Why the two-state solution is a non-starter

Map of Israel

I am not a supporter of the Two State solution (i.e. one Jewish democratic state for Israel and one state for the Palestinians, which are intended to live side by side in peace and security) because it has always seemed obvious to me that a Palestinian state on Israel’s borders would not only compress Israel to an unrealistically tiny and indefensible area, but would bring Hamas or Hezbollah terrorism to within an inch of Israel’s population and industrial centers.  And yet such an obvious viewpoint seems incomprehensible even to many of Israel’s supporters.

A couple of articles that I read over the weekend together with another one from yesterday help explain the reasons why the “Two-State Solution” for the Israel-Palestinian crisis will never work, and express my sentiments more accurately and eloquently than I ever could.

The first and probably most important article is by Barry Shaw in the Jerusalem Post: Why a two-state solution will never work. Some excerpts:

There is no place for you Jews among us, and you have no future among the nations of the world. You are headed for annihilation. – Mahmoud Zahar.

Death to Israel! – Heard at most anti-Israel demonstrations.

I will never recognize the Jewish state, not in a thousand years! – Mahmoud Abbas

From the river to the sea, from the north to the south, this is our land, our homeland. There will be no relinquishing even an inch of it. Israel is illegitimate and will remain so throughout the passage of time. It belongs to us and not the Zionists – Khaled Mashaal

Today is Gaza. Tomorrow will be Ramallah. After that Jerusalem, then Haifa and Jaffa – Ismail Haniyeh.

Which part of that do you not understand? For decades we have been bombarded by expert opinion telling us why the two-state paradigm is the only solution for a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians, and for the survival of a democratic Jewish state.

Having spent this period researching and studying the paths outlined for this road map, and analyzing the basic character and intentions of Israel’s adversary in this journey, it has brought me, irrevocably and inevitably, to the definite conclusion that it will never happen and, if it did, it would end in disaster for Israel.

If it did happen it would be the death knell for the Jewish state of Israel.

It would be the death knell because it would be the final stage, when Israel would have been reduced to a withered rump of a strategically weakened state, impossible to defend or protect itself from certain onslaught by a threatening circle of radical Islam. A Palestinian state would not be the buffer zone against such an assault; rather it would be the spearhead over whose territory a major attack would take place.

Whenever I discuss the subject with Israeli politicians, experts, European diplomats and journalists, all of whom foster the utopian dream of a two-state solution based on the 1967 lines with parts of Jerusalem given to the Palestinians as their new capital, I ask them one question, one critical question, that gnaws away at me. It gnaws away at me all the more so because I never receive an answer from them that assuages my concerns and fears.

In fact, their lack of an adequate response, their incomprehension of the premise of my question, amplifies my concerns and fears. Nobody, none of these experts, none of these people who are pushing this two-state package, none of the influence and opinion makers, is able to confront this question. Many haven’t even considered the question relevant.


Here is the scenario that leads to my question, a scenario that is the dream of the two-staters.

Israel agrees to cede land for the creation of a Palestinian state that stretches to the 1967 lines. The Palestinians have accepted certain territorial compromises. They have been granted parts of east Jerusalem to establish their administrative headquarters that will lead to their future capital.

Large blocks of Jewish townships within Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) remain as integral parts of sovereign Israel. A huge celebration throughout the world as an agreement is signed at the White House.

Then, later, the Palestinians hold their long-overdue elections, and Hamas wins a landslide victory garnering over 70 percent of the vote.

What then? Hamas is ruling the new entity and confirms the protocol of its Charter to liberate all of Palestine, by “armed struggle” if necessary. It boasts of its success in reaching Tel Aviv with its Gaza rockets, and now all of Israel is within its range. It controls the streets of Jerusalem and brags that its flags will fly over all the holy places of Palestine. Tulkarm is only a 15-second rocket flight to Kfar Yona, which lies barely 2 kilometers away. Netanya, on the Mediterranean coast in central Israel, is only a 30- second rocket shot. Kfar Saba is a similar 15 seconds from Palestinian rockets launched from Kalkilya, with Ra’anana just twice that range.

Hamas will control the hills overlooking Israel’s main international airport.

My critical question is, when Palestine opens its terror war against Israel from over these 1967 borders, backed by the new Islamic armies of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan (the king having been deposed by the Muslim Brotherhood) and Egypt, who will take responsibility for that outcome? For many two-staters, this is the question that dare not be asked, for fear that it will bring the edifice, on which their ill-conceived idea is based, tumbling down on our heads.

