Is the ‘Two-State-Solution’ realistic?
Moshe Dann – FrontPageMagazine
“No,” insists Gen (ret) Giora Eiland, former head of Israel’s National Security Council. In a bold critique of current Israeli policy, Eiland said that negotiations to achieve a Declaration of Principles based on the “two-state-solution” plan could not work. “The concept is wrong.”
These views seem to be shared by most Israeli military and security experts not serving in the government or IDF and many who are, but can’t speak out. Yet, no major media will cover the story.
Eiland, one of Israel’s top strategic and intelligence advisors, was responsible for implementing Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. Today, however, he readily admits that it was a mistake.
Despite warnings at the time from the entire military and intelligence community, then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon went ahead with the destruction of 21 Jewish communities in the Gaza Strip, and total withdrawal, including the critical border area with Egypt – a narrow strip called the Philadelphia Corridor riddled with smugglers tunnels. The vacuum was filled by the Iranian-backed terrorist organization, Hamas.
The decision to end Israel’s presence in the Gaza Strip, Eiland said, was made by Sharon’s political advisors, but would not identify them. “And we keep making the same mistakes,” he noted.
A “shelf-agreement” now under discussion by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President Mohammed Abbas would also fail, Eiland indicated, for the following reasons:
-
(1) There’s no trust. The PA has done nothing to stop incitement and terrorism, despite a near-freeze in settlement building. The PA sees any expansion of settlements as an indication that Israel will not withdraw from those areas.
(2) Neither government can make fundamental compromises and survive. Israel cannot withdraw to the Armistice lines of 1949 (as the PA demands); the Palestinians refuse to give up the ‘Right of Return’ of millions of “Palestinian refugees” to Israel.
(3) Hamas, who controls Gaza and are likely to extend their hegemony to the West Bank if Israel withdraws, will undermine any agreement signed by the PA.
“The concept of a two-state-solution, with an independent Palestinian state is naïve,” Eiland stated. “It’s not about details; those have been well-known since the negotiations during Clinton’s presidency. The problem is that it’s impossible to guarantee what will happen if the PA violates the agreements.”
The obsession with the “two-state-solution” in its current form, moreover, prevents the emergence of any other option. “There are other possibilities, but they aren’t being considered,” Eiland suggested. “For example, Jordan and Egypt could be involved.”
“Two-thirds of Jordan’s population considers themselves Palestinian,” Eiland elaborated. “Jordan would be the logical partner in any solution, especially because a Hamas dominated state would present a direct threat to its existence.”
“Similarly, Egypt does not want a terrorist-run state on its border, since it would probably ally with the radical Moslem Brotherhood, a terrorist group in Egypt.”
“A Palestinian state, as envisioned is not viable or stable economically, politically, or militarily. It will, inevitably, become radicalized, dominated by the most powerful groups.”
“Most important, the Palestinians don’t want a ‘two-state solution.’ They rejected it in 1947/48, again in 1967, in 2000 and today. They prefer to be seen as ‘victims,’ and seek revenge. Given the choice between no Palestinian state and no Israel, on one hand, and being divided among neighboring Arabs states, on the other, 80% would choose the latter.”
“As long as Israel exists and refuses to agree to the ‘Palestinian Right of Return’ no solution is possible.”
“There is no basis for the illusion of a ‘two-state solution’ as now being presented,” Eiland concluded. “The Arab world isn’t interested in resolving the conflict, and the risks Israel faces in this scenario are too great.”
“We need to think more creatively, and be open to more options, especially a regional approach.”
The author, a former asst professor of History, is a writer and journalist living in Jerusalem.
Eiland is a smart guy but is part of the problem and not part of our solution. He Held Key positions in IDF and afterward but we never saw any dissension while in uniform and when he held the post of our equiv. of national security council. He went along with Sharon didn’t quit his post in protest waited till out of uniform and 2 years as security adviser to voice opposition to disengagement plans and the aftermath results.
He was a classic yes man seeking advancement so he went along didn’t get the post he was after now he is a vocal critic.He is right in defining the problem but wrong as to solution. population exchange is the only workable solution. We took in ours and resettled them now its their turn. Move them out or kill them are the only to options.
I think if we’re all honest we’ve known a two state solution is unworkable from the beginning. The way I see it, trying to impose a Western perspective solution on the problem of the Palestinians is a costly and dangerous mistake – the Palestinian two state solution is at total variance with Israel’s. However as usual because of a woefully inept government, Israel’s allowed wacko Bush and his gang of miscreants to force the terms on her. There have been plenty of opportunities to turn things around but ineptitude (the bye-word for Olmert’s government) has lead to indecisiveness and in the end paralysis.
