Bolton: “two-state solution based on the PA is stillborn.”
By Ted Belman
Everyone is fisking The Three-State Option, the latest John Bolton article published by the Washington Post.
-
Let’s start by recognizing that trying to create a Palestinian Authority from the old PLO has failed and that any two-state solution based on the PA is stillborn.
So far so good but he goes on to argue
-
Instead, we should look to a “three-state” approach, where Gaza is returned to Egyptian control and the West Bank in some configuration reverts to Jordanian sovereignty. Among many anomalies, today’s conflict lies within the boundaries of three states nominally at peace. Having the two Arab states re-extend their prior political authority is an authentic way to extend the zone of peace and, more important, build on governments that are providing peace and stability in their own countries. “International observers” or the like cannot come close to what is necessary; we need real states with real security forces.
Atlas Shrugs is against the plan arguing that
-
I do not agree with Bolton’s three state solution - the only real solution is Israel keeps Israel’s land. Judea and Samaria is Jewish land. Period. Stop expelling Jews from Jewish land. It is the Arabs in Israel that must be expelled.
I agree.
Israel Matsav is also against a three state solution but for a different, but equally valid, reason.
-
Israel cannot give up its security based on the assumption of the stability of the Egyptian and Jordanian regimes.
That’s why I support the Jewish One-State Plan in which Israel annexes Judea and Samaria and works to induce the Arabs to leave.
Everyone skirts the only workable solution……Transfer, and I don’t mean the Jews.
A peace process cannot lead to peace. If history is any lesson, peace is only achieved after unconditional capitulation of one’s enemy.
A peace process is highly unusual. Every other nation destroyed whatever people happened to live on the land that nation chose to build a state.
A peace process is illegal. The original mandate for the Jewish state included Transjordan, but the British illegally cut it off. Then the UN further partitioned Israel to accommodate Palestinian Arabs.
A peace process is immoral. Palestinian Arabs don’t constitute a nation. Offering them a state is a plot against Jews.
A peace process doesn’t offer safety. Jews need a secure state - not a beach strip fourteen miles wide.
A peace process runs against Judaism and Jewish history. Jews are attached to the land which the conductors of the peace process give to Palestinians: Judea, Samaria, Hebron, Schem, and the Temple Mount. Coastal areas of the modern Israel are irrelevant to Jewish religion or history. Jews could just as well settle in Uganda or in Arizona.
A peace process is not for real. The Israeli government employs the peace process for the sole objective of destroying Jewish religious and nationalist opposition to its rule. Neither the security of the Jewish state, nor the fulfillment of Jewish objectives are the peace process’ goals.
A peace process is pointless. Israel can reach a settlement with the Palestinian government, but a sufficient number of Palestinian Arabs would always resent what they think is Jewish occupation of the land of their ancestors. A few thousand such Arabs would always be there, and will employ terrorist tactics to attack Israel.
A peace process fails to address the major issue of Israel’s Jewishness.
Comment by yamit82 — January 5, 2009 @ 9:47 am
I don’t agree with John Bolton here and I agree with both Pamela Geller and Carl Matzav. The truth is the Arab Street is not reconciled to Israel’s existence. Just the opposite. Israel cannot place its security in the hands of Arab regimes that may be swept away tomorrow. Israel made peace with the men who ran those regimes. It did not make peace with the people. That is why Oslo and anything along those lines is a dead end since it does not come to grips with the core issue: the refusal of the Arab/Muslim world to accept a Jewish State. Talking about anything else is a complete waste of time.
Comment by NormanF — January 5, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
OK, Bolton has just lost me. Jews stand alone, and the only “Friend” we have is our Father in heaven. Even the best of them, and Bolton is right up there at the top, haven’t a clue what this is all about.
Comment by yonaton — January 5, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
I like Bolton but I too think he is wrong here. He assumes that peace will prevail in those areas although the same problems/people remain. What would likely happen is the opposite. You are now introducing instability and rogues into those countries while dissolving borders that may help to keep distuctive elements contained. Furthermore, you comlicate Israeli response to acts of terrorism by having to confront Egypt and Jordon as the responsible parties. See where it leads? Bad Idea. Bolton needs to rethink that one.
Comment by RandyTexas — January 5, 2009 @ 5:39 pm