-------------------------------------------------------------

At a glance, I’m dubious.

In the end, it would mean many more Israeli Arabs, they’d demand “equal rights,” anything less would be called apartheid, they’d want to bring in relatives, to move from the West Bank to other parts of Israel, their birthrate would be higher than for the Jewish population undermining the Jewish character of the state over time …I’m not convinced this wouldn’t, in the end, be as perilous as the bi-national state approach.
---------------------------------------------------
Lori Lowenthal Marcus replies

I'm not surprised by [your] very reasonable initial response. However, I think the arguments he raises are the same ones that can be raised both about the current Muddle East configuration and any proposed two state solution that doesn't require ethnic transfer of all Arabs from the Jewish State.

Further, I have never understood how those who swallowed the demographic doomsday scenario could not see that it would apply, over time, to little bitty Israel unless, again, no Arabs are permitted to live there.

My slight spin on the plan as Mike and Ted have articulated it, is that in addition to the 'no terrorism' clauses, there must be a very, very stringent treason law, one that encompasses a definition of terrorism (which would obviously have to be included in the plan whether or not this suggestion is incorporated), and the punishment must be permanent exile (perhaps of the entire immediate family?).

Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see as one of the key points in the Plan that Israel remain a Jewish state. That concerns me. We should not be hiding from that point. A related concern is about the proposed embrace of a written constitution. It is likely you folks know the people at ICI and I don't, but I remember reading that they are intent upon having Israel be a secular state, and that would be written into the constitution. We obviously don't have to adopt the ICI plan, but I wonder what kind of pressure those proponents could/would bring to bear.
------------------------------------------------------------

But a two-state solution, in which Israel gets what it needs and has been promised – secure borders – would also presuppose Israeli retention of key parts of the West Bank, but also, perhaps, there would be some land swaps, particularly Israeli territory now inhabited largely by Arabs.

That does seem to me to offer benefits: a larger Jewish majority in an Israel that has defined and secure borders.

Under such circumstances, too, over time, the Arabs on the West Bank might well see that it’s in their interest to federate with Jordan.
-------------------------------------------------------
Ted Belman writes

The essential choice for Israel is whether she would prefer the fence as a defacto border with no more Arabs in Israel to contend with or the Jordan as a border with an additional 1.3 million Arabs to contend with.

In both cases there will not be an "end of conflict" agreement. Each has its risks for destablization. These are to be evaluated.

One person suggested that Israel will get defensible borders. I beg to differ. It seems to me that this requirement has been dropped from public discussion so much so that JCPA had to take a special initiative to keep it alive.

The current idea is that defensible borders are inherent in peace not territory. The Quartet is pushing for '67 borders with an exchange of territory and is not at all talking about defensible borders.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Two quick points for now:

1) I agree that secure, defensible borders for Israel are not now being discussed. But I would argue that means it has to be re-introduced into the discussion. Dore Gold has made this his priority.

2) Ultimately, I take the view that a decision on a policy like this must be made by Israelis. As an American, I don’t feel that I can or should do more than offer advice if asked (and I don’t know why they’d ask me). In the end, I think I have to support whatever policy Israelis adopt, whatever set of risks they prefer to assume.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Gerry Gordon writes to Ted Belman

I understand that this is a work in progress and reflects some of the comments of others.

When you have the rationale for the One State Plan worked out, that would greatly assist in the line of reasoning for the presentation. I would assume you would precise the contending alternatives and point out their deficiencies so that you can posit the One State Plan "solution."

The impediments section, tip toe around something that I developed in the way of comments on the earliest version; that is, the Israel has to make fundamental changes in its welfare system that provides negative incentives for fertility. I refer to the euro style family assistance grants system taken advantage of not only indigenous Arab populations, but also Haredi Jews. I was polite in my comments, but that simply has to be eliminated to provide a positive incentive for developing a population tractable for work skill education and country's economic development.

