How many states should Arabs have?

June 11, 10:20 AMNY Israel Conflict ExaminerRichard Shulman

Previous Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the NY Israel Conflict Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Hillel Halkin declares: “No more peace plans!”  Israel offered great sacrifices to the Arabs, who demanded more, to doom Israel.  The half-million Jews in the Territories and eastern Jerusalem are too many to remove.  The removal of just  10,000 from Gaza and northern Samaria came at a massive human and financial cost, and led to war.  If the rest of the Jews were expelled, jihadists would take over and make worse war.  [News for Mr. Halkin: the Arab rulers of Judea-Samaria already are jihadist.  Fatah and Hamas share goals and means.]

Pres. Obama will waste efforts on diplomacy.  More people will suggest that since there can’t be separate states, make one state.  Under a bi-national state, the conflict would continue, but as a civil war.

Israel has no policy for the future of the Territories.  Israel deals with the present, while the Arabs put over their view unchallenged.  [Israel’s ruling class largely shares the Arab view, and is waiting for an opportune time to accede to it.]

Halkin thinks independence is due to the western Palestinian Arabs.  He doesn’t say why.  He once proposed, before there were many Jews in the Territories and terrorism was less organized there, that the Territories be made into a separate state whose citizens would be allowed to live and travel in the other state.  He knew that this arrangement would let terrorists and Arab workers flood into Israel and put Jews at mortal peril in the Arab state.  [How callous of him!]

Jews did move into the Territories, and Israel brought Arafat back, as if to organize terrorism.  Halkin dropped his plan, supported unilateral withdrawal, and voted for Ehud Olmert, who favors it.  But he is waiting for his old plan to ripen in people’s imagination  (Commentary, 6/09, p.30).

I have commented before that Halkin articles on this subject start out explaining why appeasement of the Arabs doesn’t work, and end presenting a dressed up policy of appeasement.  This article is another such example. 

His idea is too idealistic.  He ignores the source of Arab antagonism, an Islamic, imperialist ideology, whose reform he should be demanding.  If many years from now his idea were to ripen among the Arabs, they would make peace without needing his plan. 

Independence is not owed to the Palestinian Arabs in the Territories.  They are not a separate nationality, but part of the Arab nation.  Arabs have many states already.  There even is one in Palestine, called Jordan.  The Palestinian Arabs aren’t interested in independence, but in conquering the Jews.  Religious bigots, they have murdered thousands of Jews.  Their leaders have stolen or diverted to war most of their extensive foreign aid.  They could be considered the most undeserving group in the world.  After all, the Territories are the core part of the Jewish homeland, to which, under international law (the Palestine Mandate, that recognizes the Jews’ paramount historical and religious entitlement to it, and is endorsed by the UN Charter), the Jewish people have the best claim.       

To see why the “two-state solution” is a fraud, click here: