The whole concept of a “Palestinian State” can only bring even more deaths and hardships to Jews and Arabs. There are many reasons why this is so but the main one is that the Arabs never wanted to make peace with the Jews BECAUSE THAT GOES AGAINST THE JIHAD OF ISLAM AND THE ISLAMIC KORAN OF MOHAMMED. That is the main reason. But there are others. Many people have shown by the use of maps that a Palestinian Arab state based on what they call the West Bank but is really Judea and Samaria cuts Israel almost in two and places that Palestinian State within miles of key Israeli installations including the main airport for Israeli travel – Ben Gurion airport. “Palestinian” Arabs following on the terrorism of the Irish Republicanism has always been ready to attack such places. This is leaving aside the fact that where they plan to put this Palestinian state sits on the most sacred land of the Jews – the land where the Jewish ancestors came to first about 2500 years before an Arab was Heard of. The Word “Palestinian” is as recent as post-1967.
Trotsky.us is a new site although http://www.4international.me still exists but we add one other reason for no Palestinian Arab state which is that we take the long and overall international view. Jews must be safe from Antisemitism. Therefore Jews must have a place on earth where they can live alone, others as guests willingly because they recognise that very Antisemitism, and that means no Palestinian Arab state threatening and also a new concept of those who live in Israel. Palestinian Arabs must be there as guests and willing Friends of Israel in order to ensure the security of the Jews. We are Marxists and non-Jews and that makes our position stronger not weaker.
This is also more or less what the great analyst Martin Sherman writes and we are united in a struggle to defend the Jews in this new dangerous period:
Its inherent implausibility was aptly – albeit belatedly – articulated by Maj.-Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland, former head of Israel’s National Security Council, who in 2009 correctly observed: “… the maximum that any government of Israel will be ready to offer the Palestinians…
is much less than the minimum that any Palestinian leader can accept.”
Detailed studies of Israel’s minimum security requirements, buttressed by precedent and prudent evaluation of the significance of recent developments in the Arab world, lead to one clear conclusion: Maintenance of Israel’s minimum security needs is incompatible with the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.
Which brings us to the ethical level: Continued pursuit of this fundamentally and fatally flawed formula will result in further failure, bringing more trauma and tragedy to both Jew and Arab.
It is precisely for this reason that further adherence to the two-state idea, as per the insistent behest of the Obama administration, is devoid of any moral value.
It is precisely for this reason that it must be resolutely resisted.
Endorsing Muslim-majority tyranny
Proponents of a the two-state principle can no longer claim, in good faith, the moral high ground. For we have seen what their preferred prescription has precipitated in the past; and we have a fair idea of what it will produce in the future.
They have no moral merits on their side. There is no moral merit in establishing what, almost certainly, will become a mega-Gaza on the fringes of Greater Tel Aviv, within mortar range of Ben-Gurion Airport and within tunnel reach of the Trans-Israel Highway (Route 6).
There is no moral merit in endorsing the creation of what, almost certainly, will rapidly become (yet another) Muslim-majority tyranny, the utter negation of the very values its advocates invoke for its establishment – gender discrimination, gay persecution, religious intolerance, oppression of political dissidents.
There is no moral merit in supporting a policy that, almost certainly, will expose thousands of kindergartens in the Coastal Plain to the dangers that southern towns, villages and farms experience repeatedly due to the failed attempt to confer self-rule on the Palestinian-Arabs in Gaza.
There is no moral merit in promoting a policy that, almost certainly, would subject the Palestinian-Arab civilian population to the ravages of repeated retaliatory action the IDF would be compelled to take in response to the attacks against Israel’s civilian population/installations from the Palestinian-administrated territory – as the Gaza precedent clearly foretells.
The moral imperative
A keen awareness of the futility and moral bankruptcy of the two-state paradigm has led me to propose what I call the “Humanitarian Paradigm” for the resolution (or rather dissolution) of the conflict with the Palestinian- Arabs, involving the generous funding of their voluntary relocation and rehabilitation in third-party countries.
I have been excoriated for daring to raise such a “monstrously unethical” initiative. But in light of the forgoing discussion, who really has the moral high ground? Those who promote the establishment of (yet another) Muslim-majority tyranny, with all the attendant detriments and dangers described above? Or those who advocate providing non-belligerent Palestinian individuals the opportunity to build a better life for themselves elsewhere, out of harm’s way, free from the cycles of death, destruction and destitution that have been brought down on them by the cruel, corrupt cliques that have them astray for decades.
After all, if proponents of the two-state principle find no moral blemish in advocating the funded evacuation of Jews to facilitate the establishment of an entity that would, in all likelihood, become a bastion of radical Islamist terrorism, what moral principle would cause them to shrink in horror at the suggestion of funded evacuation of Arabs from their homes, to obviate the establishment of such an entity? I leave the readers to ponder the question.