Ask anyone who is anyone in Middle Eastern affairs, and they will tell you that the one and only solution to the Israel-Hamas imbroglio is the two-state solution. All the cognoscenti favor the TSS.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
For example, in the view of US President Joe Biden: "A two-state solution is the only way to guarantee the long-term security of both the Israeli and the Palestinian people…"According to David Cameron, UK Foreign Secretary: "What we need to do is give the Palestinian people a horizon towards a better future, the future of having a state of their own." Stated US Secretary of State Antony Blinken: Israel cannot achieve "genuine security" without a pathway to a Palestinian state. In the opinion of Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan (who would know better?) rapprochement between his government and that of Israel "can only happen through peace for the Palestinians, through a Palestinian state…"
It sometimes seems that everyone who is in the know favors this solution. And here is the cherry on top. Try googling "two state." Just plain old "two state," nothing more. What will you get? You'll get "two state solution." If even google is programmed in this direction, what can mere mortals say against such a wonderful policy?
Plenty, it turns out.
Shall Gaza forever remain in the hands of Hamas? Is it ever possible for a nation to lose any of its territory on a justified basis? The US won the areas now occupied by the states of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and parts of Utah, Nevada, and Colorado after its war with its southern neighbor. Very few in the former country thought this land accretion was improper. Alsace Lorraine and the Polish Corridor changed hands in the aftermath of World War I. The victors exulted in this alteration, and did not apologize for it. Gaza, Judea, Samaria, the Golan Heights moved under Jewish sovereignty in the aftermath of the Six-Day war of 1967, a war initiated by the losers, thereof.
To the victor belongs the spoils would appear to be the justification of all these transfers of political power. We may add that all this is entirely justified, provided, only, that the winning side was also the just side of these altercations. If other countries unjustly initiated hostilities, and those that triumphed acted only in self-defense.
With that introduction, let us delve a bit more deeply into the Gazan situation. There were Jewish settlements in that territory until 2005. Whereupon, totally at the initiative of Israel, that country, instituted an all but entirely unprecedented policy, and removed all of its citizens therefrom. Their hope was that under total Arab control, with an assist from Israel, it would become the Hong Kong of the Middle East.
'Twas not to be.
Instead of building electricity generators and desalinization plants, they located rocket launchers in schools and hospitals, and built tunnels from which to attack their neighbor to the east. Israel responded with a blockade to interdict the importation of weaponry and explosives. The Gazans complained that this rendered them an "open air prison." But who started this process? Hamas of course. The restrictions placed upon Gaza by the IDF were defensive, not offensive, and hence entirely justified.
Then came the savage atrocities of Oct. 7, 2023. If ever there were an unjustified attack, to a great degree focused on women and children and other civilians, this would be it.
What now? Is Gaza to remain under the sovereignty of Hamas forever and a day from now and forevermore? Are these predators to pay no price whatsoever for their bestial activities on this day that will live forever in infamy?
That would appear to be the opinion of the Democratic regime in the US, of many Europeans, and of virtually all Arab states.
But it is easy to see the case for an alternative to this two state solution despite the fact that practically the entire world favors such a scenario. Rumor has it that President Biden is now thinking (to the extent that people in his mental condition can be said to be capable of mentation) of cutting off all aid to Israel if it does not accede to his wishes in this regard. The White House denies this, but the rumors swell.
However, for all intents and purposes, the Palestinian Arabs already have a state of their own; or at least, until recently, they had one. It is called Gaza. The Jews, lock, stock and barrel, departed from this territory in 2005. What was left there might not have registered as a de jure Palestinian state (it was not accorded UN membership; it had no embassies) but it most certainly was a de facto state. Hamas was since 2005 the sole government of Gaza. It was totally Judenrein. What more did the advocates of the two state "solution" want? What more could they possibly have desired?
And what have the Palestinians done with this already existing second state of theirs? To ask this is to answer it, and in the negative. Not one hotel was built on any of their beautiful beaches. Lots of (above ground) housing? Fughedaboudit. Civilian benefits? No. Military? Yes.
Several times before Oct. 7, 2023, they in effect declared war on their fellow state to the east of them. They lost on each occasion, but were only treated to a superficial "lawn mowing" operation on the part of the IDF. Finally, on October 8, 2023, Israel finally, finally, got serious, and treated Hamas like the gangster government it actually is; well, was.
The Palestinian Arabs had their two state "solution." Look in dismay with what they have actually done with it. If any state deserved to be de-statized, conquered, ended, tossed into the dustbin of history, it is this one.
Should they now be given a second chance to form a new government? Certainly not, since Hamas still holds hostages, has not surrendered, and promises one, two, many more monstrous attacks on Israel, October 7, style, in the future. Give them credit for one thing: persistence in their evil machinations
Well, then, why not install in power, instead, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the more moderate terrorist organization? Might they not be the missing piece of the puzzle of the TSS? Should we not declare "backsies?" A do-over?
This Palestinian state still holds hostages. It has refused to surrender. It is still a going concern, fighting the IDF. Yes, it will condescend to release some of its prisoners (they have already murdered an unknown but feared significant number of them), but only in return for a cessation of IDF operations, for a pause (until the next October 7 catastrophe) and release of thousands of Arab terrorists now held in Israeli jails. Hopefully, this will never happen, at least not in the next million years. Netanyahu, God bless you, stay strong! Hamas, moreover, beat the PLO in elections certified by no less an authority than the US. Moreover, this latter organization has refused statehood offered to it by Israel on several occasions.
We already have a 21 state solution. Apart from the presumed state of Palestine, they are the following: Algeria, Bahrain, the Comoros Islands, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Mauritania, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. None of these 21 Arab states are exactly welcoming of the Palestinians. Egyptian leaders have gone so far as to declare that the peace treaty they share with the Israelis will be abrogated should the latter allow numbers of Palestinian Arabs to pour into the Sinai Peninsula.
Of course the TSS is valid in some philosophical sense. The ultimate goal is 8 billion states. Everyone should have one of their own, if they want one. But where oh where should the Palestinian State be located? Certainly not in Gaza. Certainly not in Judea and Samaria. Where then? Nowhere. Only innocent people deserve to form a state. Hamas is anything but innocent. They are criminals, and deserve only incarceration, at the very least.
No to TSS in the present context. Never again.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