Fertility in developed countries dropped rapidly with urbanization, industrialization and the economic realization that children of farm families thus transformed were not producer durables as we say in economics.

The other elephant in the room is prodding Islamic adherents in the idealized Jewish state to reform from within. This is a very difficult problem when Koranic Islam doesn't recognize separation of mosque and state ergo political Islam in all its virulent manifestations including jihad ism. Israel if it professes adherence to western ideals of religious tolerance would be caught in a dilemma of its own making, if certain changes were not made as a minimum.
• Israel has to outlaw polygamy that Islam condones because the latter is antithetical to development of a modernizing economy.and its violates Israel's purported and our western values of equality of treatment of the sexes;
• Israel must bar Islamic sharia law as being in violation of whatever articles of human rights and religious tolerance provisions in the written Constitution that would perforce emerges under your proposed One State Plan.
• Israel's Education Ministry must approve all educational curricula in state-supervised institutions, including Cheredi yeshivot and Muslim Madrasses that purport to provide Muslim children with a general and religious education.
• All able bodied citizens as of age 18, regardless of sex and religion, would be subject to a universal mandatory term of national service-military or substitute.
If these appear to be draconian measures, then so be it. They are far less than , for example, the original Kemalist doctrines that suppressed Islam in modern Turkey, only unfortunately to have it re-emerge in the 21st century. Maintaining a Jewish character is one thing. being a theocracy is quite another.

This is my view only and I don't wish to impede your express purposes of developing a palpable alternative.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Ted Belman to Jerry

I totally agree with your comments. The challenge is enormous. It will take a committed and unified Israel to accomplish such a transformation.

There are really two challenges;

1. Can Israel find the will to do what is necessary to make the absorption of the Arabs work

2. Can Israel resist world pressure which may go beyond words to sanctions.
Ted Belman-
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Gordon writes

It's interesting as a provocative piece, but the risk/reward ratio is all wrong. First, it is based on the assumption that the Palestinians have been exaggerating their population in the West Bank, and that the real population is 40-50% below their claims. Well, what if they aren't as far off as you think? Don't you need an accurate measure of population before you can even propose such a thing? Do you have an accurate measure of the Arab population?

Since when does size matter (in countries, I mean)? Look at the productivity of Japan. Luxembourg has the highest per capita GDP in the world. What about Hong Kong? It is not the size of the country, but the quality and values of the people. By reducing the values and quality of the population of Israel, you have diminished your most important asset in exchange for territory. If territory were the stuff of success, Russia and Sudan would lead the world.

Don't give the Arabs what they want, because that will not satisfy them. Grab the main settlements and put them on the Israeli side of the barrier. But do not absorb any more Arabs into Israel. Israel will get creatures hard-wired for hatred and dependence, a lot different from the current Israeli Arabs.
--------------------------------------------------------
Those strike me as strong and rather persuasive points.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Ted Belman writes to Mike Wise

I have come to the conclusion that the one state solution as proposed by you is both not attainable and too risky a proposition. Al Gordon's remarks are telling.

I have no problem with finalizing the article and getting YNET and Jnewswire to publish it. But I think ultimately it will be a non-starter.

Rather I think our efforts should be to back a platform of no further withdrawal until a final agreement is reached how ever long it should take.

It seems that because of the recent poll even Kadima is going to take this position.

What do the rest of you think?
--------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Gordon writes

Al's comments come closest to my earliest ones on any solution. That is no further withdrawals, completing E-1 and not negotiating in advance of the March elections and Jordan being the de facto "Palestinian" state..

My comments to you this morning that dealt with the difficulty of "assimilating" an unassimilable Islamic minority whether "moderate" or more likely radical given what has occurred in both the west bank and the former Gaza territories doom absorption. look at Bat Ye'or's EUrabia.

Further, we have evidence of continuing and growing security violations in Gaza and will know soon enough if the January PLC elections are realized or pushed off still yet again. It is inevitable that Fatah and Hamas will be in a viper like struggle for control of what passes for governance in the PA.

