One State, Two States

By Ted Belman

JPOST published an editorial today which discussed the one state – two state dilemma.

It focussed on Bennett’s plan to annex area C and noted the support it had from various ministers.

First, annexation constitutes an Israeli rejection of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, a concept accepted by the entire world, including the US, Israel’s closest ally. Such outright, unprovoked rejection of the aspirations of the Palestinians would paint Israel as the bad guy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel would receive precious little in exchange for such a drastic demotion of its international status.

Israel is currently seen as the bad guy. The charges would move from decrying the “occupation” to decrying the annexation. That would be a good thing. To my mind, Israel would receive a great deal rather than “precious little” as they suggest. We would end the harmful peace process and regain our independence. We would also remove a security risk and gain much needed land for expansion.

Admittedly, annexation would clarify the maddeningly ambiguous legal status of Judea and Samaria. The same rule of law would apply on both sides of the Green Line. But annexation would create a whole slew of additional legal problems. Rightly or wrongly, annexation would be perceived as a blatant violation of international law, no matter how much we would try to convince the world that these disputed territories never belonged to Jordan nor to the Palestinians and cannot, therefore, be “occupied.”

I agree with all this.

Second, annexation of Area C, which constitutes 60 percent of the West Bank, would perpetuate the current untenable situation in which Palestinians live in isolated enclaves often separated from one another by security barriers.

It is the Arabs who are perpetuating the problem by their unwillingness to compromise or make painful concessions. The ball is in their court. They apparently ready to wait for ever. Israel is not. Our answer is not to give them what they want but to take what we want. They had their chance.

Already, Palestinians are faced with overcrowding. Many towns have illegally expanded into Area C to compensate for natural growth. Though Bennett claims there are only 70,000 Palestinians living in Area C, Palestinian estimates are double that number. All of these people would become the responsibility of Israel. Humanitarian projects, such as the construction of sewage treatment plants and the building of access roads to the new Palestinian city Rawabi, necessitate Palestinian use of land in Area C.

This may be so. Yes, Bennett’s estimate could be low and yes, we would become responsible for better infrastructure. But we don’t have to provide it overnight. Instead we would condition it on concessions by the Arabs and we would offer them money to leave. Thus we wouldn’t be turning our back on them. Also we could criticize the west for not allowing them to immigrate. That would change the focus of the debate.

Third, though annexation of Area C is motivated by a desire to grab a maximum amount of land with a minimum number of Palestinians, it would inevitably lead to a one-state solution, in which Israel would be forced to annex the entire West Bank. Americans, Europeans, and others would likely discontinue funding for the health, education, sanitation, and security that keep the Palestinian Authority operational. If it unilaterally annexed Area C, Israel would likely be pressured to take responsibility for the entire West Bank, including the Palestinians living there.

The West may try but Israel can say “no” to annexation of the rest. Or Israel could decide to annex it and offer citizenship along the lines of wWise/Glick’s Plan. That is better than the TSS with ’67 borders with swaps.

This would clearly represent a demographic threat, no matter how low the lowest Palestinian population estimate.

Not a demographic threat in the Knesset but like a demographic threat as in Europe.

The way I see it, we should do it i.e annex C. The worst that can happen is that the world will demand that we institute the Wise/Glick Plan which includes offering citizenship to qualified Arabs in a Jewish state.

May 19, 2014 | 2 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

2 Comments / 2 Comments

  1. Take 3 months or so to explain why we are intending to Annex Area C and our rights, (incorporate the Levy Report).

    After the three months act and annex Area C or minimally all the settlements as a first step, plus announce the building plans in E1.

    Yes people including the USA will get irritated, life will go on.

  2. “First, annexation constitutes an Israeli rejection of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, a concept accepted by the entire world, including the US, Israel’s closest ally. Such outright, unprovoked rejection of the aspirations of the Palestinians would paint Israel as the bad guy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

    That is why we must educate “the entire world” on our legal rights and on the forged Palestinian narrative that “the entire world” has swallowed whole, before we launch any annexation.

    Then, hopefully, the “entire world” may understand that not every group of people is entitled to the right of self-determination, especially when it concerns a land which has already been lawfully adjudicated to the Jewish people.