The Dim-Witted Two-State Solution Option Is a Threat to Peace in the Holy Land

Submitted by Andrew Baldwin (Canada), May 19, 2021 at 11:00

The continued support of a two-state solution by Debra Shushan, shared by so many others, is hard to understand, if it is genuinely felt. The Hamas leaders in Gaza simply have no right to launch a war on Israel based on alleged grievances at the Al Aqsa mosque or people in East Jerusalem losing their homes. It is not their territory. It never was their territory. The Jordanians haven't started a war with Israel using such a pretext, although it was their territory, or at least territory they controlled, prior to the 1967 war. The right of Hamas to attack Israel on such a pretext rests on the acceptance of the claim that there is still one Palestinian people, temporarily separated into a Gazan state and a West Bank proto-state, which will soon be reunited. So, as just demonstrated, this dim-witted view is a threat to peace in the Holy Land. The so-called Palestinians themselves destroyed the Palestinian proto-state of Gaza and the West Bank going on two decades ago. It is hard to see them reuniting soon. It doesn't really matter what the people living there think all that much. The Hamas thugs are determined to continue controlling Gaza, and have the support of Iran to keep them in power. The Fatah thugs are determined to continue controlling the West Bank, and have the support of many foreign powers to keep them in power. What point is there in trying to revive this corpse? And if it were revived, it would seem the most likely scenario would be a united Palestine looking for a land corridor between its Arab version of East and West Pakistan, the first step to a demolition of Israel. I hope that sometime in the future the people of Gaza and the West Bank get to decide their own futures. However, an Arab East and West Pakistan shouldn't be an option on the table. It was tried. It spectacularly failed. End of story.

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".