right objected. Even when one could count the supporters of the two-state solution on the fingers of one hand, a viable alternative was never proposed. The idea of a Greater Israel reflected an aspiration and vision, but never a real strategic solution to the Palestinian problem. The last 50 years have proven that considering a solution without offering an alternative leads nowhere.
And yet, we’re now hearing voices on the left rising up against the idea of two states. The left end of the political spectrum started to view the two-state solution as obsolete, either because the left thought geopolitical conditions had so drastically changed, or due to this solution’s apparent failure to uphold moral standards (because it’s racist, because it’s a remnant of colonialism, because it preserves and perpetuates the Nakba iniquities, etc.). On the left, people started to draft an outline for a new solution – a single state composed of all its nationalities.
Now that the two-state solution has been abandoned by those spearheading the left, and declared to be “yesterday’s idea,” and now that a binational alternative is being drafted, overshadowing the two-state solution and making it look conservative – the Israeli right can finally get behind the idea of two states. The right can feel free to do so without the moral weight, and without ringing the universal bells of justice, but simply as the least bad of all possible options.
In an ironic twist of fate, Naftali Bennett has joined the effort to push the two-state idea to the political map’s center. Bennett has also begun drafting a solution based on the one-state idea. But unlike the left’s equality-for-all vision, his vision includes full-fledged apartheid.
Bennett is attacking Netanyahu from the right, pushing him to realize that the choice is between two states and one, and that he must commit to one of the possible choices. “Since the Bar-Ilan speech we’ve been hearing: I’m in favor of a Palestinian state, providing it’s demilitarized. This week the prime minister repeated it again. Let me make it clear: there’s no such thing. There’s no ‘demilitarized Palestinian state,”’ Bennett posted on Facebook last month.
If Bennett continues with his attempts to force Netanyahu to renounce the two-state solution, he may find that instead of drawing Netanyahu closer to him, he is pushing him further towards the dreaded two-state option. Bennett appears not to understand the change in the international community, which sees only two options for Israel – one binational state, or two states for two peoples. Apartheid is not an option.
As always, between the two extremes lies the center. The two-state solution has been abandoned by the radical left in favor of the state for all its nationalities, and the radical right is striving to establish one apartheid state. Now that the political players must decide where they stand in regard to the two alternatives, rather than just for or against the only solution in front of them, it seems Israel has never been riper for the two-state solution.
@ woolymammoth:
Talk of granting Israeli Citizenship to those who are devoted to our demise is insane.
You are the only one talking about granting citizenship to those devoted to Israel’s demise.
Every state demands that new citizens meet certain standards and must swear loyalty to the state. In the US, “The Pledge of Allegiance.”
What standards would the woolymammoth apply?
Muslims favor the death penalty for Islamic converts to infidel faiths. I favor the death penalty for Jews who apply the libel “apartheid” to Israel. It is a galling lie exclusively designed to promote anti-Semitism, and Jews who employ that shameful slur should be dressed in Hassidic garb prior to being catapulted into Gaza.
@ Ted Belman:
Both plans are only “talk”. Two sides of the same coin.
Israel, if it is to maintain control over the territories where the Jewish Residents of Judea and Samaria live and travel, it must be able to guarantee it’s safety. When I see residents ambushed, attacked with firearms and rocks and bombs in an organized, planned act of terrorism, I think, this is Russian Roulette, not security based governance. If Israel can not secure the highways and roads from attack, then maybe it is time to allow the Residents to establish their own security protocols. The Arab Residents of Judea and Samaria have been offered variously autonomy to near statehood, but not the Jews. the Jews are cannon fodder. Every vehicle licensed to travel on those roads and highways should be armored, with no exceptions and the patrols and checkpoints brought into line. Talk of granting Israeli Citizenship to those who are devoted to our demise is insane.
@ mikewise:
Mike, Are you aware that electrical workers and service employees are afraid to go into areas of East Jerusalem.
Are you are aware that 72% of the Palestinians want the death of Israelis?
So why would we let more Arab terrorists into Israel?
I am for sovereignty but without most of the Arabs. Ones that can demonstrate loyalty yes (but this number will be small) not but other Arabs who can not be loyal and the terrorists and their supporters and their families must go without payment. Payment only to those who sell their property and are peaceful.
@ woolymammoth: It is not Wise who is advocating paying them to leave, it is Sherman and Feiglin who are doing so.
Snake Oil Salesman Mike Wise has got quite The Lame Plan. It is not thought through in and of itself, it makes assumptions that cannot be supported. The Arab residents of Judea and Samaria will be told that to accept money to emigrate is punishable by death. The so called PA is prepared to morph into Hamas within a few days notice, which could morph into ISIS real fast. Then you will have the willing and the virtual hostages. They will be told to breed like rabbits for the cause and to do the minimal to qualify for Israeli Citizenship. Israel’s bureaucracy will be forced by the Supreme Court to water down any provisions ruled unfair or un-acceptable. So much for Wise/Glick projections on demographics. It does not take a genius like Wise or Glick to reason that ten thousand lawyers will be employed to degrade Israel’s legitimacy and implement a BDS movement for all of Israel. Israeli Arabs will be attacked by the nouveau citizens and radicalized or killed. Naturally whatever happens will be viewed as a war crime of Israel’s in The UN and World Court, not to mention Israel’s trading partners. China and India may dump Israel, too hot to handle.
Egypt and Jordan will be weakened and isolated. Saudi will have no choice but to end it’s alliance to quell the mass protests and rioting, ditto the rest of the so called moderate states. Wise/Glick can not tell you that Israel will be in a more secure position than it is today, so why go there. Let it remain ambiguous for another 100 years.
The better option is for The Jewish Community of Judea and Samaria to declare their independence and take what is rightfully theirs and end this pussyfooting exercise in futility.
Thanks for the clarity, Ted.
The conflict can only end when the Arabs left west of the Jordan primarily accept the existence of the Jewish State.
So even if the anti-Israel EU and left worldwide do not accept Israel with borders past the green line Israel has not choice but to expand those borders. Israel needs to get rid of the terrorists and their supporters.
@ mikewise:
That was a good list Mike.
Suggest that Landsmann (not my landsmann) read the “benefits” of a two-state “solution” written over ten years ago. Would then be delighted to discuss the subject.
http://www.onestateplan.com/twostateplans.htm