“Palestine” – Time to say “No!”

For your perusal, my latest INTO THE FRAY column

“Palestine” – Time to say “No!”

(Kindly consider “liking”, sharing, tweeting – please use hash-tag ‪#‎IntoFray)‬‬

The two-state paradigm’s deadly detriments are now so glaringly apparent that it is becoming increasingly difficult to reconcile calls for Palestinian statehood with genuine concern for the well-being of the Jewish nation-state.

 It appears this week on the following sites (in alphabetical order):

ISRAEL NATIONAL NEWS: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Author.aspx/1492
ISRAPUNDIT: https://www.israpundit.org/into-the-fray-palestine-time-to-say-no/
JEWISH PRESS: https://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/columns/into-the-fray-martin-sherman/into-the-fray-palestine-time-to-say-no/2019/03/13/
JNS: https://www.jns.org/opinion/the-depraved-indifference-of-the-two-state-paradigm/
JEWS DOWN UNDER: https://jewsdownunder.com/2019/03/08/into-the-fray-palestine-time-to-say-no/
RICHSWIER: http://bit.ly/2TkRfVP
TORONTO ZIONIST COUNCIL: http://strategic-israel.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/TZC-Newsletter-2019-03-09.pdf

Several short excerpts

Ladies and gentlemen, when the Palestinians say “two states” they do not mean what we mean—Maj-Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin , October 2018.

With the impending public announcement of the enigmatic “deal of the century”, pledged by the Trump administration, rumors are swirling throughout the Middle East—and beyond—as to what in fact, its real nature might be. This, together with the dramatic rise in the electoral prospects of the newly formed “Blue & White” alliance between Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid, has once again raised the ominous specter of the return of the two-state principle…

…although no authoritative preview of the detailed content of the “deal” has been provided by the White House, the little that has been released referred to it as including significant Israeli concessions. Moreover, the leaders of “Blue & White” have repeatedly referred to their approval of the principals of the INSS (Institute for National Security Studies) plan for unilateral concessions in Judea-Samaria and the throttling of all Jewish communities beyond the pre-1967 Green Line.

INSS’s Amos Yadlin: Two state solution failed in past, unfeasible in present, dangerous in future

Significantly, the INSS plan explicitly defines the “preservation of the two-state option” as its “strategic purpose”—this despite the fact that in presenting the plan at its public launch in October 2018, the head of INSS, Maj-Gen. Amos Yadlin, conceded that the attempt to implement the two-state formula has failed disastrously in the past, is unfeasible in the present, and whose implementation in the future is dangerous.

Failed in past, unfeasible in present, dangerous in future

Echoing precisely what two-state opponents have been insisting on for decades, he pronounced categorically: “There is no-one to agree with, there is nothing to agree on—and the implementation [of any two-state initiative] is dangerous”.

But then, astonishingly, rather than arrive at the rational conclusion that the pursuit of the two-state objective be abandoned and alternative approaches be explored—he did precisely the opposite!

Two statism: Immoral, irrational & irresponsible

Indeed, the two-state endeavor is demonstrably immoral, irrational, and incompatible with the long-term existence of Israel as the Jewish nation-state.

It is immoral because it will create realties that are the absolute negation of the lofty values invoked for its implementation.It is irrational because it will generate the precise perils it was designed to prevent.It is incompatible with Israel’s long-term existence as the Jewish nation-state because it will almost inevitably culminate in a mega-Gaza on the outskirts of the greater Tel Aviv area.

Why the two-state paradigm is immoral

Typically – indeed, almost invariably – two-state proponents lay claim to the moral high ground, invoking lofty liberal values for their political credo, while impugning their ideological opponents’ ethical credentials for opposing it.

However, given the socio-cultural conditions in virtually all Arab countries, and the precedents set in Palestinian-administered territories evacuated by Israel, the inevitable outcome of the two-state formula is not difficult to foresee. Indeed, there is little reason to believe (and certainly two-state proponents have never provided anything approaching a persuasive one) that any prospective Palestinian state, established on any territory Israel evacuated, will quickly become anything but yet another homophobic, misogynistic Muslim-majority tyranny.

Why the two-state paradigm is irrational

But it is not only in terms of moral outcomes that the two-state paradigm is a perversely self-obstructive endeavor. The same is true for the practical outcomes that it will almost certainly precipitate.

It is hard to say what has to happen before it is recognized that the land-for-peace doctrine, from which the two-state concept is derived, is a perilously counterproductive endeavor – as it has proven in every instance it was attempted, not only in the Arab-Israeli context, but whenever an effort was made to appease tyranny with political concessions and territorial withdrawals.

Why the two-state paradigm is irresponsible

Accordingly, apart from wishful thinking, dangerously detached from any prevailing (or foreseeable) reality, stubborn adherence to the two-state dogma has no value – neither in terms of its moral merits nor its political pragmatism.

Worse yet, the pursuit of it is totally incompatible with Israel’s long-term existence.

The “depraved indifference” of the two-state paradigm

Tel Aviv high-rises as seen form territory designated for a Palestinian state

Surely then, given the grave – indeed, existential – risks inherent in the two-state paradigm, considerably heightened by the precarious position of the current regime in neighboring Jordan, threatened, as it is, by ever-ascendant Islamist elements, would it not be eminently reasonable to consider further advocacy of this perilous prescription as “reckless endangerment” – even “depraved indifference”?

The two state paradigm: The imperative to say “No”

This is the unequivocal position that the Israeli government must convey to the purveyors of the Trump “deal of the century”. This is the unequivocal message that the Israeli electorate must convey to the peddlers of the two-state formula—whether post-dated in the guise of “separation” or not—in the upcoming elections.

For, when it comes to this immoral, irrational, and irresponsible paradigm, the time to say “no”—resounding, resolutely and irreversibly—has come.


As usual your talkbacks/comments/critiques welcome,

Best wishes,


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.