----------------------------------------------------------
Yoram Ettinger to Al Gordon

1. Demography has never been a consideration for Zionist statesmen (from Founding Father Abraham up to Shamir, who is – so far - the last statesman heading Israel's gov't). Zionist statesmen were motivated – as have all statesmen throughout the globe – by a long term (eternal in the case of the Jewish People) vision and by faith. Statesmen do not allow tenuous predicament to derail their pursuit of vision/strategy. Statesmen draw national lines in accordance with history and security requirements, and not in accordance with demography. While history is permanent, demography is tenuous – are we to expect a change in Israel borders each time we find a substantial change in demography (due to wars, economy, drop of price of oil which has played a major role in Palestinian demography, etc.)?

2. Demography is controllable by human beings (economy, bureaucracy, changing child allowance regulations, enforcing law when it comes to Bedouin marriage with illegals from Gaza, Aliya, anti-Semitism, regime change in Moscow, etc.). On the other hand, the topography and the geography of the over towering eastern and western mountain ridges of Judea & Samaria (the Golan Heights of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Israel's Soft Belly; the best tank obstacle in the area and a dream platform of invasion into the slim coastal waistline) are fixed and absolutely non-controllable by human beings. Geo-strategically, no two Arab states could co-exist west of the Jordan River, and certainly no co-existence would be possible there between a Jewish state and an Arab state.

3. The determination that the conventionally-accepted number of Palestinians in Gaza, Judea and Samaria is inflated by 50%+ is a conservative finding of the demographic study, which is soon to be published (and has been scrutinized and approved by the American Enterprise Institute, which has posted it on its own website). Unlike the Prophets of Demographic Doom, our study is NOT based on projections, assessments and postulations. It is based on an audit of the conventionally-accepted number, which has been corroborated by Palestinian, Jordanian and Israeli sources. Expressing my own private opinion – as a member of the team which researched the findings of the study – the actual number (2.5MN and not 3.8MN) is probably lower. More important than the current number is the current demographic trend, which bodes well for a sustained Jewish majority (www.pademographics.com).

4. The size of the Jewish State is not the issue. The conflict with the Arabs has never been territorial. The conflict is not over the size of Israel; it is over the existence of the Jewish State. Unlike Luxembourg, Israel is surrounded by enemies, which wish to eradicate it, as evidenced by history and by the hate-education in EACH Arab country, including Jordan and Egypt.

5. Judea and Samaria have been irreplaceable as far as the existence of the Jewish State on historical and security grounds, especially during the era of modern weaponry and ballistic missiles.

6. The Land-For Peace formula has radicalized Arab expectations and has exacerbated terrorism (please see attached document).
-------------------------------------------------------
Bob W writes to Ted Belman

A proposed one-state solution is a direct challenge and confrontation with the Bush Administration.

The world's Jews have 3 enemy blocs: the Arab Muslims, the ADL, Conference Of Presidents, etc and those Westerners who were purchased by Arab petrodollars.

Nothing will occur until a small, but powerful national organization is launched to discredit the Rabbi Yoffies, et al., call for alternatives to Arabs ruling Bethlehem (a major theme of mine. The Christian Zionists have the infrastructure and resources to approach Congress; who else does?!) and get placed on record for diligent efforts to move from Arab oil to other fuels. There are potential allies out there in the marketplace. The American Petroleum Institute and ARAMCO will not support Jews regardless of what Jewish professors write in their professional journals.

