Pal-Arab defeat is not enough, it should lead to a 3-State Solution composed of Israel, Egypt (for Gaza) and Jordan (for parts of the West Bank), with 1948 refugees absorbed by booming Saudi/Gulf economies

Submitted by G Marcus, Mar 24, 2018 at 17:32

IS PROPOSED PAL-ARAB STATE A REAL OPTION?

The only power keeping Fatah alive and preventing the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) from being overran by Hamas (just like Gaza) is the Israeli military. Accordingly, the option of Fatah rule in the West Bank is none other than international fiction and doesn't exist in the real world.

For West Bank Arabs therefore, there are only three real options to pick from: (a) The status quo, (b) Hamas rule, or (c) Jordanian rule.

Jordan, part of the initial Palestine Mandate, was separated by the British in 1922 to create the original Palestinian-Arab state and is today one of the best functioning and most stable Arab states. The peace treaty with Egypt provides Israel with a demilitarized Sinai buffer.

"Palestinians" cannot govern themselves, because they are Greater-Syrian Arabs locked-up in refugee camps and more recently given a pseudo-national identity just to spearhead the 1974 PLO plan for the phased destruction of Israel.

Far from a nation, "Palestinians" are an "anti-nation" unable to unite or function behind any cause other than the elimination of the Jewish nation-state.

With the Oslo agreements, the Israeli left first deceived itself about the Arabs' peace intentions, and then went on to deceive the world. But when Israel discovered the deception and went back to tell the world that the Arabs' peace intentions were a big lie, the world refused to disbelieve. The die in world opinion was already cast!

At Oslo, when Israel legitimized its genocidal enemies, Israel delegitimized itself. From then on it became impossible to explain to the world, if Pal-Arabs were such "Peace Partners", why was Israel still defending itself and occupying "their" land.

3-STATE SOLUTION ONLY SUSTAINABLE PATH?

Clearly, the 2-State Plan is in reality a war plan, not a peace plan. Any plan that aims at rendering Israel indefensible under pre-67 borders, while, due to unbending Jihadist dogma, both Fatah and Hamas remain sworn to its destruction, cannot be characterized as otherwise.

If Arabs and other enemies of Israel alike really wanted peace and co-existence, they would not invent and nurture a non-existent "Palestinian" identity, while Jordan already covers nearly 80% of Mandatory Palestine and most Gaza Arabs are indistinguishable from Egypt's Sinai Bedouin.

They would instead pursue the only logical coexistential and sustainable path – a "3-State Solution" composed of Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, with support from Saudi/Gulf regions in refugee resettlement.

(1) Gaza: Under some sort of political linkage to Egypt and with Saudi/Gulf funding, would be turned into an autonomous Arab entity that can prosper as a Singapore/Dubai-like industrial/logistics hub on the Eastern Mediterranean;

(2) West Bank: In light of more complex geopolitics as well as looming Hamas takeover, parts would to be linked to Jordan in some sort of federal structure; safeguarding security and settlements for Israel, demographics for Arabs, holy sites for both.

(3) The booming Saudi/Gulf economies would absorb within their borders the bulk of 1948 refugees currently in UNWRA camps.

In any event, Egypt and Jordan face little other long-term options, because they can't allow adjacent Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas) or national-irredentist (Fatah) entities threatening their regimes.

As to Saudi/Gulf regions, they would be strengthening the Arab element in their population, gradually replacing millions of Pakistani, Indian, and Filipino workers.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".