A ‘two-state solution’ is a contradiction in terms.
A ‘two-state solution’ is a contradiction in terms.
From "Blessings from Hebron" - David Wilder
It was exactly three years ago that I wrote Serving Israel on a Silver Platter. It is just as relevant today as it was then, but in the name of rejuvenation, a few more points can be added.
First, in speaking with groups here in Hebron, many ask me about the ‘two state solution.’ I explain to them that it is not going to happen. Why?
Hizbullah in the north, Syria to the east, and Egypt and Hamas to the south. And who knows how long it will be until Jordan faces the same issues. And let’s not forget Iran.
That’s what we’re dealing with at present. Can we add to that creation of another enemy state, which will leave Israel with a nine-mile wide border. So, we won’t only be dealing with rockets from Gaza on Ashkelon, and even Tel Aviv, rather, from Tulkarem and Kalkliya on Petach Tikva, Netanya and Hadera. (See Mark Langfan’s map: http://bit.ly/13EHk8w)
And what about our main airport, Ben Gurion, which will be about 5 kilometers from ‘palestine?’
Yaakov Amidror was a General in the Israeli army, and held a number of high-level posts, including responsibility for Israeli intelligence. He is presently the director of Israel’s National Security Agency and is a top advisor to Netanyahu.
Amidror: Without Israeli control of the relevant territory east of the 1967 line, there is no way the Israel Defense Forces can prevent the firing of rockets and mortars from the hills dominating Ben-Gurion International Airport. One mortar shell per week in its vicinity will be enough to stop air transport completely…In 1974, a study undertaken by the U.S. Army's Command and Staff College reached the same conclusion as the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In order to defend itself, Israel must control the high ground east of the central axis along the West Bank's mountain ridge…"From a strictly military point of view, Israel would require the retention of some captured Arab territory in order to provide militarily defensible borders." According to the Joint Chiefs, their determination of the territory to be retained was based on "accepted tactical principles such as control of commanding terrain, use of natural obstacles, elimination of enemy-held salients, and provision of defense in depth for important facilities and installations…In the West Bank Israel should "control the prominent high ground running north-south."
Others who have voiced an opinion on this topic:
Henry Kissinger: ‘Israel needs defensible borders and he adds that Israel must not be pressured to withdraw to the 1967 lines’ – South Vietnam had international guarantees from twenty countries. Yet when North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam, no country took Kissinger's telephone calls. His implication was clear: do not rely on guarantees and risk withdrawing to the 1967 lines.
Shimon Peres told Ma'ariv in June 1976: "One must ensure that Israel will not only have length but width. We must not be tempted by all kinds of advisers and journalists to return to a country whose waist is 14 kilometers wide."
The late Mordechai Gur, as Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, told Newsweek in May 1978 that as a military man he had no doubt that to defend Israel it was necessary to remain in the high ground of the mountains of Judea and Samaria – from Hebron to Nablus. He also explained that Israel needed to remain in the Jordan Valley.
And the late Moshe Dayan, Israel's former Chief of Staff, Minister of Defense, and Minister of Foreign Affairs: "Whatever settlement is reached with the Palestinians and the Jordanians, the key positions that guarantee Israel's defense must be left to the free and exclusive use of the Israel Defense Forces. Those positions are the Jordan Valley and the mountain spine."
And finally, the words of the late Yitzhak Rabin: "We will not return to the lines of June 4, 1967 – the security border for defending the State of Israel will be in the Jordan Valley, in the widest sense of that concept." In 1980 he determined: "Our evacuation of the West Bank would create the greatest threat we can possibly face."
What has changed since then? Little things, like thousands of rockets shot into Israel from southern Lebanon in 2006 and from Gaza - land which we gave to our enemies.
In conclusion, we still have a lot of work to do, but, it is not going to happen:
a) the Israeli public is beginning to wake up. According to a poll published today in Ma’ariv/NRG.co.il: "53% of Israelis are not willing to give up land in Judea and Samaria, even in exchange for Palestinians giving up the right of return and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. 57% believe that Oslo hurt Israel."
b) the numbers don’t add up. According to Dr. Guy Bechor, head of the Middle East Division at the Lauder School of Government, there are presently some million four hundred thousand Arabs in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. In the same area, today reside about 700,000 Jews; that is, 385,000 in Judea and Samaria and about 300,000 in Jerusalem. “In other words, the number of Jews is already equal to half the Palestinian population in the "territories." This figure is amazing, since during the second intifada Jews in Judea and Samaria numbered only 190,000. In a decade they have doubled their numbers.”
(These numbers do not take into account my expectation that in the next few decades, the Israeli population is going to double, as a result of mass aliyah (immigration) from the west. Many of the next 6 million Jews moving to Israel will undoubtedly live in Judea and Samaria, where there is still much open land waiting to be developed.)
c) And finally, a two-state solution, as being suggested at present, is ultimately a contradiction in terms. A so-called ‘palestinian state,’ alongside Israel, will continue our defense predicaments and generate new issues. It will create a lethal threat to the continued existence of the Jewish state and there is no reason for us to allow this to happen. It’s a no-brainer.