The Worst Alternative

abbas_obama_400Originally published by the Jerusalem Post

PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas must have gotten a kick out of it on Monday when he visited the White House and President Barack Obama praised him as “somebody who has consistently renounced violence, has consistently sought a diplomatic and peaceful solution that allows for two states, side by side, in peace and security.”

After all, the same day the men met, Abbas’s regime continued its week-long celebration of the deadliest Palestinian terrorist attack on Israel to date.

On March 11, 1978, PLO terrorists commandeered a passenger bus on the coastal highway and massacred 37 people, including 12 children.

Dalal Mughrabi, a female terrorist, led the raid. Ever since, she has been lionized by the PLO.

While he met with Obama, Abbas’s adviser Sultan Abu al-Einein proclaimed that Mughrabi was the ultimate role model for Palestinian women.

In Einein’s words, (reported by Palestinian Media Watch), “In March, [we mark] Palestinian Women’s Day, in March, Palestinian Mother’s Day also occurs, in March… [we remember Dalal Mughrabi] who would not agree to anything other than to establish her state between Jaffa and Lebanon in her special way.”

Einein urged Palestinian youth to follow Mughrabi’s example of mass murder. “Let the young people hear me: Allah, honor us with Martyrdom, Allah, give us the honor of being part of the procession of Martyrs.”

The Israeli Right didn’t need the Mughrabi festival to understand that Obama’s claim that Abbas wants peace is ridiculous. As Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon explained last Saturday, Abbas is “a partner for taking, not for giving.”

Israeli Leftists, who have slavishly championed Abbas, are finally catching on. Last month, in an op-ed in Haaretz, long-time PLO champion Shlomo Avineri acknowledged the dynamic at work in the two-state policy model and how Abbas uses it to Israel’s disadvantage.

Avineri wrote that it is not that Abbas “is no partner for talks, but that he is an excellent partner for talks — as long as they are talks designed to lead Israel to make more and more concessions, and to put them in writing. Then, on one pretext or another, he is unwilling to sign and brings the negotiations to a halt, so they can be restarted in the future ‘where they left off’: with all the previous Israeli concessions included, and no concessions having been put forward by the Palestinian side.”

In other words, Abbas negotiates not to achieve peace, but to weaken Israel.

But the Americans remain oblivious to all of this. And by now it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Obama’s ignorance of the nature of Abbas’s game is deliberate. His apparently deliberate blindness to the obvious indicates that Obama doesn’t have a problem with Abbas’s behavior and goals.

The lesson from Abbas’s real game and Obama’s apparent support for it is that the status quo is devastating for Israel.

For the past 20 years, Israel has confined itself to a paradigm of two-states. Under this model, since 1994 it has shared control over Judea and Samaria with the PLO.

As statements like Ya’alon’s and Avineri’s make clear, their experience with this model has shown Israelis across the political spectrum that the Palestinians’ primary goal is not to build a Palestinian state. It is today what it has always been: the eradication of the Jewish state.

For the Palestinians, the two-state strategy isn’t about receiving land from Israel in exchange for peace. The two-state strategy is about undermining Israel’s relations with the US and other Western allies and weakening Israeli society’s resolve to defend itself while the PLO builds its terrorist infrastructure for use when deemed appropriate.

Abbas’s unique contribution to this strategy is that he places economic, diplomatic and legal attacks on Israel rather than terrorism at the forefront.

Not that he opposes terrorism. Just like his predecessors, Abbas believes that all means for achieving Israel’s destruction are legitimate. And Israel cannot help but assist him.

Due to Israel’s continued acceptance of the two-state policy model it continues to share control over Judea and Samaria with the PLO. This joint control encourages acceptance of the PLO’s propaganda claim that Israel is a foreign occupier of the areas, and that they rightfully belong to the Palestinians who are dominated by an illegal Israeli occupation.

Israel’s continued abidance by this paradigm makes it impossible for its representatives to defend the country against PLO challenges to its legitimacy. Hence most Israelis assume, rightly, that Israel is powerless to defend itself from the PLO’s political warfare at places like the UN and the International Court of Justice.

