It can’t be dead because it never lived.

By Daniel Greenfield, FPM

“Is the two-state solution dead?”

The two-state solution, a perverse euphemism for carving an Islamic terror state out of the land of Israel and the living flesh of her people, is in trouble. The solution, which has solved nothing except the shortage of graves in Israel and Muslim terrorists in the Middle East, is the object of grave concern by the professionally concerned from Foggy Bottom to Fifth Avenue.

Obama set up his betrayal of Israel at the UN to “save” the two-state solution from Trump. The media warns that David Friedman, Trump’s pick for ambassador, is so pro-Israel that he’ll kill the “solution.”

But you can’t kill something that was never alive.

The two-state solution is a zombie. It can’t be dead because it never lived. It was a rotting shambling corpse of a diplomatic process. If you stood downwind of the proceedings, it looked alive.

Up close there was only blood and death.

Like the Holy Roman Empire, the two-state solution didn’t solve anything and it wasn’t in the business of creating two states. Not unless you count a Hamas state in Gaza and a Fatah state in the West Bank.

What problem was the two-state solution solving?

It wasn’t the problem of terrorism. Turning over land, weapons and power to a bunch of terrorists made for more terrorism. It’s no coincidence that Islamic terrorism worldwide shot up around the same time.

The consequences of giving terrorists their own country to play with were as predictable as taking a power drill to the bottom of a boat or running a toaster in a bubble bath. The least likely outcome of handing guns to homicidal sociopaths was peace. The most likely was murder. And that was as intended.

The problem that the two-state solution was solving was the existence of Israel; the Jewish Problem.

Spray the two-state solution over an irritating country full of Jews who managed to survive multiple Muslim genocides. Apply and wait for as long as it takes until the Jewish Problem is solved again.

The two-state solution didn’t end the violence. It turned it up to eleven. It didn’t even create a Palestinian state. But it did a moderately decent job of solving the Jewish Problem by killing Jews.

It killed thousands of them. It filled cemeteries, ethnically cleansed towns and villages, and brought war to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv for the first time in a generation. It turned terror from an aberration into a routine. It made death into a way of life for the Muslim population controlled by the terrorists and the Jewish population targeted by them. It endangered the existence of Israel for the first time since 1973.

The two-state solution isn’t dead. It is death.

The “solution” has turned children into orphans and left parents weeping at the graves of their daughters. It has sown hilltops with dragon’s teeth of rockets and sent cities fleeing to bomb shelters. It has ushered in an endless age of wars against terrorists who can’t be utterly defeated because that would destroy the two-state solution.

And it can’t get any better. Only worse.

Death is the only thing that the two-state solution has ever accomplished. That’s the only thing that it was meant to accomplish. It’s all that it will ever accomplish.

The two-state solution is a zombie. Its existence has no purpose except death. As long as it goes on moving, it will go on destroying. But, like a zombie, the two-state solution is weak. It’s a slow and shambling thing. It’s absurdly easy to escape it. The only way it can catch you is if you let it.

In the nineties, the two-state solution looked like a living thing. There were negotiations and big plans. There were ceremonies and Nobel prizes being handed out like party favors. There were equally big bombings and mangled body parts smeared along sidewalks and storefronts. But it was easier to listen to another round of peace songs and pay no attention to the ghastly carnage.

But by the oughts, the Muslim settler population in ’67 Israel, for whose benefit the two-state solution had been crafted, made the same “democratic” decision that the Egyptians and other Arab Spring countries would later make. They chose the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic law that demands that non-Muslims must surrender and be ruled by Muslims as before. Or be massacred and subjugated.

And then the zombie solution began to rot from the head.

The two-state solution was kept alive by pretending that Hamas had never won. An illegal takeover by Fatah, the “good” Islamic terrorists who were willing to pretend to negotiate in exchange for enough foreign aid from the United States, led to two Islamic terror states, one in Gaza and one in the West Bank. These states occasionally tried to form a united government, but couldn’t even get along with each other. Never mind getting along with Israel.

The two-state solution had become a ghoulish joke.