The answer: Nobody. We will see the same responses that we get today.


There will always be ongoing Palestinian issues, until the day that Israel no longer exists, and it will always be Israel’s fault. It will always be Israel that will be portrayed as the guilty party because of our “intransigence.”

But back to my critical question, which I address to all those who believe the two-state solution is the only game in town. What then? What will happen when you have pressured Israel into allowing a Palestinian entity to take hold on the 1967 borders, an entity that is taken over, democratically or otherwise, by a radical Islamic force bent on Israel’s destruction, a force that sits only 8 miles from the central coast of Israel, as it inevitably will. What then? Please don’t tell me that this will not happen. Please don’t tell me that an agreement will not come into force until proper security guarantees come into place. Please don’t tell me that this Palestinian entity has agreed to remain a demilitarized zone. Please don’t tell me that the international community will witness and guarantee Israel against such an eventuality.


A lack of ability to answer my question is proof of a disconnect with facts on the ground that makes this decades-old proposal a non-starter.

The two-staters live in a dream world of their own making, one with little relevance to what the outcome will actually be.

Read the whole thing. Every point raised here is correct.  We’ve seen these scenarios played out in the headlines over and over again, the latest being just last month in Operation Pillar of Defence. Unfortunately the writer does not provide an alternative solution. I guess the status quo is all we can hope for at the moment.

A second article addresses the view promoted by certain liberal or progressive sections of Jewish society that a Palestinian state is required according to Jewish law. Rabbi David Eliezrie in his Times of Israel article “Protesting E1 is not grounded in Judaism” puts the lie to that proposition:

Imagine for a moment that in the Hollywood Hills a local planning commission ruled that Jews, Latinos or blacks could not build or own homes. No question that Rabbi John Rosove of Temple Israel would be leading the protest, and his friends, the 400 liberal rabbis that signed a recent letter critical of Jewish construction in Jerusalem and its outskirts would be standing by his side. In claiming that Jewish homes in Ramot, Gilo and E1 would impede the emergence of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, they seem to think that the rights of Jews in their homeland are different than those of minorities in California. As Rosove writes “We see the building of E1 as a dagger aimed at the heart of a two-state solution.”

According to these rabbis, only homes for Jews are verboten. Arabs are permitted to build. If Jewish construction endangers negotiations, doesn’t this apply to Arabs? And if Rosove is right and the Arabs finally make peace why can’t Jews in the West Bank choose to live under Arab rule as a minority? They did so for a thousand years in much of Eretz Yisroel, as well as many other countries. Why can’t they continue to do so now? Israeli Arabs live in Israel; can’t Jews live in a Palestinian state?


These rabbis have selective memory when it comes to Rabbi Abraham Herschel in comparing his noble act of marching in the Selma for Civil Rights to their strident support of a Palestinian state and public criticism of Israel. It’s quite a stretch to compare the streets of Alabama to neighborhoods like Gilo and Ramot. Rosove says that Heschel taught “the opposite of good is not evil but indifference.” Heschel argued for respect towards Arabs, and hoped for peace. But he never supported a Palestinian state. Using his teachings to validate their actions is a gross injustice to his memory.


Their claim that there is a moral obligation to advocate for another Palestinian state is a misrepresentation of Judaism. There is no basis for this belief in the Talmud, the Codes, the Torah, Midrash or even the mystical teachings of Judaism embedded in the Zohar. The first words of Rashi, the great commentator of the Torah in his Magnus opus on the Bible teach the opposite. He states that the Torah starts with the Biblical narrative of the creation of the world to teach us that the Land of Israel is a divine gift to the Jewish people and that other nations have no right to claim it.

Judaism does teach us that we must treat all with dignity. Arab and Jews should be given respect. It is a vast leap to say that this means that we should support an Arab state on the Jewish homeland. There is no basis in Judaism for such a premise.

These rabbis are transposing western liberal political philosophy onto Judaism. Their ideas are not rooted in Torah, but in modern political thinking. Another Palestinian state in the West Bank could pose a mortal danger to Israel.

Again, I recommend you read the whole article for an excellent example of clear-headed thinking.

The third article that I read is by Yoram Ettinger who explains to mystified foreigners, whether Jewish or not, why the Israeli public votes as it does, in his article “An Israeli state of mind“:

On the eve of the January 22, 2013 Israeli election, the Israeli public demonstrates more realism than its politicians. Israelis highlight security imperatives when responding to reality-driven polls, which pose questions based on the stormy Arab Winter and not on the mirage of the Arab Spring.

