Its an all or nothing deal now

Ted Belman

Yesterday, I commented on the NYT article The Two State Solution Doesn’t Solve Anything but failed to address it on a strategic level.

For years now, many, myself included, have commented on the intent of the far left and the Muslim movements on Campus and elsewhere was not to usher in the two state solution or end the occupation but to end the State of Israel. Now the NYT has brought this intent into the mainstream. In the weeks and months to come, you will see more and more voices abandoning the two-state solution for the bi-national state.

Its happened before. When Oslo wasn’t going anywhere, Thomas Friedman of the NYT, reported that he had a conversation with King Abdullah about the peace process and the need for a plan and Abdullah said something to the effect that he happened to have such a plan in his drawer. Freidman introduced it to the world. That was in 2002. When the Roadmap was introduced in 2003, the Plan was given great prominence though it was in open conflict with the governing principle for 35 years, namely Resolution 242. When Sharon strenuously objected Powell rammed it down his throat saying the Roadmap was only a process. And now it has totally replaced Res 242 as the operating principles to achieve peace. But peace isn’t what it aspires to.

For years the left was complaining that Israel was a liability to the US and that the US was acting against its interest by allowing “those powerful Jews” to control policy. These complaints went mainstream with the publication of The Israel Lobby two years ago. Since then the attack on Israel as a liability has gained momentum. Obama’s policies certainly reflect this view.

And now the NYT leads the way again with its attack on Israel’s legitimacy arguing there is no peace in sight without satisfying the Arabs on the refugee problem created in 1948. This issue, it implies, can only be satisfied by Israel by accepting a bi-national state solution. This would be the end of Israel. No problem, they say, the creation of Israel was a mistake to begin with.

This issue could long ago been satisfied by the resettlement of the refugees all over the world. But the Arabs would have none of that and the West went along. No one cares about the refugees. They care about the take down of Israel.

It is not just the Right that has recognized the futility of the peace process and the fact that a two-state solution is unattainable and unworkable. Now the Left is openly saying the same thing.

The choice is clear. Either Israel will be forced to accept a bi-national state or Israel will resist the pressure and hold on to Judea and Samaria and ultimately annex them giving the Arabs autonomy only.

This has been driven home by the ongoing Fatah Conference which adopted a hard line on the refugee issue and even went so far as to demand all of Jerusalem. It also totally rejects recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. You might ask what's it to them. A lot. It would mean the end of conflict. For the Arabs, the conflict will only be ended when Israel is ended. This is what the conflict has always been about.

Obama is clamouring for the commencement of negotiations. To what end? There is no compromise to be had from the Arabs and hopefully no compromise to be had from Israel and certainly no expectation that Israel will accede to all the demands of the Arabs.

Now that the Times has broken the ice, more and more people and countries will be promoting the bi-national state.

Its an all or nothing deal now.





Ted Belman
Jerusalem