Some two-state solutionists urged embracing Hamas. A crazed collection of leftist activist “Rabbis” even signed a petition calling for outreach to the Muslim Brotherhood terror state despite a charter which called for exterminating all the Jews. Kerry aided a Code Pink mission to Hamas.

Most two-state solutionists decided to pretend that nothing had gone wrong. The zombie solution was in the best of health. Pay no attention to the stench of decay and the way it keeps trying to eat you.

They wanted to strengthen the “good” Islamic terror state in the West Bank to discredit the “bad” Islamic terror state in Gaza. Anyone who opposed the “good” terror state was accused of trying to kill the “two-state solution” which had already killed more people than the average natural disaster.

But then the “good” terror state stopped even pretending to negotiate.

Since the terrorists wouldn’t negotiate, Obama and Kerry just propped up the corpse of the two-state solution on their shoulders, Weekend at Bernie’s style, and tried to pretend it was still alive by negotiating with Israel on behalf of the terrorists without telling either Israel or the terrorists.

But the “good” terrorists rejected the unsolicited deal that Obama and Kerry got for them.

Obama and Kerry solved that problem the way that the solutionists had been solving it for decades. They blamed Israel. The insane logic of the two-state solution demanded it.

An Islamic terror state is the “solution” offered by the two-state solution. If you blame the terrorists, you undermine the credibility of the solution. If you admit the terrorists don’t even want to negotiate, you kill the two-state solution. And then how will you justify destroying Israel?

The great two-state solution began incrementally with an autonomous territory of disarmed terrorists. This fantasy led to a two-state solution of heavily armed terrorists inside Israel. The next stage is a one-state solution in which Israel will be forced to take in every single Muslim claiming to be a refugee.

And you can’t get from one stage to the next without blaming Israel when the previous stage fails. As it was always intended to. Each planned failure advances a more extreme incarnation of the “solution”.

All the way up to the final solution.

Each failure has to be blamed on Israel to justify an even more extreme solution. Each attack on Israel, like Obama’s UN treachery, is justified as a defense of the two-state solution. As long as the lie that the two-state solution is a pro-Israel policy lives, it can be weaponized as a pro-Israel attack on Israel.

In its terminal stage, the solution zombie will kill Israel and then die. Unless we kill it first.

The two-state solution hasn’t solved anything. It is the problem. And now it’s time to solve the problem of the two-state solution. Like the rest of the Jihad, the two-state solution is not a potent threat. It is a lie that we have become too weak to resist.

Lies die when we see them for what they are.

Like the old Monty Python bit, the two-state solution is a dead parrot. The shopkeepers of the press who keep trying to sell us its stiff unmoving body insist that the peace process is just pining for the Norwegian fjords of the Oslo peace accords. Feed it some more of Israel and it’ll fly back to life.

It’s never worked before, but there’s always an Nth time.

Lies are zombies. They are mimicries of the truth that feed off what we wish to be true.

The two-state solution is a parasite that thrives by feeding off our hopes and fears, our optimism on the one hand and our inability to imagine an alternative on the other. When we see the lie for what it is, when we turn our hopes and fears to sustaining what we truly care about, then it will fall.

Real solutions, such as Caroline Glick’s Israeli Solution, already exist.

The two-state solution however never existed. There will only be one state in Israel. The question is whether it will be a Jewish State or an Islamic terror state.

January 8, 2017 | 15 Comments »

Leave a Reply

15 Comments / 15 Comments

  1. @ honeybee:
    If you google it, it’s being reported but this one is in french which is a big handicap, since civilized people don’t speak french. If’n they can help it. Up until now. We may have to rename “Freedom Fries” french fries. Remains to be seen whether the frog may consider itself kissed. Certainly undercuts the jan. 15 “peace” conference (sans pals or Israelis) the french are dressing up for. Come Jan. 20, I’m looking forward to salad days ahead, in any case. Plus, as you say, citing anonymous legal scholars won’t cut it, even if they were right. And also letting the reader assume their view is unanimous, which it obviously isn’t unless we are to assume the judge, at a mininum isn’t a legal scholar. Nobody in particular. Just “legal scholars.” Reminds me of comedian David Steinberg’s bit, “The Coast” which I listened to on vinyl when it came out in the early ’70s. “There’s nothing left up there but the bullsh*t.”