The only way that Israel can defend itself against these PLO abuses, the only way it can stop the PLO from continuing to undermine its alliances with the US and friendly parts of Europe, is by ending its embrace of the status quo. So, too, the only way Israel can stop the PLO’s expansion of its security forces into a full-fledged military force, armed and trained by the US and Europe, is by abandoning shared control and ditching the two-state model.

In my new book, The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, I advocate for Israel to end the current situation, which erodes its ability to survive, by applying its laws to Judea and Samaria and providing the Palestinians who live there with permanent residency status and the right to apply for Israeli citizenship.

Obviously, I recognize and discuss at length the challenges this policy will present. And I also explain, at length, why the dangers inherent to this clearly imperfect policy are smaller than those Israel faces from the status quo.

Critics of my policy like Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin have dismissed my policy as “fantasy” and insist that the best option for Israel is the status quo of shared control over the areas with the PLO.

Among other things, Tobin and others insist that since there is no support for the option of Israel applying its laws to Judea and Samaria in the US today, the plan should be ignored.

But it is far from clear why this is the case. A better plan is to build support for this option in the US and in Europe as the only viable alternative to the two-state paradigm which has failed for 90 years and will continue to fail for the foreseeable future because the Palestinians reject the Jews’ right to self-determination.

Like the rest of the world, today, due to its abidance by the two-state formula, Israel’s default position is that it is the occupier of its own historic homeland without which its borders are indefensible and its existence is incomprehensible.

The only way for Israel to defend itself competently in the international arena is for its default position to rest on Israel’s historic and legal rights to the areas – that is, to stop accepting that these areas, to which Israel has a stronger legal claim that the Palestinians, belong to the Palestinians and begin asserting Israel’s positive case for sovereignty.

Other critics of the Israeli one-state plan like Hillel Halkin argue that if Israel applies its laws to the areas, all of the Palestinians will immediately apply for Israeli citizenship and vote in Knesset elections.

The problem with this argument is that it assumes that Israel’s experience with implementing the one-state policy – in unified Jerusalem in 1967 and in the Golan Heights in 1981 – is irrelevant.

This assumption is hard to understand.

As I show in my book, Jerusalem’s Arabs only applied for Israeli citizenship when they feared that Israel would surrender their neighborhoods to the PLO. And the Golan Heights Druse only began applying for Israeli citizenship in significant numbers after the Syrian civil war broke out.

Since an Israeli decision to apply its laws to Judea and Samaria is a clear statement that Israel has no intention of leaving, history indicates that there is no reason to assume that the Palestinians will apply for Israeli citizenship en masse.

Another criticism is that it is too late in the game for Israel to end PLO rule in Judea and Samaria. The cat is out of the bag, so to speak.

There are two problems with this contention.

First, it assumes that Israel must agree to remain confined to a policy model that undermines its ability to survive and damns it to an eternal erosion of its national resolve and relations with the rest of the free world while building the military capabilities of an enemy dedicated to its destruction.

The second problem is that it assumes that applying Israeli civil law to the areas involves reverting to the past.

But the Israeli one-state plan is not a reversion to the military government. It is a progression to the rule of civil law, under which the Palestinians and the Israelis in the areas will be governed as the rest of the citizens of Israel are governed, under a liberal legal code which provides full legal protections to all.

Critics extrapolate from Israel’s current diplomatic helplessness under the weight of the twostate paradigm that Israel will necessarily and forever be incapable of defending itself. And so they assume that Israel will be powerless to offset the economic devastation of European economic sanctions that they believe will necessarily follow an Israeli decision to apply its laws to Judea and Samaria.

This claim ignores three important issues. Its proponents assume the US will back a European trade war against Israel. Is this really the most likely scenario? Second, they ignore the fact that Europe initiated its economic war against Israel now, as Israel maintains its allegiance to the two-state paradigm.

Obviously maintaining this faith isn’t getting Israel to a better place.

By changing its default position to one based on asserting Israel’s rights rather than ignoring them, Israel will have the capacity to defend against Europe’s political and economic warfare.

