Get PJ Media on your Apple


The One-State Solution

July 17th, 2014 - 9:56 am


Israel annexing the West Bank in its entirety — it’s the kind of thing you’re not supposed to say out loud in polite company. And yet today we have two columnists saying that’s exactly what might happen. Let’s start with Seth Lipsky in today’s New York Post:

The collapse of a ceasefire plan for Israel and Hamas would be a moment to test the Jewish state’s super-weapon — Caroline Glick. Or, more precisely, her idea of a one-state plan for peace in the Middle East.

Glick laid out the plan in a book called “The Israeli Solution.” Her idea, which I wrote about in March, is to absorb into a single state — Israel — all of the West Bank and the Arab and Jewish populations who live there.

It’s as controversial as an idea can get. She leaves aside Gaza, where there is no Israeli presence and which is ruled by Hamas. Yet her plan for the West Bank fairly begs to be put on the table after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s press conference Friday.

And then at Tablet, we have fellow PJM columnist David “Spengler” Goldman:

A one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is upon us. It won’t arrive by Naftali Bennett’s proposal to annex the West Bank’s Area C, or through the efforts of BDS campaigners and Jewish Voice for Peace to alter the Jewish state. But it will happen, sooner rather than later, as the states on Israel’s borders disintegrate and other regional players annex whatever they can. As that happens, Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria is becoming inevitable.

The central premise of Western diplomacy in the region has been pulled inside-out, namely that a resolution of the Palestinian refugee issue was the key to long-term stability in the Middle East. Now the whole of the surrounding region has become one big refugee crisis. Yet the seemingly spontaneous emergence of irregular armies like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) now rampaging through northern Mesopotamia should be no surprise. The misnamed Arab Spring of 2011 began with an incipient food crisis in Egypt and a water crisis in Syria. Subsidies from the Gulf States keep Egypt on life support. In Syria and Iraq, though, displaced populations become foraging armies that loot available resources, particularly oil, and divert the proceeds into armaments that allow the irregulars to keep foraging. ISIS is selling $800 million a year of Syrian oil to Turkey, according to one estimate, as well as selling electricity from captured power plants back to the Assad government. On June 11 it seized the Bajii power plant oil refinery in northern Iraq, the country’s largest.

The region has seen nothing like it since the Mongol invasion of the 13th century.

Lipsky offers up Glick’s annexation proposal as an almost tidy solution to a decades-old problem, a way to fulfill the original promise of Zion as a place of “Arab and Jewish amity in a Jewish state with a Jewish majority.” Goldman’s vision is darker, bleak even — and is almost certainly closer to reality. He notes that “four Arab states—Libya, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq—have effectively ceased to exist.” The Levant has devolved (I’ve been using that word here to describe Araby since before the Iraq War) into a nearly-stateless landmass where competing tribes, ethnicities, and religious factions will grab what they can, when they can. The only hard currency is hate, traded for blood and oil.

Radicalized Islam is both sociopathic and nihilistic, killing because it can and destroying because it’s pleasurable. Given these pathologies, there will be ethnic and religious cleansing on a regional scale if anything like peace is to be achieved. The tragedy of these brutal population expulsions isn’t just that they happen, it’s that they work. Again, that’s an observation and not an endorsement.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
"Radicalized Islam is both sociopathic and nihilistic, killing because it can and destroying because it’s pleasurable"

"He [that would be Muhammad, the founder of Islam and all Muslim's "Perfect Man"] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion [that would be Islam, not "Radicalized" Islam, nor 'Islamism" nor "Hijacked Islam", but ISLAM!, ISLAM!, ISLAM!], against all the rest of mankind." (John Quincy Adams)
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
Dear lord, I do hope you're right -- and not only because any "improvement" in the West Bank's imperfect situation would be likely to make things worse. The irony of the relative peace there is due entirely to the Security Fence, which was bemoaned at the time of its construction by the usual left-wing moaners.

