By Ted Belman
Is the two-state solution doable? Dani Dayan, Chairman of the Yesha Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria, thinks not. Seth Mandel thinks otherwise.
The NYT published a strongly worded Op-Ed this week by Dani Dayan, under the title “Israel’s Settlers are here to stay”. Seth Mandel, in an article in Commentary Magazine, called his comments “wrongheaded”.
Mandel accused him of ignoring “both an accepted reality and the Palestinian people”. Dayan has every right to ignore or even reject, both. Mandel further complained that “two of his ideas contained in the op-ed would be, if accepted, detrimental to the American foreign policy doctrine that results in such steadfast American support for Israel.” I beg to differ for reasons set ?out below.
Mandel writes:
-
“First and foremost, a majority of Israelis (usually around the 60 percent mark, sometimes higher) consistently support the two-state solution, even at a time when that proposal is clearly at a post-Oslo low point.”
If such a poll exists, the wrong question was asked. Last year, a Dahaf Institute poll commissioned by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs sound that seventy-seven percent of Israelis oppose returning to pre-1967 lines, [the poll reads “with minor border adjustments”] even if it would lead to a peace agreement and declarations by Arab states of an end to their conflict with Israel.
The poll found that large majorities of 85 percent and 75%, respectively, recognized the importance of maintaining a united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty within the framework of any final peace deal and opposed transferring the Temple Mount to Palestinian control even if the Western Wall ?were to remain in Israeli hands.
If that weren’t enough, a recent poll in Israel found that 64% of Israelis support the continuation of the settlement enterprise. The parameters of the two-state solution don’t come close to offering the Israelis what they want or will settle for.
-
“[T]he American left would like to frame the debate as consisting of two points of view–Dayan’s and J Street’s. Both are outside the mainstream consensus on this issue, and it is only up against Dayan’s arguments that the hard-left can appear reasonable. “
To the contrary, it is Dayan’s solution that is reasonable compared to J-Steet’s “Auschwitz borders”. Only Dayan’s solution will bring peace. As for the debate, bring it on.
-
“What about the Palestinians Dayan doesn’t say Israel should give the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria voting rights. If he would, is he not concerned about the demographics at play If he would not, is he suggesting that the Palestinians should be a permanently stateless people and that Israel would be permanently without clear national borders He writes that Israeli security should be paramount, but the Judea and Samaria he envisions would be a long-term security nightmare for Israel.”
Dayan didn’t offer citizenship nor did he reject it. The vast majority of Israelis who support annexation also support giving citizenship to qualified Arabs while at the same time offering them, in the alternative, a financial inducement to emigrate. Upon annexation of Judea and Samaria, (West Bank) Israel would have a clear national border, namely the Jordan River, though the international community would not recognize it as the border. It is only in the present situation where Israel’s borders are undefined. According to the most recent authoritative study, if Israel were to annex Judea and Samaria, the Jews would outnumber the Arabs in the enlarged Israel by a margin of 2:1. As for the security nightmare, he is absolutely correct. Where is Mandel on this issue. He doesn’t say.
-
“Second, has he thought through the implications to U.S. foreign policy of his proposal Specifically, he seems to want the U.S.–a principal external force on the peace process–to ignore its own dedication to the right of self-determination for the Palestinians. But that would mean weakening American devotion to the general principle of self-determination, which is a major driving force behind continued American support for Israel. Does Dayan, as a political figure in a country whose right to exist is constantly being questioned by a resurging global anti-Semitism, not just in the Arab states but all over Europe, really want to weaken American support for the idea of a right to self-determination”
This argument is a crock. American support for self-determination is very selective. America doesn’t support such a right for the Kurds, the Basques, the Tibetans and so on and they are each a real people, not an “invented people”. The Balfour Declaration, the legally binding decision at San Remo and the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine all asserted the right of the Jews, to not only self-determination in Palestine but to the reconstitution of their national homeland there. The Arabs were specifically denied such a right in Palestine but not in Jordan which was separated from it. Why don’t Mandel and the US government support their right of self-determination in Jordan which is, after-all, 80% Palestinian?
America also supports the rule of law which favours Israel by a country mile. To prefer the Palestinian “right” to self-determination on these lands over the Jewish historical, legal and moral claims is just ludicrous. They have no right to self-determination there.
-
“Additionally, Dayan writes that the return of the Palestinian refugees from around the Arab world to the Palestinian state would be a major security threat. But he also acknowledges that those Palestinian refugees are treated as second-class citizens in those countries and kept in squalor elsewhere (chiefly by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency). Should they stay that way And isn’t a primary goal of Israeli national policy to convince the Palestinians to return to a Palestinian state, not Israel. Humanitarian concerns often clash with security concerns, but that doesn’t mean we ignore the humanitarian concerns altogether–it means we go back to the drawing board and get creative, not give up.”
Though Israel does support the Palestinian return to a Palestinian state, rather than to Israel, in principle, she doesn’t support their return to Palestine in reality, at least not in significant numbers. This support in no way can be described as “a primary goal of Israel national policy”. If only a million would return to Palestine, should it ever be created, war would result. Dayan knows this. Mandel and the international community couldn’t care less.
If America or the international community really cared about the condition of the Palestinians in Syria, Lebanon or Jordan, they would focus their attention on getting them resettled as they have done with tens of millions of refugees since the Second World War.
Dayan has gone back to the drawing board. Mandel and the West have not.
-
“And finally: Dayan claims removing the settlers would be impossible. Why Today there are no settlers in Gaza. He’s also moving the goal posts; many of the settlements would remain in Israel as part of any final-status agreement. Israel’s critics often dishonestly ignore this when speaking in broad terms about The Settlers. Dayan is making the same mistake, and playing right into their hands.”
Though “many of the settlements would remain in Israel”, over 100,000 Jews would have to be forcibly removed. That may be acceptable to Mandel but it is not to Israel. Why doesn’t Mandel suggest moving the final border to include these settlers on the west of the border. Why not negotiate on the basis of Israel keeping 10% of the land That would solve the settler problem. But the West, let alone the Palestinians, would not condone it. Even if you grant the Palestinians a right of self-determination, it doesn’t necessarily follow that it must be on 100% of the land. The land after all is Jewish land and not Palestinian land.
At least Mandel acknowledges:
-
“The fact is, Dayan is right that the current Palestinian leadership prefers the status quo, and are not making the effort needed to secure a deal. He’s also right that a Hamas takeover of all of the future state of Palestine would immediately nullify the peace deal, and anyone who thinks Hamas isn’t still dedicated to Israel’s destruction is not paying attention.”
Mandel’s suggestion:
-
“But it would be more constructive if Dayan made these critiques of Mideast policy as part of an effort to reform the current structure of the two-state solution in ways that might make it more workable, not less.”
Wrong suggestion. Why not abandon the pursuit of the two-state solution altogether and work from a different paradigm. First, resettle all the Arab refugees. Secondly, insist that all Palestinians in Jordan be fully enfranchised so that Jordan becomes the Palestinian state. Then invite all Palestinians to move there and get citizenship. Now that is a solution worth working toward.
Clearly the two-state solution is not doable.
@ NormanF: Its called “a poetic truth”. “Poetic truths like that are marvelous because no facts and no reason can ever penetrate. Supporters of Israel are up against a poetic truth. We keep hitting it with all the facts. We keep hitting it with obvious logic and reason. And we are so obvious and conspicuously right that we assume it is going to have an impact and it never does.” http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2586/palestinian-victimhood-narrative
“
Yes and no…
Gaza is already “free” Palestine and Judea and Samaria IS Israel…
NOT ONE SQUARE INCH from J+S for these morons !!!!!
Maybe it will finally come to the minds of all, that this is the solution !
‘The so called “palestinian people” were an invention of the Soviet Russian dezinformatsia, first appearing in 1964 in the preamble of the PLO charter drafted in Moscow and having no corroboration except for the first 422 members of the contemporaneously formed Palestinian Naional Council, each handpicked by the KGB. No wonder the left likes it.’
Exactly. Well said.
Mandel says Ayalon is wrong because 1. the two state solution is an accepted reality, and 2. The Palestinian People.
The so called “palestinian people” were an invention of the Soviet Russian dezinformatsia, first appearing in 1964 in the preamble of the PLO charter drafted in Moscow and having no corroboration except for the first 422 members of the contemporaneously formed Palestinian Naional Council, each handpicked by the KGB. No wonder the left likes it.