America's visible Jews are aligned on the wrong side of the political battlefield. This AM I posted a comment at IsraPundit referencing Bella Abzug. She was the first to call for Nixon's impeachment. Middle America questions where Jews stand on matters. Nixon's junior appointees are now at senior levels. Push is coming to shove and Senator Schumer from NY does not enhance the safety of a Jewish Israel.
--------------------------------------------
Al Gordon writes to Yoram Ettinger

Let's just say the One-State solution (Mediterranean to the Jordan River) is viable for the reasons you suggested. How do you bring it about?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yoram to Al

Very(!) briefly (and in that order):

1. A traumatic and a swift (a shorter version of the Six Day War) destruction of the political, ideological/educational, financial and operational infrastructure of Palestinian terrorism, which has been led by the PA (which is the only way to derail the Oslo-Hebron-Wye-RoadMap-"Disengagement" suicidal process).

2. A major expansion of transportation, communications, electricity, water, sewage and community infrastructure in Judea and Samaria (including the Jordan Valley), with the aim of rapidly increasing the number of Jewish residents there.

Both milestones aim at signaling to the domestic and external fronts that the Jewish State has turned the clock forward to the pre-Oslo reality, resurrecting its 1948-1992 spirit and (following a 12 year very costly bend-backward-period) adopting the American norms of combating terrorism (no coexistence with terrorists, no ceasefire with terrorists, no defense but offensive on the terrorists own ground, focusing on the demolition of the political and ideological infrastructure). President G.W. Bush's Vice President Cheney's and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld speeches would be paraphrased – and shared with the US Congress and key target audiences in Washington, DC and throughout the US - in order to demonstrate Israel's adherence to American norms.

3. A complete(!) overhaul of Israel's political system, adopting most of the US political system (which is based, to a large extent on the Old Testament), especially when it comes to the bicameral Legislature, district/regional representation (which would lead Israel closer to a two-five party system) and citizenship and loyalty requirements. At this stage, Israel's regulations concerning citizenship and loyalty are more lenient than most European countries!

4. Once the three milestones would be achieved, a process of annexation would proceed.

5. The choice facing the Jewish State is a gradual suicidal process (which has been in place since Oslo) or survival by turning the clock forward to the pre-Oslo days. The odds facing the Jewish State today are significantly less horrific than the odds faced by Ben Gurion (when the Dep't of State, the Pentagon and the CIA pressured him to accept a UN Trusteeship), by Eshkol (when LBJ pressured him against pre-empting) and Begin (when Reagan pressured him against bombing Osiraq). Today's Israel is much more powerful militarily and economically, today's base of support in the post-9/11 USA is much more solid, and today's global atmosphere is substantially less hostile (when Americans are killed daily by Arab terrorists, when London is afflicted by Arab terrorism, when France is traumatized by Muslim riots and when Scandinavia, Holland and Belgium reassess their policy toward Muslim migrants and residents, etc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Lowenthal Marcus writes

So when the going gets tough everyone gets going? The arguments against the One State Plan are no more intractable than are the arguments for the Two State Plan. And it's time we started pushing back against the tide or we really will have a divided Jerusalem and indefensible - even for Israel - borders.

I'm disappointed that you are ready to fold because this is really hard. Do you think the Arab Palestinians and all the anti-Zionist Jews, etc. gave up because the creation of a Palestinian state was so far beyond the realm of being conceivable that the obstacles should have seemed insurmountable?

What, are you ashamed of having really smart pundits disagree with the concept and suggest that it's impossible? They may be right, but what if they're wrong? We're not a little government issuing policy, we're a bunch of pro-Israel thinkers trying to broaden the communal mindset.

All I can say is Thank G-d the Israelis didn't decide it was impossible when someone came up with some cockamamie plan to blow up Osirik.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Lerner writes to Ted Belman

Thanks for sending me a description of a gerrymandered one-state solution as an alternative to a Palestinian autonomy with Palestinian
self-determination continuing to be realized via participation in elections within the autonomy.

I am not going to speculate how a gerrymandered one-state solution would be received - Jordan does this in its parliament in order to try and reduce the weight of the Palestinians, for example.

