Comments on: Two State Solution Eroding?

By: Empress Trudy

Empress Trudy — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 15:24:49 +0000

There can’t be a 3-state because Gaza can never be a state in the traditional sense of the world. Unless you assert that anarchic organized crime syndicate is a ‘state’. Gaza will eventually be Somalia. Israel needs to ignore them and figure out what they can do with Yesha. Let Gaza be Turkey’s problem. They wanted it, they got it.

By: Karmafish

Karmafish — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 16:11:46 +0000

Russ,

I find Daniel Pipes’ thesis interesting, as well. Until the Palestinians recognize that they are defeated there will not be peace. That makes considerable sense, but it’s also a recipe for more war.

They have us trapped like rats.

The status quo is awful and, perhaps, unsustainable. If Israel maintains it, the conflict will continue. If, however, Israel goes on the offensive so that the Palestinians know that they are truly defeated, the world community will go absolutely ballistic and the Palestinians, themselves, will fight back, of course. So, there are no good options.

If Israel declares its final borders and pulls the IDF behind those borders, it can at least declare the end of the occupation. If we see rockets from the WB then, obviously, Israel will have every right to retaliate… well, not according to the world community, presumably, but according to common sense, for sure.

In any case, the last thing that we’re likely to see any time soon is a negotiated settlement. THAT is pure kabuki.

By: Russ

Russ — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 21:41:20 +0000

>> In my opinion, despite Gaza in 2005, Israel should simply declare its final borders and pull the IDF behind those borders and then wash their hands of the Palestinians entirely.

That’s been tried. As long as the Palis can lob missiles over the border, Israel cannot ever “wash their hands of the Palestinians entirely.”

The basic problem is that as long as the Palestinians reject Israel, it is suicide to give them a state. The basic problem is that as long as there is no cost to them to reject Israel, they will continue to do so. And the world will lose patience and demand that Israel grant them a state and die. The only solution that will work is for the Palestinians to feel themselves actually defeated.

By: Rabbi Kaufman

Rabbi Kaufman — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 21:03:55 +0000

The primary reason to opt for a two state solution rather than a three state solution in which Gaza is independent is that Gaza would be an Iranian client state allied with Hizballah. That said, the reality is that if Gaza declared independence FIRST and if it were to be internationally recognized, Israeli could POSSIBLY ANNEX the West Bank, resulting in a two state solution anyway. The overall population would shift toward the Palestinians, but you would have a substantial Jewish majority and avoid having to remove any settlements or worry about border security for the West Bank to the same extent. I think that this is HIGHLY UNLIKELY as an option and there are a whole slew of other problems that would accompany it, but it is a possibility. I think that the threat of this occurring is enough to prevent Hamas from declaring independence for Gaza. Another reason, and possibly the biggest reason, why an independent Gaza is not likely to happen is that EGYPT would oppose it. Having an independent nation on its border controlled by the CHILD of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood would be extraordinarily destabilizing for Egypt. I don’t think that Egypt could allow it to happen. In essence, neither Israel nor Egypt would be in favor of this possible three state solution.

By: Mario

Mario — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 20:31:03 +0000

I’m curious why you consider the two-state solution to be obviously superior to the three-state solution outlined in the first bullet point. I can understand rejecting the others, but there doesn’t seem to be a practical difference between the primary two- and three-state solutions, at least to me. In fact, I could see the possibility of some pretty substantial benefits to both sides with three over two.

By: Karmafish

Karmafish — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:16:06 +0000

It should be obvious at this point that the Palestinians do not want a state of their own next to Israel. How many times have they been offered precisely that and how many times have they turned it down?

Lessee. There was the Peel Commission recommendation in 1937 that offered the Jews a rump state. The Jews accepted it, the Arabs refused.

There was, of course, UN 181 where again the Jews accepted a 2-state deal and the Arabs again refused.

There was Barak’s offer to Arafat in 2000 which the latter refused without even making a counter-offer.

And just recently there was Olmert’s offer to Abbas which was also turned down flat.

At a certain point we have to take “no” for an answer. If they don’t want a state, they won’t get a state… of course, this doesn’t mean they get to take all of Palestine, including Israel, either.

In my opinion, despite Gaza in 2005, Israel should simply declare its final borders and pull the IDF behind those borders and then wash their hands of the Palestinians entirely.