Bad news: Hamas rejects the two-state solution

November 15, 2006 at 1:54 am (Blogs, Hebrew, International community, Islamism, Israel, Judaism, Middle East, Palestinian Territories)

Vital Perspective writes: “Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum says a new Palestinian government will not recognize Israel or accept a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict.” (Do read the rest of the short post: “Hamas Says Unity Govt Will Not Recognize Israel or Accept Two-State Solution” at Vital Perspective.)

This is very bad news, and I suspect it means that a unity government will not be formed. Frankly, under pressure from certain allies of Israel in The West (namely, The United States), the international commuity will not accept any Palestinian government that does not recognize Israel or, at the very least, that does not recognize the two-state solution. The two-state solution is the foundation of Israeli-Palestinian relations and, indeed, the future of Israel and Palestine.

The two-state solution dictates that there will be two independent and sovereign states formed: Israel and Palestine. As a result of various accords and agreements, some movement in this direction has already occured, the evidence of which is The Palestinian National Authority, which is de facto Palestine. The wall between Israeli areas and Palestinian areas also contributes to this solution by effectively establishing a border between Israel and Palestine.

The creation of Palestine has become somewhat problematic due to the presence of Israeli settlements throughout The West Bank (known officially as “Judea and Samaria” by Israelis, whose Hebrew equivalent is יהודה ושׁומרון, yehudah v’shomron). As such, Palestine would in fact be an collection of areas rather than one contiguous area of land, the same with the Israeli presence in The West Bank.

(Sidenote: One solution to the above Bantustan-ization is the withdrawal or dismantling of Israeli settlements. Indeed, it seems this is what Ehud Barak intended when he made his overly-generous proposal to Arafat, which Arafat rejected. However, after the disengagement from The Gaza Strip and the staunch opposition from the Right that accompanied it, it is likely that there will never be a disengagement from The West Bank. As it is, various settlements were established for strategic reasons, whether for security or agriculture or water and so on.)

The alternative to the two-state solution is, as may be obvious, a one-state solution. Notice that it is the two-state solution but a one-state solution. This is because there are three versions of a one-state solution:

  1. One state under Israeli administration: In this version, Arabs (erstwhile Palestinians) and Israelis will live as Israelis under an Israeli administration, ostensibly made up of Israeli Jews. As such, the Arabs will have limited civil rights (especially regarding participation in the democratic process, meaning they would have limited representation in the national parliament, if any at all) and will live according to the rules set by the Israeli government to control and manage them. As may be obvious, this version or solution would be unacceptable to the Arabs/Palestinians and even to a large number of Israelis (Jews or otherwise). Only the far Right in the Israeli political spectrum would support such a plan. The reasoning behind this may be that if the Arabs want to live in Israeli territory so bad, Israel should let them, with the accompanying consequences.
  2. One state under a democratic system: In this version, Arabs and Jews would live with full and equal rights and participation in the democratic process. What this means is a state with a majority Arab population and a minority Jewish population. The government would be made up as any democratic government is. Of course, the fear is that the Arabs will essentially transform Israel into Palestine and lord over the Jews. This would be most preferrable by Arabs and leftist Jews. (But then as leftists are insane and prone to self-destructive policies and beliefs, this is to be expected.)
  3. One state divided into two: In this version, there would be essentially two autonomous entities: an area for Jews and an area for Arabs/Muslims. Each would govern itself. This way the needs and interests of Jews can be met while those of Arabs/Palestinians/Muslims will also be met without too much competition between the two: if they were to exist in a unitary system, there would be a substantial amount of competition (with accompanying tensions and even civil unrest) between the two peoples. This is the most practical of the three solutions. But if there are to be two autonomous areas, why not carry this to its logical solution and create two states?

As one can see, the only solution that can work is the two-state solution. By declaring that they do not accept the two-state solution, Hamas is essentially saying that they reject the validity and legitimacy of the Israeli state and government1, and that all of what today are known as Israel, The Gaza Strip, and The West Bank, are all rightfully Palestine. Thus, if Jews want to remain in that area, they would have to live under a Palestinian Arab Muslim regime. (And do not forget that as this is Hamas we’re talking about, the regime will be violent, militant, Islamist, anti-Semitic, anti-Western, oppressive, and supportive of terrorism.) And so “peace process” or “land for peace/security” and other such things are utterly irrelevant.

Obviously, the unspoken assertion is that they will wrench “Palestine” from the Jews and order them to submit or be driven into the Sea.

This is not good news at all. It should be clear that no right-thinking state may endorse such a government: The United States ought to pressure The Palestinian National Authority to ban Hamas (and all terrorism-supporting and/or militant parties) and form a government under proper and acceptable political parties. Until then, no aid or recognition ought to be given to The Palestinian National Authority.

1. Is it not strange that the only state whose legitimacy and right to existence is deemed debatable is Israel? This is unacceptable. We should not tolerant any such discussion as to whether Israel has the right to exist or not: as a functioning and de facto state, this issue is not up for discussion, and all discussion is moot.


1 Comment

  1. Major John said,

    Can’t say I am surprised…unfortunately. I don’t know how long it will be before the Arabs let reality sink in and take what they can get, offered freely. The price is their own backwardness magnified – while Israel must stay in a seige-like state. Sigh…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: