Caroline Glick’s One-State Solution

We’ve heard about the “wonders” of the Two State Solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict for decades now, and yet the more the idea is promoted, the worse the violence seems to get. The problem has become seemingly intractable, with every solution proposed being inimical to Israel’s interests, even Israel’s very survival.  The issue has reached boiling point with the Palestinians joining the ICC and struggling to join every international institution which will accept them and declare themselves a “state”.

Batya Medad in Arutz Sheva says that the Palestine issue is more of a direct danger to Israel than Iran at present:

They are celebrating, almost salivating, at the progress their pet terrorists aka the Palestinians sic are making in their march to statehood.

The world wants demands a state for that faux people but real terrorists aka the Palestinians. Being accepted as a member of the International Criminal Court has upped their status and made that of Israel decline.

Even in my day, 1967 is like yesterday to me, I remember how isolated Israel was when Egypt’s Nasser demanded that the United Nations Peacekeeping Forces leave the Suez Canal to facilitate the planned attack on Israel. The United Nations quickly obeyed Nasser, and absolutely no country came to Israel’s aid, not when threatened and not during the war, which mercifully thanks to G-d, only lasted six days. Yes, G-d and the prayers of international Jewry were Israel’s only allies.

Batya Medad points us to Caroline Glick on Arutz 7 who, in her clear thinking way, has come up with what might prove to be the best practical solution to the conflict, certainly as far as Israel is concerned: The One State Solution, i.e. annex Judea and Samaria.

No, the world won’t like it, and neither will the Palestinians. Yes, the world will threaten Israel with all sorts of retribution or punitive action. Yet as Glick points out, Israel is complying with almost all of the Palestinians’ and the world’s demands, and yet we still are attacked on the international stage and are given no respite by the Palestinians.  As Glick says:

Seeing as Obama is planning to change American policy and “force Israel into completely indefensible borders” … “the time has come for Israel to come out with an alternative policy, and the alternative policy that we have to put out is applying Israeli law and sovereignty to Judea and Samaria”.

“The government has got to put forward a new policy regarding the Palestinians,” she continued. “The two states failed, we all know it, [and] we can’t resurrect it because it wasn’t we that made it fail.”

“The world doesn’t like us now,” Glick pointed out when asked about the world’s reaction if Israel does indeed annex Judea and Samaria. “We’re in a situation now where all the things they said will happen to us if we do X, Y, or Z are happening to us now when we’re saying, ‘No, no, no, we’ll support the establishment of a Palestinian state in Israel’s heartland.”

In which case, what do we have to lose? I think she makes a convincing case. What do you think?

This entry was posted in Defence and Military, International relations, Lawfare and Delegitimization and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Caroline Glick’s One-State Solution

  1. Aridog says:

    At the risk of boring others, I will again cite the San Remo Accords as amended in 1922 which defines every other Middle East Arab nation’s borders to this day…and it includes Judea, Samaria, and Golan Heights within Israel’s borders. If it good enough for the Arab states, and recognized under international law (which it is) it is the right design for Israel. There is already a “two state solution” vested in 1922…the nation of Jordan, which was 77% of the original British Mandate for the “future homeland of the Jews.” The vaunted “1967 lines”…actually pre-1967 dating to 1948, was an Armistice line not a treaty border. In 1967 Israel simply re-took the territory of the West Bank from the Jordanians. In 1973 when Israeli forces surrounded the Egyptians on their side of the Suez Canal, plus took the Sinai, they gave it back afterwards, including Gaza, which the Egyptians did not want, thus it became a “Palestinian State” run by overt terrorists who have never ceased aggression toward Israel. There has been, therefore, no colonization by Israel of lands not included within their original San Remo Accord borders as amended in 1922. Caroline Glick is right.

    • anneinpt says:

      Excellent and very timely reminder Aridog. One small correction: Israel wanted to give Gaza back to the Egyptians in 1967 and again in 1973 and again at Oslo but the Egyptians, who never were stupid, refused to take it.

    • Earl says:

      The only slight amendment I have to this otherwise-excellent post would be to replace “the nation of Jordan” with “the state of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan”. This is not semantic or pedantic. Jordan was a Gertrude Bell-conjured fiction created as a sop to the Hashemites for losing the Hijaz, and certainly cannot under any reasonable definition be considered a nation in 2015. Aridog is otherwise correct; the “Palestinians” have had their state since 1922. And confirmed by (Canadian) Howard Grief’s (RIP) invaluable scholarship.

      • Aridog says:

        Earl…I skipped the Hashemite connection only to avoid argument 🙂 Yep, Jordan is hardly Palestinian in government, but it is in terms of land occupied.

        As for Gaza…nobody wanted it, so it was up for grabs, so to speak. IMO…better Israel kept it and let Israelis settle there unencumbered by political nonsense. None-the-less, Sharon tried to make nice…and look what he got for that gesture?

        There really is NO solution to the”Palestinian problem” other than obliteration of terrorists of a non-state actor. The myth of Palestinian Arabs’ legacy is just that and nothing more.

        Land goes to those who make the best use of it, and there you have it…Israel versus the sundry refugee camps that have done nothing positive for 50 years. Who else has so many “refugees?” Kept as such for one purpose…politics, not nationhood.

        The same logic would have us Americans hand over governance to Chief Red Cloud’s ancestors…he did, after all, defeat the US Army on the Bozeman Trail…never mind his invading army of Sioux & Cheyenne made the Crow Nation hard to keep intact. Noteworthy is that the Bighorn River area is still in Crow hands.

        What goes ’round comes ’round.

  2. Joseph says:

    David P. Goldman too on several occasions stated that ‘demographic time bomb’ is not ticking any more. That ticking was a major objection on Israel side against “one state solution”. Now it has been removed. There will be a violent objection on “Palestinian” side though. Another intifada? Will Palestinian Authority go quietly to become a part of Arab party and run for Knesset? Will they surrender hidden money I’m sure they have? These are a few questions that came to my mind.

    • anneinpt says:

      Joseph, I share your doubts and have wondered at those same questions. On the other hand the Palestinians object violently to anything at all, anything that does not destroy Israel. We’ve already had 2 intifadas, and a 3rd might well be under way, so what does Israel have to lose?

  3. DavidinPT says:

    It’s worth also noting and perhaps following the Puerto Rican example. They are a US territory but do not have the right to vote or be elected in US elections. What’s sauce for the goose……

    • Yehudah Posnick says:

      I once heard that Puerto Rico has the choice to vote amongst themselves and either 1) stay a commonwealth like they are now, 2) become independent, or 3) become the 51st state of the USA. I also remember attacks by a terrorist group FALN in the ’70s and ’80s, which was trying to push for Puerto Rico being independent.

    • anneinpt says:

      Very interesting concept David. But see Yehuda’s caveats below. On the other hand, as I replied to Joseph above, EVERYTHING makes the Palestinians violent. Our very existence makes them violent. So again, what have we to lose?

  4. Chaim says:

    If the Arabs in Yehudah and Shomron become Israeli citizens as a result of Israel annexing those areas, they may hold a majority of seats in the Knesset and Jews will lose control of Israel.

    • Yehudah Posnick says:

      Not a majority, but something around 40-50 seats in the Knesset.

    • anneinpt says:

      You raise a good point, and Yehuda too. Maybe the Puerto Rico suggestion from David could be implemented, at least for several years or decades until they prove their ability to live in peace with Israel and educate the next generation for normalization. Yeah, and pigs will fly too…

  5. Reality says:

    The Jewish Home party suggested too annexing Judea &Samaria & giving land uninhabited by Jews to Pals for their state (a huge percentage of that land). Russia & Ukraine have annexed lands, Britain annexed the Falklands, I think, we annexed the Golan, so it was a big mistake not to have annexed Judea & Samaria back in ’67.
    I hope Caroline Glick will manage to persuade the knesset,but won’t hold my breath. Herzog, Livni, et al will be apopletic about angering the world (as if “The World” is enamoured of Israel right now).

    • anneinpt says:

      I think Jewish Home’s suggestion is more practical than Caroline Glick’s for the simple reason that they’re talking about giving them land and leaving them to manage their own affairs, whereas Glick suggests making them citizens of Israel.

      Of course you’re right that we should have annexed all the land back in 67 and damn the world. We should also have expelled the hostile population while we were at it. But it’s too late now.