But gerrymandering only works if the new Israeli citizens residing in
the Palestinian voting districts are not permitted to change their place of residence - a restriction that would not hold up in the Israeli courts. Add to this the rights of Israeli citizens to have their families join them under family reunification and the demography threat snowballs.

And speaking of Israeli courts - given the composition of our supreme court it would be a safe bet to expect that the gerrymandered district lines would be redrawn on a regular basis so that people get fair representation in the Knesset. Add to this the ever present possibility that political interests unite to change our rules once again so that we have direct elections for prime minister and .......?

A generation of Israeli leaders - including Rabin and Peres (even AFTER they started Oslo) were convinced that the best of the available solutions to Palestinian self-determination was autonomy.

They were right then - and the answer hasn't changed.

What has changed is our determination.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Belman writes

Aside from the questions of what it will take to accomplish it and how to organize it thereafter, Yoram highlights a very important issue.

How much does Israel want to keep Eretz Yisroel?

There is no question that Jews want to keep it but are inclined not to fight for it. This has a lot to do with the vilification they are constantly subject to and the array of forces, (UN, US, EU, Arabs, Leftists) they have to contend with. This includes the Left in Israel.

What Israel needs is a leader who can insire everyone to fight to keep what is rightfully theirs. With great leadership and a unified country, they will fight to keep it. Just give them a plan.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Al Gordon to Yoram Ettinger

Yoram, I absolutely love the fact that you are thinking big. Too many Israelis and supporters of Israel are satisfied with crumbs. That certainly is the case with the Canadian mainstream. So I find your assertiveness incredibly refreshing.

Do you think Israel could rule with the kind of iron fist that characterized Saddam Hussein or the House of Saud? Because the experience in most other Arab countries is that it takes that kind of brutality to maintain order among Muslims. Was is Saddam's rule that made the Iraqis what they are today? Or was Saddam's rule the only thing that would work with a Sunni/Shia population? In other words, which is cause and which is effect?

I can't help but believe that it will take that kind of oppressive government to maintain any order over the fanatical and parasitic population of the West Bank who have enjoyed billion of dollars in handouts from the West, and who have no sense of earning their keep.

The idea of saying to the Palestinians, "Sign this pledge of allegiance, or you're out of here" can be defeated by their mass refusal to do so, which would most certainly be the case. And then what? Throw them all out?

So before this was to go ahead, its executioners would need to have a viable plan for (1) mass refusal by the Palestinians to sign a pledge of allegiance, (2) massive upsurge in terrorism as thousands of Hamas, al-Aska and other savages are moving relatively freely within Israel, (3) Arab population turns out to be a lot closer to "official" number than expected, (4) huge increase in welfare, social assistance and security costs as a violent, dysfunctional culture is now Israel's responsibility, (5) Israelis can't stomach their government being forced to act like Saddam, and (6) the hundred other things that may not go according to plan.

Yeah, yeah, I'm being tactical and maybe missing the big picture. But in my experience of starting and running companies, the real strategy grows out of the tactics as much as the other way round.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Yoram to Al,

Israel did not rule with an iron fist until Oslo. In fact, Israel displayed restraint of an unprecedented proportion, while achieving a level of security and co-existence, which resembles a relative paradise, in comparison to today's relative hell.

Al, we're talking about the Mideast, where the only peace attainable (in a context of no inter-Arab comprehensive peace during the last 1,300 years!) would be a deterrence-driven peace, and where concessions and retreats have fueled violence.

The population in the West Bank has NEVER enjoyed billion of dollars from the West. They have benefited greatly from Israel during 1967-1993, with infant mortality and life expectancy rising dramatically (over some inner cities in the US!) and with standard of living and freedom of _expression expanding unprecedently.

Israel has a long way to go to reach the strict citizenship and loyalty regulations established by the US and most European countries. Citizenship and loyalty regulations are normative throughout Europe and certainly in the US, where minorities do not intend to destroy the host countries (although some may suggest that some Muslims have such an intention in mind). Such regulations are certainly required in a country like Israel, with a large minority, which constitutes a blood relative of enemies surrounding Israel. Those who would not comply with the regulations would be treated accordingly, as befits a democracy, which protects itself against anarchy and against enemies.

Terrorism was minimized before Oslo (when the virus of cut and run, "disengagements", appeasement, moral equivalence and apologies plagued Israel's hard disc) and maximized as a result of Oslo-Hebron-Wye-RoadMap-"Disengagement". Steadfastness – in the Mideast in particular and in the globe in general – has been a prescription for stability, which vacillation has been an incentive for further violence.

"Disengagement" from 85% of Gaza (1994) and from 40% of Judea and Samaria (1995-1998) tripled the number of security personnel in the Gaza area and tripled the cost of sustaining Israel's security there. Overall cost of controlling the whole of Gaza and Judea and Samaria was dramatically lower than the cost of the giveaway.

The track record of the last 12 years is very clear and resembles a combination of the Titanic and the Ship of Fools: A journey to suicide. A drastic change of course must take place; as drastic as the Oslo Process but in reverse, if the Jewish State wishes to stay alive in the worst neighborhood in the world.

Sovereignty entails the cost of engaging in unpleasant tasks such as policing and fighting. A fish which does not like the daily survival challenges in the sea may find the aquarium routine more pleasant. Jews spent too many years in aquariums, and paid a brutal price.
---------------------------------------------------------

Dr Fred Leder writes

Ted has very effectively outlined the dangers of the present two state solution and has projected a very likely outcome if a state of Palestine were implemented. Just look at Gaza if you need any more proof. I won't dwell on this option any longer.

The problem with any and all one state solutions is the fundamental world dynamic between Islam and the western democracies. The issue is not about how much land Israel holds, the issue is about Israel being there. There are enough books and references that I needn't cite them here that make the point that world-wide Islamic fascism is hell bent on the destruction of the west, let alone Israel. There are clear cultural and philosophical links between the international terrorist organizations, the terror states, e.g. Syria and Iran, and Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad who are arming for the destruction of Israel. So, I don't see any basis for a structured compromise like the one-state solution.

You couldn't even get the one-state solution off the ground because the Arabs have already said they will not accept a cantonized Bantustan in Judea and Samaria. So what we are doing here is engaging in an exercise in which we are negotiating with ourselves. With no input whatsoever from the Arabs we are deciding how much land and freedom and civil participation in Israeli affairs we are prepared to give them. When our best offer is not enough we will improve it. If, God forbid, they should take such and offer it will only be the starting point for additional dismemberment of Israel.

Let's dispatch the argument that the Jews have been 67% of the overall population since 1967. This only works if you can bring in a million Russians every so often. The influx of Russian Jews distorted the balance in favor of Jews. I don't see another million Jews coming in soon. On the other hand, the Arabs can bring in a few million folks to settle the Holy Land anytime they want to. Do you want to try to prevent that?

Which takes us back to the current Israeli situation. Labor wants to negotiate peace. There will be no negotiation because the Arabs won't seriously negotiate. They will make demands which the Laborites and peace-niks will try to accommodate. Then there will be more demands.

Sharon will declare the barrier as the border and withdraw from lands outside the barrier. This will make Washington very happy. Then the Arabs will demand land inside the barrier. Sharon will have accomplished nothing except to deny all Jewish claims to Judea and Samaria, outside the barrier, just as he did in Gaza.

This leave Likud who say when the Arabs stop terrorism and begin serious negotiation we will be here to talk. Since both side know this is never going to happen the situation is frozen in time, and I'm afraid this is the best we can do.

Some day when oil is not the first fuel of choice for developing and for modern economies, say in 50- 100 years, and when the western democracies have destroyed Islamic fascism, say in 50 years, there will be a chance for peace between Israel and its neighbors. Right now any talk of complex local arrangements is simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's of no real consequence.
-------------------------------------------------------------