I don’t accept the two state solution. Abbas Zaki says it will lead to the collapse of Israel, and says that Mahmoud Abbas thinks so too, but advises other Arabs not to tell the West.
The two state sollution is in any event a temporary solution, that in the interim would lose much Christian and Jewish heritage, and in the long run would lose everything else. A large group of people met in Hebron recently to discuss the alternative. Here is a critical review of the two state temporary solution: http://israelagainstterror.blogspot.com/2012/03/remember-quraysh.html Also, it would be helpful to look at what Dr. Daniel Pipes has uncovered about Yassir Arafat and the treaty of Hudibyah, a two-tribe solution that went sour. http://www.danielpipes.org/316/al-hudaybiya-and-lessons-from-the-prophet-muhammads and
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/1999/09/arafat-and-the-treaty-of-hudaybiya-updates
The repeated subdivision of the jewish homeland is about keeping the Jews on edge, in danger and never becoming a global expansionist power. It would be nice to confound them all with a paradigm shift where Israel starts operating on behalf of increasing its benefits and interests. Rather than merely being defensive, and aggressive in defense, it would be nice to see an Israel that expands and seizes land and assets from its enemies. Definitely all of the neighbors can be said to be liable to damages that can be repaid in land. Israel can set up puppet govts in areas under control. A chunk of Syria within close range of Damascus in exchange for supporting the soviets in tartus. Lebanon up to the Litani and creating a christian haven for mid east christians. Trouble from egypt?? The Sinai and Suez canal and back to kilometers from Cairo. After that a demand for reparations from saudi arabia and seizing their oil fields through puppet “arab spring”(possibly even an agreement with Iran to carve up the area as was done in Europe). Oh, my heart skips a beat just thinking of the very plausible possibilities. We will have to wait for the demise of the shtetl submissive Jewish mind. Perhaps even a deal with the local “Palestinians” to form a new ruling class with the “Palestinians” in the various countries they now reside in. INstead of beggiing support from the other arabs Israel can give them support to become rulers over the arab mid east. Politics can make strange bedfellows and thinking creatively can bring new ideas.
Seth Mandel now the Assistant Editor of Commentary Magazine was in 2011 a
National Security Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. It is
my opinion that he did not learn much there. Since when does one rely on
“accepted realities” to defend Israel the only Democracy in the Middle East?
Much has been covered in the comments section of this article but really
Mr. Mandel – do more homework.
2 states solutions is doable: whole Israel including west bank of Jordan River and jordastine on the eastern bank .
@ bob:
Gaza will eventually have to be flattened and then we’ll return. Back to 2 we go!
@ Shy Guy:
The Geographical area Palestine that belonged to the Ottomans HAS NOW BEEN divided into:
32,000 sq miles for the PALESTINIAN ARABS Jordan
2,000 sq miles for the PALESTINIAN ARABS Gaza
9,000 sq miles for the JEWS Israel
That is already a 3 State solution
It is my opinion that those Jews who believe that the Palis deserve a state on the west side of the Jordan River are delusional, stupid and cowardly. They some how think that Jews will be safe from terrorist because we gave this territory to them. That being the case, when we ship out the Arabs, they can go with them. It would make my day.
The best solution for everyone is transfer of all Palis between the Med and the Jordan to anywhere besides Jordan. There is no good reason we should aid and help our enemies to become strong nationally,politically,militarily and economically. Dispersion of All Arabs as far from our borders as possible should be the sought after goal.
The Palestinian Arabs are blessed with sea access on the Gaza Coast. They could build an Arab Singapore.
They simply don’t want to. This is not surprising given that Palestinian Arab nationalism has no real attributes to it whatsoever.
They will never have a state.
The so-called “two state” solution is a leftist article of faith.
Its impervious to history, the facts and logic. No amount of Arab barbarism, corruption and incompetence will convince those who back the Arabs will convince them the Arabs are not ready for peace with Israel nor able to build a state.
Even the World Bank, which is not exactly a Zionist institution, wrote a Palestinian Arab state is not economically viable.
The Seth Mandels of the American Jewish Left and their Israeli counterparts are living in a dream world.
Much as I support all attempts to give all Palestinians the vote in Jordan and make Jordan the Palestinian state, I believe it is pragmatic to hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
The worst in this case would be a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Jordan, which would only add fuel to the fire of those who wish to take Judea and Samaria (and the whole of Israel) out of Jewish hands.
Whilst wishing Mudar Zahran and his “Jordan is Palestine” compatriots all the best, and wishing their enterprise G-d Speed, our priority should be to organize, in Israel and worldwide, a powerful and distinct lobby to press for the extension of Jewish sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria, anexing the territories to Israel as soon as possible.
We should not wait for a change of circumstances around us, we must be pro-active and explicitly make our aims and demands accepted by the Jewish community and Israel’s friends worldwide. If we are not for us, who will be? And if not now, when?
Sure it is: Israel & Jordan.
My, how loooowww the great thinkers at Commentary have sunk. I used to love that mag. Now it is a trifle above the New York Slimes.
Very disappointing.
“Is the two-state solution doable?”
No. (And I said it a lot more quickly than did Ted.) 🙂
@ James B – Canada:
Actually Israel still has direct access to the Red Sea, my error. But it had much safer access. Now it is a slim route sandwiched between Saudi and Egypt. But better than not having it!
@ steven l:
Yes sir.
Our self appointed Jewish elites too and those who are tacitly financing them, wish that this argument be or not be solved. As long as it keeps us in “moral turmoil”. Old York Times policy and the international media is to make Jews feel guilty for Israel’s victories in ’48, ’67 and ’73.
To get the upper hand, we cannot allow the left to ” frame the parameters of the debate ” be it the 2 state or 1 state final solution and the need for big government.
Arab muslims should not be allowed to live in or near Israel because their culture is medieval, racist, cruel where deception is seen as a good thing. Plus Israel won the day in 1967. To the victors go the booty. Cruel too but this has been the way of man for thousands of years. You can hold territory until you cannot. Until they learn to live with non muslim neighbours, their numbers must be controlled. Perhaps Israel can impose a fixed territorial charge per person and business – Jewish and non Jewish to cover the fixed costs of maintaining the living conditions of Samaria but not an income tax on muslims and Christians, depriving them of using the taxation without representation argument. Citizenship? absolutely not.
Another response is how can the world support a new country with no direct access to an ocean?. Just my theory, but very few nations having no access to an ocean, directly or via a river, are seemingly wealthy or can become wealthy if they wish ( USA, Canada, Germany, Holland, Korea, Japan, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Israel all have direct access). The exceptions being Switzerland and Austria. However, not having direct access most likely lead to the Swiss to having permissive bank laws to direct money to them and Austria, being the home of Hitler, not having direct access, being dependent on other countries for direct imports and exports and having to pay duties,,, one can make a case how that really pissed off the Austrian branch of the master race.
Japan would never have achieved its success if it had to depend on China or Korea for direct access. All BRIC nations have direct access. So do the PIIGS so my theory is not perfect.
In 1945, Russia took possession of a port that was in Finnish territory. Until this day, this has hurt the growth of their economy of Finland.
Poorest country or almost the poorest is Bolivia. No direct access to the Pacific or Atlantic. Colombia has access to both, hence one reason for its growing prosperity. The President of Chile goes to Israel and tells Bibi to cede land to the palies but Chile refuses to cede land to Bolivia. Their direct access route was lost in the war of the Pacific.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Pacific
The hypocritical weasel President of Chile refuses to even discuss any ceding of land of his country. Occupied territory of Bolivia by Chile??
The world cannot allow another poor country to be created. Not having direct access is one reason ( although not cited ) by the IMF for the continuing presence of poverty of the PA. Abbas just begged 100 billion $$ from Saudi but still in deficit by a lot more. Economic basket case which will lead to them having to redefine themselves a la Suisse, in very bad and dangerous terms for Israel and Jordan.
Terrible for Israel to have surrendered the Sinai and direct access to to the Red Sea.
SM smells dhimitude.
How long will the Jews out of fear accept to be divided and or fight each other?
What about the 850,000 Jews expelled from the Arab world and ignored by the international community!
The Int. community is more interested in keeping Jews divided.
Excellent response.