Increasingly, Israelis recognize that — in the Middle East — bolstered security constitutes a solid base for survival and for the pursuit of peace. They realize that the pursuit of peace, by lowering the threshold of security, could jeopardize survival, as well as the slim chance for peace.

Notwithstanding the overwhelmingly dovish Israeli media and academia, most Israelis — Right, Center and Left — have concluded that security-driven peace supersedes peace-driven security.


Such positions are directly impacted by the 20-year track record of the 1993 Oslo Accords: an unprecedented Israeli gesture met by unprecedented Palestinian hate education, terrorism and noncompliance. Israeli opinions are also influenced by the current turbulence, unpredictability, unreliability, treachery and instability on the Arab street. The Israeli state of mind is also shaped by the violent Palestinian response (thousands of missiles launched at Israel) to the 2005 Israeli disengagement from the Gaza Strip — a tormenting, painful concession of uprooting 25 thriving Jewish communities.

According to the December Mina Tzemach (Dahaf Polling Institute) poll, most Israelis assume that Palestinians are concerned about the existence — and not the size — of Israel, and therefore are very skeptical about the land-for-peace formula. Most Israelis do not trust Palestinian compliance with agreements, and therefore are dubious about the two-state solution, which they increasingly consider a two-state delusion.


Only 20% of the Israeli public assumes that the recent developments on the Arab street are irrelevant to the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Only 21% maintains that these events warrant an acceleration of the peace process.

About 52% — compared with 49% in 2005 — consider secure boundaries superior to peace, compared with 36% who view peace as the prerequisite to security.

Most Israelis trust only the Israel Defense Forces to protect the country. For example, only 39% assume that Israel can rely on the U.S. military during an emergency. About 68% oppose the stationing of foreign troops — including U.S. troops — in the Jordan Valley. Only 26% would support such a deployment.

About 68% do not believe that sanctions constitute an effective option against Iran; 53% presume that the U.S. will not resort to the military option to prevent Iran’s nuclearization; 53% support an Israeli military pre-emption against Iran if the U.S. fails to pre-empt.

This most comprehensive Mina Tzemach poll highlights the Israeli public as top heavy on realism and low on wishful-thinking. Most Israelis do not indulge in the New Middle East Delusion, March of Democracy or the Facebook and Youth Revolution; they brace themselves for the Real Middle East and its clear and present threats. It is a rare state of mind among Western democracies, enhancing Israel’s power-projection and Israel’s role as the beachhead of the Free World in the economically and militarily critical Middle East. It is a source of optimism.

I’m not sure “optimism” is the right word given the reality this survey portrays, but certainly it is gratifying to know that the average Israel man-in-the-street has a clear head on his shoulders and is not persuaded by the Newspeak delivered to us by the media and the likes of the UN.

What will come in place of the two-state solution remains to be seen.

This entry was posted in Israel news, Mideast news and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Why the two-state solution is a non-starter

  1. Joseph says:

    I repeat after Daniel Pipes, some conflicts can be resolved only after utmost defeat of one side. Nazi Germany and militaristic Japan became peaceful democratic nations only after undeniable proof of errors of their ways had been presented to them. As long as Palestinians hope for destruction of Israel ANY solution, two- or one state, id impossible.

    • anneinpt says:

      Well said Joseph, you make an excellent point which chimes in with what was said in the various articles that I quoted. Until the Arabs are totally defeated, or until they completely and sincerely give up their goal of destroying Israel, there is no place for a two-state solution. It is simply too dangerous for Israel otherwise.

      Thank you for your comment and welcome to my blog. I hope to “see” you here more often.