      To be honest I can’t see either or any suggestion working out. I don’t know what the end result will look like but something needs to be done.

      • Aridog says:

        Agree that it is too late now, and in that light I also agree that Caroline Glick is wrong on the point of absorbing the enemy. I should read more closely. That said, demand the borders, but relegate the radicals to visitor status…not citizenship. You get blamed for an apartheid, so why not actually have one? Most of those recalcitrant Arabs came from Jordan in the Black September of 1971 and none of them should ever be made citizens of Israel. It is note worthy that no one else wants them either, not Jordan, not Tunisia, not the Egyptians, not the Lebanese, no one…the entire reason to exist is to harm Israel…and soak up money from the idiot westerners. Kick them out if you can, but as you say, that time may have passed….and it would hack off Jordan.

        • Aridog says:

          Yes, you may need to give up some land, in patches, and let them prove they’re not barbarians and thrive and be productive. Ramallah is an example of why that won’t work, and so is Gaza…even when not bothered much by the Israelis. The west seems to think your “rules of engagement ” must be don’t shoot back, even when shot at and plainly targeted. Our military has had a taste of that theory, and it cost lives unnecessarily. The “Rose of Ashkelon”, that I bought in the first batch exported, sits on my living room mantle to remind me.

          • anneinpt says:

            Actually, Ramallah is a very good example of why your theory DOES work. Ramallah, contrary to the generally accepted wisdom, is a thriving modern city, not unlike Tel Aviv in character. It has developed because Israel “allowed” it after they started to cooperate with us on security etc.

            Maybe you’re thinking of Jenin, which is also a big city, only it has a “refugee camp” aka a slum, in the middle, kept solely for the purposes of propaganda.

            • Aridog says:

              Ramallah is an island. Is it not still home to the PLO? Modern today, yes, but as you said, only because they discovered that a modicum of cooperation with Israel was to their benefit…and Israel responded affirmatively. I don’t consider it exemplary. Without Israel they’d be no where. Yeah, I know, I am hard headed.

  6. Pete says:

    There are certain ELEPHANTS IN THE ROOM.
    And these issues never get resolved.
    They just don’t.

    One of the elephants … is the Palestinian-“Two State-“One State”-“Give Me a Homeland Or Else”. issue. This issue goes on … and on … and on. Everyone has an opinion about it. There never seems to be a viable solution that will PLEASE everybody. So long as the State of Isreal exists, this issue drags on.

    Another issue is … NUCLEAR ARMS IN THE MIDDLE EAST. Does Iran have them – who knows? Is Saudi Arabia getting them – who knows? Is Pakistan shipping them – who knows? Will anyone ever tell the truth to the Israel Government. The exact and complete truth? I doubt it. So this issue also drags on constantly. And everyone has got an opinion. And everybody is mad about it, but for different reasons.

    Are any of these issues solvable by Israel?
    HOW EXACTLY?
    It’s not obvious that Israel can solve any of these problems.
    Certainly not by itself, and definitely not without international consensus.
    WHICH DOES NOT EXIST!!!

    And so the ELEPHANTS IN THE ROOM walk around. And they break some more furniture. And everybody screams and yells. And nothing changes.

    Pete, USA

    • anneinpt says:

      Pete, you make an excellent point, that the one/two state solution won’t go away as long as Israel exists. But maybe in the current constellation, with the Arab nations all around imploding from within, the window of opportunity will present itself to at least come to an agreement to manage the situation, rather than solve it.

      As for Iran and the nuke arms race, yes, that’s what all the fuss has been about, what Bibi has been yelling about for years, and now the Arab states have woken up and are furious too. I think we all know the truth: Iran has the bomb, or will have it shortly; Saudi will get one shortly too; maybe Egypt as well. I’m sure the Israelis know a lot more than they’re letting on.

      What needs to be done is for the West to butt out of Israel’s business, and let us come to a workable management of the conflict with the Palestinians on our own. Whenever the West gets involved the Palestinians harden their stance and make maximalist demands. When the West loses interest things quieten down. There is empirical evidence for this.

  7. Pingback: A Conservative’s Proposal for One State in Israel | Peace and Conflict Politics

Comments are closed.