My fear though is that as the Levant and Mesopotamia become one massive refugee camp, that Israel and the West Bank won't be immune to the increasing regional radicalization.
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
Jordan is Palestine. Actually in 1929 the League of Nations originally included
It as the territory for a Jewish Homeland along with today's Israeli boundaries. This
'San Remo' mandate was subverted years later when the British
Administrators of the area gave the larger half, what is now Jordan,
To the Hashemite King, as a gift for favors rendered. Jordan's population
Today us almost 70% Palestinian Arab. This, not Judea & Samaria
Is the rightful place for their State. It can be done to the benefit
Of both Israelis and Arab Palestinian. The only loser would be
The 'King' of Jordan, and why after all is one man,
King Abdullah, entitled to own a country. After all, today is no
Longer The 17th Century.
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (36)
All Comments   (36)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
I follow with a repost of something I wrote on PJM on June 21, 2010. Glicks plan will never work. Security is not enhanced by granting citizenship to those who wish to overthrow the country and replace it with an Islamic dictatorship.
The only sane and humane solution is population transfer. The original post follows-

I am a proponent of non-violent population transfer.

The world community believes in violent population transfer.

Helen Thomas and Hamas both want the Jews out of the Middle East.
Thomas wants the Jews transferred to Poland.
Hamas wants Jews transferred to the middle of the ocean.
Where there can be no tree to hide a Jew if he is chased by murderers.
They are proponents of violent transfer.

Thomas , with her , ” Get the hell out! ” and Hamas with their baby killing.
Different, to be sure, but the intent, identical.
That is true ethnic cleansing .

On the other hand non violent population transfer has been done before.
In fact the very first High Commissioner for Refugees of the League of Nations, Fridtjof Nansen , received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1922 for ending a war that seemed intractable by using non violent population transfer..

” In 1919, he ( Nansen ) became president of the Norwegian Union for the League of Nations and at the Peace Conference in Paris was an influential lobbyist for the adoption of the League Covenant and for recognition of the rights of small nations. From 1920 until his death he was a delegate to the League from Norway.
 In June, 1921, the Council of the League appointed Nansen its first High Commissioner for Refugees. Stateless refugees recieved a ” Nansen Passport ” , a document of identification which was eventually recognized by fifty-two governments. In the nine-year life of this Office, Nansen ministered to hundreds of thousands of refugees – Russian,Turkish, Armenian, Assyrian, Assyro-Chaldean – utilizing the methods that were to become classic: custodial care, repatriation, rehabilitation, resettlement, emigration, integration.
 In 1922 at the request of the Greek government and with the approval of the League of Nations, Nansen tried to solve the problem of the Greek refugees who poured into their native land from their homes in Asia Minor after the Greek army had been defeated by the Turks. Nansen arranged an exchange of about 1,250,000 Greeks living on Turkish soil for about 500,000 Turks living in Greece, with appropriate indemnification and provisions for giving them the opportunity for a new start in life.” Nobel Prize Website


” We all know from the history books of the exchange of Turks and Greeks, which took place after World War I when, after the war ended, there was a further war between Greece and Turkey, at the end of which, the Greek and Turkish governments agreed on an exchange of populations. And as it appears in the history books, the Greek minority in Turkey was sent to Greece; the Turkish minority in Greece was sent to Turkey. That’s what it says in the history books. But if you look at the treaty in which this agreement was incorporated, it says something different. The parties to be exchanged are defined as Turkish subjects of the Greek Orthodox faith and Greek subjects of the Muslim faith. And if you look more closely at who the people actually were, they were, to a very large extent, Turkish-speaking Orthodox Christians from Turkey and Greek-speaking Muslims from Greece. This was not an exchange of two ethnic minorities. It was a deportation of two religious minorities. ”
Prof. Bernard Lewis, April. 27, 2006 interview, Pew Forum

Ninety-nine and one-half percent of the middle east is muslim. There are enormous swathes of empty land throughout the Arab world. A fraction of the money spent on war would build one thousand Beverly Hills’ for refugees who wanted to move. There are people all over the world looking for better homes and opportunities. Are the Palestinians all of the same mind? No single Palestinian wants a new villa, a new school for his children, and the money to start a bakery?
There is plenty of money for flagship properties in London. Boutique hotels for the privileged instead of cities for the Palestinians?