  2. Elliott E Alhadeff says:

    The issue never has been, “to have or have not” a two-state alternative. The issue has always been how to deal with Palestinian terrorists. The international community refuses to acknowledge Palestinians as terrorists who seek to annihilate Israel and therefore it fantasizes over a two-state mandate at Israel’s expense. Where, historically “refugees” from one country were either incorporated or repatriated into another country, as Israel has done with its own, that solution has never been considered either by surrounding Arab countries or mandated by the international community – nothwithstancing the justice, logic or history of the events of the Middle East. The “why” for this rejection is the answer to why the two-state solution remains pertinent. First, is the dependancy of nations on oil and secondly, anti-Semitism. Arab oil states threaten to punish detractors of Palestinian terrorists seeking to advance the religious agenda of Islam. The “Jewish problem” not having been solved by Hitler, or other pogroms of the past 2000 years, remains a viable issue in those countries where genocide against Jews was openly practiced and endorsed. The oil problem may be solved with new and abundant alternatives. However, as long as Israel remains in the Middle East and the Middle East remains Islamic, the anti-Semitic problem will not be solved. Israel will have to deal indefinitely with terror, the antipathy of the international community and its anti-Semitism and the probable expansion of its isolation as the world’s population grows increasing frustrated over the resources being wasted trying to solve the crises of what they see as an irrelevant group of Jews.

    • anneinpt says:

      Elliott, once again thank you for your detailed and learned reply. I have a few quibbles but I’m largely in agreement with you.

      The issue never has been, “to have or have not” a two-state alternative. The issue has always been how to deal with Palestinian terrorists.

      Well, obviously I agree with you, but the world doesn’t put it like that. They frame it as a two-state solution, i.e. if only the Palestinians had a state, their terrorism would cease, not realizing, or not wishing to realize (or not caring) that the reverse is true: if the Palestinians had a state their terrorism would simply become state-sponsored as opposed to “unofficial” terrorist organizations (which are in fact unofficially state sponsored by Iran and others).

      However, as long as Israel remains in the Middle East and the Middle East remains Islamic, the anti-Semitic problem will not be solved.

      100% correct.

      I disagree with your conclusion however. As usual you are very pessimistic whereas I am more optimistic. Israel is not as isolated as we sometimes think it is, and I don’t think this will change in practice in the foreseeable future, give or take a few bumps in the road.

  3. Debby says:

    As always, learning more and more as I read through your posts! 🙂 And the comments too!!

    The only thing that threw me a little from my Western perspective was the comment, “Nazi Germany and militaristic Japan became peaceful democratic nations only after undeniable proof of errors of their ways had been presented to them.”

    I guess what throws me is that the defeat of Germany and Japan had little to do with a defense of the Jewish people (that’s a sorry thing to say really), but generally the now NATO countries were sucked into the war because they were attacked and had to defend themselves. I don’t think either Germany or Japan ever came to a point of recognizing any errors of their ways. They were simply defeated. As a matter of fact, there’s a children’s book, Hanna’s Suitcase, based on the story of a small museum that was set up in Japan post WWII. Because the war and effects of war continued in Japan for a number of months after the atrocities committed against the Jews in Germany were being exposed, they did not learn of it in the same was the rest of the world did.

    I see WWII as a pure power struggle with no real conflict of faith involved. Hitler, in taking power, definitely used faith conflict to attain power, but I think the world wide level of fighting was done more because Germany and Japan were set on world domination.

    The dynamics, in my mind, are totally different than what Israel is facing today. I may be showing my ignorance. If we equated “Islam” as a nation based on faith, then I would agree. They are out for world domination and will use the Jews to summon popularity and keep the focus off their own agenda.

    There’s another set of children’s books written by Robert Elmer (The Young Underground series) that tells the story of WWII from the perspective of the Danish, my heritage from my grandma. It’s a wonderful historical fiction for kids. For instance, I did not realize that the Danish were able to successfully evacuate nearly all their Jewish population and thereby over 99% of Denmark’s Jewish population survived the Holocaust.

    There was international shock upon discovering how horrific the Holocaust was, but I don’t think on a worldwide level there was much by way of learning anything.

    Again, I’m rambling, but I find that life only allows me “small windows” of opportunity to read, learn and interact with your blog, Anne!! Thanks to all the rest of you for your comments–I really enjoyed reading through them and learning there as well!

    • anneinpt says:

      Debby, you can read Joseph’s clarification below which will make his thesis clearer. I’m just going to respond to various points in your comment so forgive me if I sound disjointed.

      I agree with you that the Allies joined the war in order to defeat Germany and was nothing to do with the Jews. In fact, the Allies were quite uninterested in the Holocaust even after proof was given to them of the concentration camps etc. Partly this was to do with an ingrained antisemitism, and partly people couldn’t bring themselves to believe that such horrors were really happening and were not just an exaggeration by the Jews. Only towards the end of WWII when the camps were exposed and the full horror of the Holocaust became known did the Allies liberate the camps.