Finally, they assume that Israel has no ability to withstand a European economic war. But this assessment ignores Israel’s burgeoning trade with Asia. China is building a rail link between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean through Israel as an alternative to the Suez Canal. Israel is India’s largest military supplier. Israel’s energy independence and emergence as a major exporter of natural gas similarly decreases its reliance on European markets.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, the Israeli one-state plan is the worst possible plan for managing the Palestinian and pan-Arab conflict with Israel, except for every other plan that has been tried from time to time. It presents Israel with considerable threats and challenges. But on balance, as I show in my book, these threats are less acute and less dangerous than the ones Israel now faces. Moreover, the Israeli one-state plan is a viable prospect, which similarly distinguishes it from all the other ideas on offer.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • PAthena

    President Barack Obama is anti-Israel, a true member of the church of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, anti-semitic as well as anti-white. Obama has snubbed Prime Minister Netanyahu, while he embraces Abba of the PLO. He objects to Israel’s plan to destroy the nuclear weapons facilities which Iran is building, with the explicit aim of destroying Israel.
    Arabs are miscalled “Palestinians.” The name “Palestina” was given to Judea by the Roman Emperor Hadrian in 135 A.D., after he had defeated the last Jewish rebellion under Bar Kochba. He wanted to eradicate all memory of Judea and outlawed Judaism. “Palestine” then was synonymous with “land of the Jews” and “Palestinian” with “Jew.” After World War I, Great Britain was given “the Palestine Mandate” to be “the homeland of the Jews.”
    Calling Arab enemies of Israel “Palestinian” is the consequence of Soviet propaganda. In 1964 in Cairo, Gamal Nasser, ruler of Egypt, and the Soviet Union founded the “Palestine Liberation Organization,” (P.L.O.) whose name shows its Soviet origin. It came to fame when it massacred the Israeli athletes at the Olympic Games in Munich in 1972, the consequence of which was that the Arab enemies of Israel got the name “Palestinian.” These Arabs deserve nothing, and there are plenty of Arab states, with no Jews, since they were expelled in 1948.

  • lipper

    “The Americans” are not “oblivious” to Abbas’ true nature. They are not stupid. The Administration and many citizens (greater than 50%) share a deep enmity for Jews and Israel and always have. Israel must diversify its alliances or face dire consequences. The Russians and the Chinese realize that Israel and Jewish brains are an asset and are not necessarily enemies of Israel.

    • republicc

      Yes, the administration is anti Jewish, but the American people are true friends of Israel and the Jewish people. But yes, Israel does require diversification of its economic trade. But as Caroline points out, a European boycott would be hardly effective over what they are doing now. And Israel has been diversifying. Caroline gives numerous examples. e.g. Israel is India’s largest arms supplier, China is building a high speed rail line between Eilat and Haifa as a bypass to the Suez Canal. You need to read her book to get the facts.

  • dartson

    There are many reasons to assume that the Palestinians will apply for Israeli citizenship en mass. It will provide them with all the social benefits that the Israeli citizens enjoy, the access to modern medical facilities and a healthcare system, the right to vote in the local and general elections, thus, radically changing the balance of power in Israel. Why would they choose the permanent resident status if they have an option to become citizens of Israel? But even if only 50 percent decide to apply for the citizenship, it will drastically change the demographic balance in Israel with all its negative implications for the Jewish population. Is this alternative really viable in the long range? I am skeptical about that.

    • republicc

      First of all, everything you describe will be available to them with permanent residency status. The only thing that will not be available will be the right to vote in the national elections. Second, in the past the Arabs rejected citizenship, since it meant acceding to the fact that all of Israel is the Jewish state. In time, especially where they were afraid Israel was going to cede their land to the PA, they started to apply for Citizenship. Remember, citizenship is not automatic. If you were a terrorist etc you can only gain permanent residency. Third, even if all of the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria become citizens that will only add less than 15% to the Arab minority in Israel. Considering the Jewish accelerating birthrate plus net immigration and longer life expectancy, versus the decelerating Arab birthrate plus net emigration, expert demographers (not politicians) predict that the Jewish population will return to the present 80% within a reasonable amount of time.

      You need to read her fact filled book. It is an eye opener.