  2. @ yamit82:
    TOI grudgingly acknowledges the inapplicability of Geneva while minimizing its importance but then says it has nothing to do with settlements which are the real issue. It omits to tell the reader that the court ruled that Israel is that legal sovereign and the PA/Hamas has no legal standing anyway, as it only applied to states and signatories, neither of which ever applied to them.

  3. yamit82 Said:

    Even if all Muslim countries conclude peace with Israel, we won’t be able to count on their good intentions but will have to maintain the army nonetheless. In practical terms, there is no difference between peace treaty and the absence thereof.

    exactly, so why not get the benefit of that great cost…. if Israel became a threatening aggressor they might get a different result. Israel could likely put the whole mideast oil supply into chaos….. other suppliers might be interested in investing in that scenario.

  4. yamit82 Said:

    srael is the legal occupier of the West Bank, said the Court of Appeal of Versailles

    I remember this… the court is recognizing though that Israel as a foreign occupation force has a right to build a tram… this does not confer soveriegnty
    Notice that most of the questions disqualify the PLO because they are not a state… which explains why the big push to become a “state” so as to be recognized by the ICC etc. I beleive that the ICC has already recognized the last faux state vote in the UNGA. Also, the ICC reserves to itself to try cases of non signatories. If the pals are recognized as a state then any forum of which both are signatories is available to them, and to Israel against them. Israel chose to observe the laws applying to occupation forces of the GC when it conquered YS which is why the courts refer to illegal settelements.. hence the need to reverse that and extend Israeli law at least to C. It can extend Israeli law to C and leave AB in the same current limbo of disputed territory.
    Once the syria/iran issue is resolved I beleive that the GCC with whom BB has “understandings” will revert back to their old stories.

  5. @ yamit82:

    I disagree with TOI conclusions based on anonymous “legal scholars”. Baker is only one and he authored the Oslo Agreements but lately has come around to supporting Israeli rights in Y&S. You have to divide opinions between legal and political. This decision is important because I think the first time the Palis challenged Israeli rights and lost.

    This is the first time a court legally dismantles Palestinian arguments to support that there is an illegal occupation.

  6. @ Sebastien Zorn:

    The plaintiffs relied heavily on Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions, which state that “Individual or mass forcible transfers… are prohibited, regardless of their motive… The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

    Israel never used force in persuading Jews to settle in the territories therefore there is no restriction in law from Israel providing housing and services to Jews filling a strong individual demand for those homes and services…. 4th Geneva convention does not apply. In fact the Palis have no political rights only civil rights under International law and under Jewish law as well.

  7. Subject: Fwd: Israël est l’occupant légal de la Cisjordanie, dit la Cour d’appel de Versailles

    Israel is the legal occupier of the West Bank, said the Court of Appeal of Versailles

    In a landmark case carefully hidden by the media, the 3rd Chamber of the Versailles Court of Appeal states that Israel is the legal occupier of the West Bank *.
    During a conflict between Veolia and Alstom to the Palestinian Authority, the Versailles Court of Appeal had to consider the rights of Palestinians and Israelis on the West Bank. Their conclusion: the Palestinians have no right -under international law – on the region, unlike Israel, which is legitimately entitled to occupy all the land.
    The context : In the 90s, Israel has made a tender for the construction of the tramway in Jerusalem. The tender was won by Veolia and Alstom French. The Tramway was commissioned in 2011 and Jerusalem crosses from side to side, to the east and the occupied territories (discussed further down this term). Following this, the PLO has filed complaint with the Tribunal deGrande Instance de Versailles against Alstom and Veolia, because according to her, the construction of the tramway is illegal since the UN, the EU, many NGOs and governments believe that Israel illegally occupies Palestinian territories.
    Search the text of international law to establish the rights of each To say whether the construction of the tramway was legal, the court was led to search the texts of international law, to consider international treaties to establish the respective rights of Palestinians and Israelis.
    To my knowledge, this is the first time an Israeli court was notrequired to rule in law on the status of West Bank settlements.
    Why it is a historical process: it is the first since the declaration of the state of Israel in 1948. This is the first time since the establishment of the State of Israel
    in 1948 that an independent court, not Israel, is required to consider the legal status of the territories under international law, beyond the statements of some and others.
    Understand that the Court’s conclusions have no effect in international law, they simply clarify the legal reality.
    The findings of the court of Versailles are also sounding the silence with which they were received in the media: Israel has real rights in the territories, its decision to build a tramway in the West Bank or anything else is legal, and judges have rejected all arguments right of the Palestinians.
    The Palestinian arguments The PLO denounced the deportation
    of the Palestinian population, destruction of property in
    violation of international regulations. Building on the Geneva Conventions and the Hague and the UN resolutions, it considers that the State of Israel has illegally occupied Palestinian territory and is pursuing an illegal Jewish
    settlement. The construction of the tram is itself illegal as well (1). The PLO added that the construction of the tramway led to the destruction of buildings and of Palestinian homes, virtually removing the 60 national vital for the Palestinians and their goods, and many expropriations equally illegal. Thus, several articles of the Regulations annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 have been violated (2). Finally, the PLO affirms that Israel violates the provisions on the “protection of cultural property” under Article 4 of the Hague Convention of 14 May 1954, Article 27 of the Regulation of the 1907 Hague Convention, the Article 5 of the Convention IX of the 1907 Hague Convention and Article 53 of additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions.

    The Court of Appeal of Versailles does not deny the occupation, but it destroyed one by one all Palestinian arguments. Taking the texts relied on by the PLO, the Court of Appeal considers that Israel has the right to ensure order and public life in the West Bank, so to build a tramway, infrastructure, buildings of dwelling.
    Article 43 of the 4th Convention of The Hague of 1907, précsie the Court, states that “the authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, the public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in thcountry. “The Israeli occupation does not violate any international law
    “The Palestinian Authority misinterprets the texts, they do not apply to the occupation” The Court explained that the PA misinterpreting the texts and they do not apply to the occupation: First, all international texts advanced by the PLO are acts signed between states and the obligations or prohibitions contained therein are addressed to states. Neither the Palestinian Authority nor the PLO being of States, none of these texts apply.
    Second, the Court said, these texts are required exclusively to those who have signed them, or the “contracting parties”. But neither the PLO nor the Palestinian Authority have not
    signed these texts. Propaganda is not international law
    A trifle irritated by the arguments, the Court ventured a precision and says the law “can not be based on the sole discretion of [the PLO] a political or social situation. ”
    Humanitarian law is not violated The PLO is mistaken text since the Hague Convention applies in case of bombing. And … “Jerusalem is not bombed.” The PLO alleges breach
    of humanitarian law contained in the Geneva Conventions and the Hague. But first, said the Court of Appeal, international conventions apply between state, and the PLO is not a state, “the International Court of Justice indicated that they [the conventions] contain that obligations on states, and that the right of individuals to rely on was not mentioned. “Then she says that only contracting parties are bound by international
    conventions, and neither the PLO nor the Palestinian Authority have not signed them. And concludes the court, the PLO is mistaken text, because the Hague Convention applies in case of bombing. And … “Jerusalem is not bombed.”
    The PLO and the Palestinians rejected
    The PLO can not invoke any of these internationalconventions, the court concluded.
    “These conventional international standards” do
    not give the “Palestinian people that the PLO indicates represent the right to invoke them before a court. ”
    The court therefore ordered the AFPS (Association France Palestine Solidarité) and the PLO to pay 30,000 euros to Alstom, 30,000 euros to Alstom Transport, and 30 000 euros for Veolia Transport. Neither the PLO nor the PA nor the AFD is not appealed in cassation, and the judgment became final.
    This is the first time a court legally dismantles Palestinian argumentsto support that there is an illegal occupation.
    © Jean-Patrick Grumberg for

    Dreuz is a French-speaking American site, christian, pro-Israeli neo-conservative, opposing extremes and racism