What if someone wishes to remain where they are? They can. Their reason would be their business. No need to justify or argue. You want to stay? Stay
Where people wish to remain they should be able to do so as citizens of Jordan, which already controls seventy-seven percent of territorial Palestine. If Jordan wishes to change its name to Palestine, as the late King Hussein Ibn Talal suggested, that is its right.
Perhaps there are other countries that would allow applications for citizenship. I don’t know.

Muslims all over the world are on the move. Only the Palestinians stay put?
Hamas wants the Palestinians in Gaza to stay put. They are its hostage.

That is why true humanitarian relief for Gaza would be getting the people out, not the concrete in
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
I am reminded of Andrew Klavan's One State Solution:
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
I have not heard anyone report that there have been planned daily rolling black outs in Cairo for weeks now, ever since air conditioning season. One hour a day, sometimes two, alternating all around the city's different zones. Not enough oil. There is no planned time. To announce such a thing would pierce the illusion it's not planned and lead to a lack of confidence in the gov't. So, if you're on an elevator, it's pot luck.
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
Israel takes over Gaza...( so much for the "land for peace" nonsense, eh?), and transports the Gazans to the West Bank.

Hamas and Fatah will have a ball killing each other. And this means they will be too busy to kill Israelis...for a spell.

Unless you're willing to contemplate genocide, don't look for any permanent answers in the Middle East...and maybe not even then.
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
The real solution is for Israel to keep all Jews behind the separation barrier, as that is the only thing which will protect them from violence. Everything else is fantasy.
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
The chances that Israel will drive one million or more Arabs on the West Bank into Jordan = close to nil.
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
Take a look at history. In April, 1948, before the British Mandate over Palestine ended, the Arabs of Haifa left, because they would not live one day under Jewish rule.

What happened in the past has been known to take place more than once.
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
This time they ain't going. They have it too good, making good money and expressing nationalistic and Islamic sentiments nearly free of charge.
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
Larry, I really get tired of your negativity. Israel is a great country and a wonderful place to live, even when we're in a war.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Would they move if they were held responsible for what they say?

What difference is there between them and the MK Zouabi?
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
I dunno. If Israel claims the West Bank, which Jordan actually held after the first round of war in 1948, she'll still have borders with Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt. Sincerely or cynically, the Muslim nations will all side with the Palestinians. The tactical situation might be better but the core problem of hate-mongering would likely be worse.
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
Actually, Egypt, is working w/Israel against Hamas and PIJ. Lebanon is currently under the thumb of Iran/Hizballah/Syria, but they are under a lot of pressure too.
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
Congratulations to you, Stephen, for publicizing this intriguing but non-PC idea. Caroline Glick an editor at Jerusalem Post and a director at David Horowitz's Freedom Center, recently published a book length analysis supporting the one-state "Israeli" solution.

Here is a description of the book, written by Glick:

"A manifesto that exposes the flaws in the two-state policy of the United States toward Israel and the Palestinians and offers a direct and powerful call for Israeli sovereignty in the region. The reigning consensus in elite and academic circles is that the United States must seek to resolve the Palestinians’ conflict with Israel by implementing the so-called two-state solution. Establishing a Palestinian state, so the thinking goes, would be a panacea for all the region’s ills".
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
David Goldman's article in _Tablet_ deserves a lot more attention than it is getting.
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yoroscoe: I believe you mean 1919, not 1929. The territory of Palestine, under the control of the British post-WWI, did indeed include the land east of the Jordan (then called Transjordan, what is today the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan). Transjordan was cut off from the promised Jewish National Home in, I believe, 1921 or so; several Jewish communities had to be uprooted at that point, just as the Jewish communities of Yamit and Gush Katif would have to be abandoned later (always in the name of diplomacy).

Yes, Palestinians could, in theory, be given a one-way ticket to Jordan and a $100 bill. This policy used to be called 'transfer', and among Israelis it was extremely controversial and, on the whole, very unpopular. It was never suggested seriously by any Israeli government. (Let me add that the Palestinians would be fools to accept such an offer. The standard of living to which they can aspire is far higher in Israel than in Jordan, or anywhere else in the Middle East.)
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All