  • Drakken

    Caroline, sorry but you cannot allow enemy muslims inside your borders period, if you thought they were bad outside your borders, just wait until they are inside them. Get it through your head that the muslims want you dead and they don’t care how they do it. If you want peace, your going to have to get rid of the muslims outside your borders, that is all of the West bank, and give Gaza and the savages living there a taste of Carthage, anything else is weakness and the savages know it, so time for you Jews to get hard. No more idiotic Cast Lead fiascos, start killing the savages and breaking things.

    • republicc

      Caroline does not include Gaza in her one state plan. As she points out, Israel has probably ceded Gaza under international law. Judea and Samaria are not outside the borders of Israel, they are within Israel’s borders. Actually, they would be less dangerous once the PLO loses their hegemony over the population. For the most part Israeli Arabs are peaceful citizens of Israel. Yes, initially there will be problems, but nothing like what is awaiting Israel right now. And yes, initially the world will make a lot of noise, but in time it will abate to better than what it was before Oslo.

      You need to read her fact filled book. It is an eye opener.

      • Drakken

        I understand demographics quite well thank you and your peace in our time with Islamic savages is a no brainer. It will not work period. As for that rats nest of Islamic savages in Gaza, killem all and let allah sortem out. If your too squeamish to get the job done, find some one else who will. The bottom line is so simple that a window licker can understand it, there is no peace with islam and its adherents period, so you have two choices, let them continue to wage jihad and kill you, or you kill them to the last man.

  • martin


    Will the Palestinian leadership accept Israel as a legitimate neighbor, in the way Israel has defined itself since its Declaration of Independence, as a state for the Jewish people, with equal rights for all inhabitants without reference to race, religious, or sex. The failure of the Palestinian leadership to accept
    Netanyahu’s formulation–on Israel’s books since 1948–should tell us that Palestine is not ready for elevation to a state, with anything like the rights and powers of other states claiming sovereignty.

    The failure of the Palestinian leadership to accept Netanyahu’s formulation–Israel as a Jewish State, or a state for Jewish people, whatever, — can be made even simpler

    Let’s say Netanyahu’s proposal would be that the Arabs accept Israel
    as a state — simply as a state, period! No qualifier. Jewish or not. No big deal, right? After all this time, all the wars, all the anger, hate, frustration, why not?

    The Arab’s answer will still be NO! Because their answer has to be NO! A categorical imperative “NO”! After all this time why is it so difficult for anyone to understand why it has to be that way. It is no secret to the Arabs; why is it a secret to the Israelis, the International community, or any intelligent rational person? To the Arab mind, he is being quite reasonable and matter-of fact in his position.

    The Arabs have come to regret selling as much land as they did to the Jews and now it’s too late; they cannot reverse the tide to their misfortune. To their mind Israel has demographically polluted the Middle East. They have
    tried war, many times, and will not and cannot and refuse to believe that they
    have lost. Why is that going over everyone’s head? Because the problem with Israel and the Western oriented nations is they think of international negotiations between democratic nations as the way to resolve conflicts with the formal signing of documents and mutual treaties. The Arabs, when not preoccupied with concern over their neighbor’s military intentions and territorial disputes, are thinking of their history, their culture, their religious conflicts and ethnic identities . Israel cannot be seen anywhere in the Middle East in their minds.

    But if everyone will came to their senses, and think like an Arab, then suddenly the AH experience and as a consequence of facing reality everyone will finally understand why it is no wonder the Arabs are not flexible to compromise, no wonder Israel patiently copes futilely, no wonder the conflict seems unsolvable, no wonder why terrorism cannot be abated, no wonder why Israel feel threatened. No wonder no “Peace”.

    It is not so difficult to understand why the Arabs cannot accept Israel,
    no matter the attendant conditions, no matter the entreaties, no matter the
    threats, no matter any condition considered reasonable–no matter anything! Answer: Because it is something they are constitutionally incapable of doing. Their Honor is at stake. Death before dishonor would be preferable to the burden of daily humiliation for any self-respecting Arab if they were to capitulate and recognize the Israeli state. The Arabs have shown they are willing to lose their lives rather than accept a Jewish state in the region. Do you need any more evidence? Once the impossibility of Arab recognition
    is finally postulated and made the presupposition for any dialogue between the parties — and any peripheral interested parties — reality becomes clearly explainable, and the basic acceptance of a theory is it’s explanatory power. But there is a way out, as I will explain below.