      Your mention of Japan is very interesting. Although the Japanese were allied with the Nazis they could not understand the antisemitism. There was never more than a handful of Jews living in Japan so the concept was completely foreign to them. Thank you for the info regarding the children’s book Hannah’s Suitcase. I’ve never heard of it. I must look out for it.

      As for the heroism of the Danish, it is well known in Jewish circles. We have a good friend just across the road who was evacuated from Denmark to Sweden with his parents and they all survived the war unharmed. It was a very dramatic event but it just goes to show what can be achieved with the right motivation and a good leader.

      It’s partly true that faith, i.e. religion, was not the main cause of the war, but the Nazis ideology was very similar to a religious faith. The Holocaust itself was caused by this ideology infused by the influence of centuries of European Christian antisemitism.

      As to Islam, I don’t quite agree with what you wrote, as below:

      If we equated “Islam” as a nation based on faith, then I would agree. They are out for world domination and will use the Jews to summon popularity and keep the focus off their own agenda.

      Islam is a faith, just like Christianity or Judaism. The huge difference is that it requires world domination, unlike the other 2 religions. They are not simply “using the Jews to summon popularity and keep the focus off their own agenda” – this is an actual part of their agenda. In that respect it is similar to the Nazi ideology, which not only required world domination, but also the destruction of the Jews and other “untermenschen” (sub-humans).

      I’m glad my posts and the comments are helpful to you. I enjoy these discussions with my readers too. I look forward to more of your insights.

  4. Joseph says:

    What I tried to say: Germany abandoned the idea of creation of the Thousand Years Empire of pure blood Aryans, dominating the world, after her army was defeated, cities destroyed, territory truncated etc. Japan abandoned the idea of conquest of South East Asia after it was defeated and bombed with nuclear bombs. All these calamities proved that ideas of Germany and Japan were unattainable.

  5. Elliott E Alhadeff says:

    The analogy of Nazi Germany and Japan of WWII to what we are experiencing with Islam is distinguishable in two major respects. First, WWII resulted in fulfilling the objective of the annihilation of the enemy and a complete unconditional surrender of all adversaries. That situation will never occur in modern war again. So long as the civilian portion of the adversary is scrupulously protected by an opposing party and they continue to support their purpose for their aggression and agenda, they will remain a viable opponent and there can be no unconditional surrender agreement. Consequently, war will not resolve the dispute (e.g., Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan). Secondly, the Second World War was predicated on geographical conquest under a given political/econimic system. Religion was not the basic motivating factor – resources and territory were the priority. The Israeli rival is religion motivated. Islam abhors and is intolerant of conflicting beliefs, Judaism being anethema irrespective of where it exists. It must be accepted that aggression between these two entities will remain indefinitely until either Israel is annihilated or Islam as a religion intolerant of conflicting ideology is changed.

  6. Debby says:

    Anne, I too enjoy this interaction. Elliott, you were able to say intelligently what I was trying to say (although not nearly as well as you did!). 🙂 Joseph, I understand better what you were saying now. Thanks again for all the discussion.

  7. ealha3 says:

    I think we all share the same concern, that any problem begs for a solution and any solution starts with analyzing its causes, consequences and the ramifications of alternatives. Unfortunately, we have often, more than enough of the analysis of the problem and not enough of what can be done to solve the suffering of those laboring under these social/political/economic and religious conflicts. We all suffer from a seemingly disconnected, dysfunctional and incompetent State Dept. that defers leadership to whatever other foreign agency or entity is first to fill the leadership vacuum of any given foreign crises. We don’t have any reported “there” of our interests at any of the predictable areas of conflict and therefore, we have no policy of either protecting or advancing our interests in these regions. There are expressions of anguish over what happened and anyone’s inability to have reacted any other way, (e.g., Benghazi, Egyptian Spring, Syria, Tunisia, Gaza) and a failure of analysis of what competent, mature and intelligent policies could have and should have been in place and executed upon predictable events. The frustration of impotence we are experiences lies just under our analysis. It’s been there far too long and it will be interesting to see whether and how it will evolve.

    • anneinpt says:

      Very interesting insight Elliott regarding the State Dept. It confirms my gut instincts about it although I am not well-versed at all in US politics.

  8. Debby says:

    I have an analogy. At the time of the United States Revolutionary War, the British were obviously a more well-established and stronger force than an upstart Colony that was still in the throws of forming its own government. They should have won, but they didn’t. One of the factors I’ve read for that loss is that the British continued to fight a “gentleman’s war” with traditional army vs. army lining up, etc. The Americans, however, did not have a well-established traditional army, so while a partially assembled army did fight traditionally, the “minute-men” (farmers and regular civilians called to action on a minute’s notice when needed) fought as well as they could. These battles often involved ambushing the British and fighting them in a way that was totally foreign to the British. When I say “gentleman’s war,” I don’t say that like it’s the “proper” way things should be done. My husband is a retired military man. The military is a machine to break things and kill people. We get into a lot of trouble when we try to use the military as “ambassadors.” Ambassadors are ambassadors and military are military. Now, military can be very effective deterrents to war. A strong military keeps attackers at bay for the most part. Only a fool (and the world has enough of them to keep us on our toes) attacks a country with a strong military without a REALLY GOOD reason.

    My earlier comment about considering Islam as a “nation” was made from this thought. The Muslim religion is set against Israel (and Christianity). Until the leadership in Islam take an organized and proactive stance against anti-Semitism (which I do not see happening), this will not change. This has to change, and the more peaceful Muslims need to realize that there is this core of belief that drives their faith to necessitate the eradication of certain other faiths. It needs to be dealt with. Otherwise, Islam has a unity of purpose that can only be viewed as “nationalistic” at its very core. It doesn’t matter where these people live, your war is not with Egypt or Iran or Iraq, etc, it is with these radical people. That these people are even be able to become a controlling and/or reckoning presence in a number of different governments (and none of us are exempt) is amazing. Israel stands in the way of peace, not because Israel is the source of war but because these people pledge there will be no peace until Israel is eradicated. From an international point of view, it will take much more commitment and struggle to fight the bullies than to try and pacify them.

    • anneinpt says:

      Debby, you say:

      Only a fool (and the world has enough of them to keep us on our toes) attacks a country with a strong military without a REALLY GOOD reason.

      This is very true, and is absolutely typical of Israel’s enemies. They may or may not be fools, but they think they have a really good reason, to destroy Israel and dominate the entire region. However they need to realise that Israel too has a very very good reason to fight back – and not just as “gentlemen” as the British did in the Revolutionary War, but in undercover and deceptive ways too, e.g. Mossad or other intel operations and spying, undercover troops etc. So the Arabs get a shock every time when Israel wins. They don’t understand that Israel has no choice but to win. One loss and there is no more Israel.

      Your view of Islam as a nation, while technically not correct, is in practice not far from the reality. Regarding the views of moderate Muslims about the radicals amongst them, you say:

      That these people are even be able to become a controlling and/or reckoning presence in a number of different governments (and none of us are exempt) is amazing.

      I think they know very well who is dominating their discourse and who is leading them into needless wars. There’s nothing amazing about the extremists taking power – they simply used force and intimidation. As you say, until the moderates confront the radicals nothing will improve. However I don’t see any chance of this happening. Either they are happy with the status quo or they are too intimidated – the latter is much more likely. Either way this leaves us in the West (not just Israel) with the sorry situation we are in today.

      Like Elliott said above, I don’t see any of this changing for the better in our lifetime or even our children’s. In fact I can’t see a way out at all, but then again, we’ve been surprised by the revolutions in the Arab world (I don’t like the term “Arab Spring”) so who knows what’s around the corner. We mustn’t lose faith in our way, or in the possibility that things might improve, but we do need to keep a very strong awareness of the reality around us and not live in cloud-cuckoo land like many liberals are wont to do.

  9. annediamond1 says:

    Sent from Samsung mobile Anne’s Opinions wrote:

    anneinpt posted: ” Map of Israel

    I am not a supporter of the Two State solution (i.e. one Jewish democratic state for Israel and one state for the Palestinians, which are intended to live side by side in peace and ”

  10. ealha3 says:

    What seems to be the current and most effective “solution” at the time is what Debbie has recognized, a strong, seemingly unconquerable military. What also is working are defensive installations that are seemingly impeneterable, an intelligence establishment that is able to disclose the enemy’s plans and objectives as well as to initiate actions designed to damage and destroy military threats. However, most important is a unified and supportive nation – something America has lacked in our more prolonged military experiences. Just as weakness invites opportunity, so too, division demoralizes the ability to respond. Islam, on the other hand, is militarily weak and deeply divided. Exploiting these vulnerabilities should be an important focus of any foreign policy to protect Israel and advance its interests. I understand, however, how difficult this must be without attracting too much interest. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be America’s agenda.

Comments are closed.