A Dysfunctional Palestinian Terror State Is Not Needed

In a region that is rife with misleading platitudes, the "two state" (three-state) solution in regards to Israel and some as yet to emerge horrid little statelet known, I guess, as Palestine, is perhaps the most tantalizing and spurious cliché of all.  Ranking right up there with other such Middle East banalities including "cycle of violence," "disproportionate force," or the ever reliable "occupation" (all of which serve to either infer moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinian terrorists or to simply demonize Israel), the two state mirage, because of its seeming inherent "fairness" and misplaced idealism, has a dreamy, albeit, mindless, appeal for so many who know little or nothing about the region, most particularly, the political class and media.    

But the reality is that there are already two states created from the original "Palestine Mandate" conferred upon Great Britain in 1920, carved out of the carcass of the then newly defunct Ottoman Empire after WW I.  Their names are Israel and Jordan.

Transjordan (now Jordan) was created by the British in 1922 from the original Palestine Mandate and awarded to Emir Abdullah, son of Hashemite King, Sharif Hussein, for assistance against the Turks during WW I.  This, in effect, is your “Palestinian State.”  Another one is not needed.

Transjordan represented 77% of the Palestine Mandate.  The remaining 23% was divided between an Arab and Jewish state. Within days of Israel's independence in 1948, however, five surrounding Arab nations attacked it, with the hope of destroying it.  They failed.  With the 1949 Armistice that ended the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Jordan and Egypt appropriated the areas now known as the "West Bank" (and, to the Jews, as Judea and Samaria) and Gaza, respectively, which they held until 1967.  During this 19-year period, no one made a peep over the “occupation” of Palestine by these two countries.  That would await the Six Day War in June 1967 when Israel\'s Arab neighbors attacked the Jewish State and lost again.  

After the defeat of the Arab forces, Israel took control of Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula (subsequently returned to Egypt).  Thus began, in 1967, the official "occupation" as it is now lovingly referred to around the world.

Since then has also come a procession of “peace” summits to hash out a deal between the Israelis and Palestinians. Yet, despite the overwhelming international support, the two state (three state) solution has never materialized - and the reasons should be obvious.

To begin, the Palestinians are not interested in peace with the Israelis.  They are interested in killing them.  If you doubt this, listen to what they say and write in their media, at rallies, in their founding charters, and in their mosques and schools.  And, of course, observe their behavior.

A future Palestinian State would also have bleak prospects.  It would consist of two detached appendages in the West Bank and Gaza, totaling 2300 square miles (about the size of Delaware).  It would not have an army to defend itself; it would be overcrowded, poor, and weak, mired in grievance and envy, and dependent on its powerful adversary in Israel.

Furthermore, there is little evidence that the Palestinians are capable of governing themselves.  The two territories are currently split between secular fascist terrorists (Fatah, in the West Bank) and religious fascist terrorists (Hamas, in Gaza).  Both are corrupt, violent, and have failed miserably in building a functioning state despite unprecedented international aid.

Finally, it is not rational for the US, which saw fit to eliminate two terrorist sponsoring regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, to midwife a third.  The Palestinians, after all, are the progenitors of the modern Islamic terrorist movement; they are the authors of the “suicide bomber,” a whole, new expression of evil, which has metastasized around the world.  The truth is, we should have nothing to do with the creation of a Palestinian terror state.  Nor should Israel.  Nor, quite frankly, are the Palestinians deserving of nationhood.

If a Palestinian state then is not plausible, what to do with the nearly four million Palestinians living in the territories?  The answer is the two state (not three state) solution, with two legitimate states living side by side, peace treaties already signed, and some record of congenial behavior between them, Israel and Jordan.

Jordan is an Arab nation, a constitutional monarchy with representative government, and a population of more than six million, more than half of which are Palestinian.  It contains 35,000 square miles, nearly 80% of the original Palestine Mandate.  The West Bank (which Jordan had previously controlled) is ethnically, linguistically, and culturally almost identical with western Jordan.  It is also the only Arab nation that has given the Palestinian refugees citizenship.

It is far more practical for the Palestinians to confederate with Jordan. They would enjoy far greater pride and opportunities as citizens of Jordan than as subjects of some fenced in and marginal polity with a tendency for self-destructive behavior.  And Jordan would have a presence on the Mediterranean Sea.  There are reasons for both parties to pursue such an arrangement and for the US, Israel, and the world to encourage it.  This is the only “two state” solution that can work.