    Given enough time , however long that is, wearisome, impatience, — or something or other — will set in, so the Arabs must continue resisting as their wisest act — they cannot be forced to act in any other way but given enough time they firmly believe the risk will inevitably be borne by Israel as they expect the tide must turn — and not in Israel’s favor. It would not be the first time in history that in time a state has been dissolved.

    Perhaps I can persuade the reader to reflect on my bold unequivocal
    pronouncements on the impossibility of Arab acceptance of a state of Israel
    in another way. Perhaps it will seem more credulous and serve as a supporting alternate hypothesis on the issue of failure of Israel
    to obtain acceptance after so many decades and no matter how much it is in
    their interest, but not the Arabs, to bring the conflict to a close.

    Mark this point well: It is in Israel’s interests to have the benefits of a recognized state more than it is in the Arab’s interest to have a new Arab state, called Palestine.

    Social scientists of human relations have understood a well-known principle of human behavior that serves to support my thesis on the Arab-Israeli conflict from which so much wasted energy and cost has been needlessly expended in seeking a solution to a point of no return between the parties. The principle should be intuitively obvious ones stated.

    To wit: As a general rule, in a relationship between two
    parties, the party that cares the least controls the relationship.

    I maintain, contrary to the thinking of Western officials, the Arabs couldn’t care less whether Israel is acknowledged to be a state. That is shown to be the case by the fact that it is always the Israelis and the International Community who are the eager proponents for Arab recognition and a peaceful resolution. How many times have you heard of the Arabs beating down Netanyahu’s door screaming for peace. The Arabs have not pursued recognition and a peaceful
    solution for the simple fact — a fact they have made abundantly clear in deed,
    in voice and on paper, many times, but for some reason their invariable refusal of recognition has gone over the heads of their interlocutors. The Arabs simply don’t care to see a state for Jews. Their objective is to have Israel eliminated as a state in the Middle East.

    Need I persuade the reader any further. Give up seeking a
    peaceful resolution on any terms? It will not happen. The Arabs are not
    interested. Recognition is not in their interest. Recognition will do them irreparable harm. There is nothing Israel can do or say or offer that will induce the Arabs to consider recognition. They said it clearly once before:

    The three NO’s of Khartoum have returned in the form of
    Abbas .On his trip to Washington this week meeting with Obama, it was reported Abbas rejected the framework document for continued peace talks with Israel, and issued his “three no’s” on core issues, (1) he refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. (2) he also refused to abandon the Palestinian demand for a “right of return” for millions of Palestinians and their descendants , and (3) he refused to commit to an “end of conflict,” under which a peace deal would represent the termination of any further Palestinian demands of Israel. On his return Abbas addressed his well-wishers saying “You know all the conditions and circumstances, and I say to you that capitulating is not a possibility.”

    The Israelis in turn will not capitulate on their three “NO’s”: no 1967
    borders, no right of return, and no capital in Jerusalem.

    There’s a lesson here for the discerning reader. There is a
    way out of this apparent insolubility. That is, preemption has proven
    successful for Israel in 1956 and 1967. and may prove the only method of
    attaining its objectives once again. Caroline Glick’s “The Israeli
    Solution” is the only logical and practical path for peace. Her voice is
    the only sane voice. Do it! she advises: preempt, annex and unilaterally
    integrate. Do not wait upon the Arabs, but do it at once! Her presumption must be the Arabs cannot act. The irony is an annexation by Israel — for that’s what it is — will be doing the Palestinians a blessing at long last so they may begin living life in relative peace in spite of their previous inflexibility. Israel
    has nothing to lose and every thing to gain as Israel may eventually lose anyway if a definitive and dispositive act is not executed because of Israeli
    timidity or concern about the reaction of the “International Community”.

    For readers who disagree or do not understand or think it is
    I who am incorrect in my assessment all I can do is give them my look of pity
    for their ignorance.


  • dougjmiller

    This is a breath of fresh air. Why can’t Caroline be Prime Minister?