    (1) The PLO is based on Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention
    of 12 August 1949 which states that “the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies “, and Article 53, which states” it prohibits the occupying power from destroying real or personal property
    belonging individually or collectively to private persons, the state or to other public authorities and social, cooperative organizations except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations. ”
    (2) The PLO refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949:
    Article 23 (g), which prohibits “to
    destroy or seize the enemy’s property except where such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war”
    Article 27 that “in
    sieges and bombardments, all necessary steps must be taken to spare as far as possible buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, …”
    Article 46 which states that “private
    property can not be
    Judgment of the Court of Appeal:

    of la_cour_d_appel from Yohann
    * We have decided to use the term West Bank, settlements, the occupied
    territories, though not exact, to more accurately reflect the terms of the judgment.
    Dégoût pour ce que la France devient
    Je vis désormais à dix mille kilomètres de la France, dans une grande ville de l’Ouest américain. C’est un choix. J’ai eu un peu d’inquiétude en voyant qu’Hillary Clinton avait une chance d’être élue, mais mon inquiétude s’est vite dissipée.…

  8. The real choice is between crushing the opponent’s hopes and abandoning one’s own.

    Quest for peace is leftist invention. Nations historically cooperated and coexisted without peace treaties. In the sensible world, no one expected a treaty to hold if situation changes. Leftists seek Wilsonian eternal peace, guaranteed by paper treaties. That’s a typical leftists approach, that world’s complexities can be rationalized, studied, agreed upon, settled, and planned. Soviet communists expected the economy to confirm to their prescriptions; Israeli leftists imagine the Arabs will stick to the agreements.

    Even if all Muslim countries conclude peace with Israel, we won’t be able to count on their good intentions but will have to maintain the army nonetheless. In practical terms, there is no difference between peace treaty and the absence thereof.

    Why give Jewish land in return for elusive peace? Somehow peace has become the most prominent Israeli objective. If we want peace, better stay in New York. If we want a national state for the Jews, we could have founded it in Uganda without opposition. The only reason we settled in Palestine is religious.

    But won’t the world turn against the Jews if Israel becomes aggressive? As if the world has treated the humble Jews any differently for two millennia! As if the world really opposed Israeli expansion after 1967! Bloodshed and aggression are irrelevant to world opinion. World opinion has cared nothing about millions dead in countless conflicts. The world is against Israel for the same reason it always has been. The world thinks Jews are arrogantly different, powerful and weak. Weak Jews were politically powerful before; military powerful Israel lacks the will to fight and acts weakly now. Normalize Israel. Like any state, stop running after peace. Instead, be prepared for war, and your enemies will sue for peace. Be normal. Don’t be sorry that you are alive and winning.

  9. The Int. community prefers to perpetuate a lie rather than confront FACTS!
    The Pal, the ultimate WMD created by the West against Jews and to supposedly benefit the Muslims!

  10. Two-state solution was implemented in 1922 when British administration of occupied Israel allocated in violation of international treaty and agreements more than 77% of Israel territory to Arab Palestinian Muslims and created Transjordan (now Jordan), they expelled the Jews and confiscated their property and to this day do not allow Jews to live in Jordan or own property.. Therefore, all so called Arab “Palestinians” must be relocated there in compliance with the 1920 UN Resolution. The Arabs can also be sent to the homes and over 120,000 sq. km. the Arab countries confiscated when they expelled over a million Jewish families who were resettled in The Land of Israel It is enough stealing Israel Jewish land. Britain and Jordan must compensate Israel for stolen land, property and natural resources. Ref: Jewish legal rights to Judea and Samaria By prominent International Law specialist Ted Belman | 12/08/09 | 06:19 AM EDT |

    Has Abbas or his people ever lived up to their promises or agreements, the answer is no.
    What has changed, why Israel should trust them now? They teach their children hate, commit terror and violence and declare that they want to destroy Israel.
    A real peace will be an economic boost to all the people in the region. It will create an economy that the rest of the world would envy. In recent years Israel has discovered vast amounts of Natural Gas and Oil, the blackmail by the Arab Oil producing nations is diminished. The United States and many other countries are discovering and developing new sources of Natural Gas and Oil; it will enhance the Energy independence of those countries and boost economic development.
    YJ Draiman

  11. Great post. Explains why the zombie film “World War Z” is running non-stop on US cable, where the palestinians’s singing arouses so many zombies they scale all the walls, and destroy Jerusalem (but not the Temple Mount)