It’s so difficult for those of us sitting outside Israel, seeing things clearly, to stand by and watch, and all we can do is cringe. After the Lebanon debacle, when it seemed so obvious the only way was to hit Hizbullah and hit it hard, we watched in horror as the IDF went in, came out, went in, came out (like in the song “shake it all about”), and wasn’t allowed to inflict the maximum damage on Hizbullah once and for all.
The only way forward in my opinion is in fact a population exchange (I agree with Yamit82) and failing this destroy Hamas and if necessary Fatah once and for all. However, knowing the “facts on the ground” and the kind of government Israel has – it’s hard not to believe that this, too, will come too late.
Yamit82 you sound such an absolutely militant kind of guy
But please tell who is going to do this, and when?
You really are so full of bullshit. And yet you get aweay with it time and again on this site.
So then what is your practice, what are you doing and propose to do to bring about this entirely necessary state of affairs, that is move out of Israel any whether Arab Jewish or other who are oppsoed to the existence of Israel.
If you cannot provide a programme you are as I said full of bullshit, aka hot air.
.
As Sharon introduced and moved towards disengagement from Gaza a debate raged as to the wisdom of such move. After disengagement the critics of disengagement who predicted dire consequences, were proven correct.
Reason and logic scream out that disengagement from the West Bank to hand the Palestinians the land with which to make their own independent state, will not bring peace.
Reason and logic are however in short supply, not only with the Palestinian/Arab mindset, but with the West that continues to push for a Road Map two state solution and that sadly includes the Olmert’s government and still a large number of Israelis.
Regardless whether Gen (ret) Giora Eiland supported disengagement at the time, he has come to see disengagement failed to bring about the hoped for change in the Palestinians and the consequential hoped for change in Israeli – Palestinian relations that would usher in peace to the region.
There are those who see Israel’s best, if not only chance for peace and security is bound up in abandoning any Road Map type solutions and instead having Israel annex and take over at least the West Bank and perhaps Gaza later with a population transfer of all Palestinians within those areas to other nations, with Jordan, already a Palestinian state, being the logical first choice.
Though it seems most logical that such option holds the greatest promise for peace, no Western and Israeli leaders are prepared to even consider such option, at least not in public for fear of enraging an already enraged Palestinian society and a Muslim Middle East and thus setting off an all out war.
In terms of the direction of Eiland’s thinking, I have been variously addressing that matter for at least a few years, the last time in my comment # 16 at: http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=1086#comments
The obvious problem with the end game option of Israeli annexation of the West Bank and possibly Gaza with a concurrent transfer out of the Palestinians there, is that no Western leader, including Olmert is prepared to even look in that direction, let alone take a first step towards it.
The first task for those who do see such end game option as the only option that will bring peace and security to Israel, is to find a way to get Western leaders and Israel to just cast their eye in that direction and to begin to openly consider it.
Felix why is it Bullshit to have an opinion and state it publicly? Now If I say to you that our God will devise the mechanism and the catalysts for the final purging of the Land of Israel of the hated Ishmaelites , you being an atheist who only give credence to class revolution and deny historical imperatives would say that my opinion here is also bullshit. I say to you Felix your ideas have been discredited in the minds of 99.9% of the people of the world. My ideas in some form have at least half the world accepting of them and the other half respectful of them Your ideas today are dead in the water and could not transcend more than a hundred years. So who is Bullshit. Are you going to lead you class struggle workers revolution? Do you have a plan to create a workers class struggle and revolution? Will you Lead or be active with or in such a movement and if yes how and if no don’t throw stones at others. As Stalin was quoted as saying of the threat of PAPAL CONDEMNATION_ How many legions does he have? Felix how many legions do you have?
Bill once we overcome the western humanist concepts we will have then a national consensus to remove one way or another the Arabs from whatever part of the Land of Israel we control. It will probably happen when the people Of Israel have had enough of them due to their act of terrorism and barbarism and no other option will exist except capitulation and suicide on a national scale. We will react as usual and not be proactive but in either case it will happen as the choices will have been taken off the table of options. Most Israelis know intuitively what need to be done it must find some politically correct expression and some leadership to enact. Tall order and none yet in sight but there is always tomorrow and the next day for someone to step up.
Pingback: Israpundit » Blog Archive » Willful blindness