Alternatives to the Two-State Solution Few mantras have been more maddening–or more obviously wrong–than “there’s no alternative to the two-state solution.” Bruce D. Abramson
https://bda1776.substack.com/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
“So let’s be very, very clear here. The idea that the PLO had reformed, at its best, represented the elevation of hope over evidence. It evaporated entirely in September 2000, when Arafat launched a terror war rather than accept a state.”
Here’s what it means to break the Overton Window.
A couple of weeks ago, President Trump suggested evacuating the Gazans from the hellhole in which they’ve been trapped since 1948. The world was aghast. But all that Trump did was speak an obvious, overdue truth that some of us have been shouting from the sidelines for decades.
For years, we’ve heard a unanimous chorus of “respectable” voices chanting their mantra: “There is no alternative to a two-state solution.” They chanted it even though it was obviously false. The status quo, for example, was an alternative. So was the alternative around which the entire Palestine Liberation movement had been founded: Genocidal extermination of the Jews and the destruction of the Jewish state. So was the completion of the population exchange that had begun when the Arab countries exiled all of their Jews into Israel. So was an Israeli military victory resulting in either another refugee crisis or a massive body count.
The “respectable” crowd just disliked all those alternatives, so they pretended they didn’t exist. Of course, many of these same folks also hewed to the mantra “there is no military solution” to conflicts, even though nearly every important turning point in history followed a decisive military solution to a longstanding conflict. Credibility and consistency were never big with that crowd.
Now, it was bad enough when we had to hear that nonsense from the anti-Israel crowd and the ignorant pollyannas (both very large groups). What was worse was hearing it from savvy pro-Israel analysts who should have known better. Many of these folks faced a problem quite common among academics and think-tank types: Their analyses could not possibly sustain the conclusions their patrons wanted to reach. Honest assessments bore high costs in professional prestige and funding opportunities.
What to do? Easy. They took the time-honored cowardly way out. They pasted the desired conclusion onto analyses that couldn’t sustain it and pocketed the checks. Until, that is, President Trump gave them license to come out of the closet. Then you get confessions like this one:
Here’s what it means to break the Overton Window.
A couple of weeks ago, President Trump suggested evacuating the Gazans from the hellhole in which they’ve been trapped since 1948. The world was aghast. But all that Trump did was speak an obvious, overdue truth that some of us have been shouting from the sidelines for decades.
For years, we’ve heard a unanimous chorus of “respectable” voices chanting their mantra: “There is no alternative to a two-state solution.” They chanted it even though it was obviously false. The status quo, for example, was an alternative. So was the alternative around which the entire Palestine Liberation movement had been founded: Genocidal extermination of the Jews and the destruction of the Jewish state. So was the completion of the population exchange that had begun when the Arab countries exiled all of their Jews into Israel. So was an Israeli military victory resulting in either another refugee crisis or a massive body count.
The “respectable” crowd just disliked all those alternatives, so they pretended they didn’t exist. Of course, many of these same folks also hewed to the mantra “there is no military solution” to conflicts, even though nearly every important turning point in history followed a decisive military solution to a longstanding conflict. Credibility and consistency were never big with that crowd.
Now, it was bad enough when we had to hear that nonsense from the anti-Israel crowd and the ignorant pollyannas (both very large groups). What was worse was hearing it from savvy pro-Israel analysts who should have known better. Many of these folks faced a problem quite common among academics and think-tank types: Their analyses could not possibly sustain the conclusions their patrons wanted to reach. Honest assessments bore high costs in professional prestige and funding opportunities.
What to do? Easy. They took the time-honored cowardly way out. They pasted the desired conclusion onto analyses that couldn’t sustain it and pocketed the checks. Until, that is, President Trump gave them license to come out of the closet. Then you get confessions like this one:
So let’s be very, very clear here. The idea that the PLO had reformed, at its best, represented the elevation of hope over evidence. It evaporated entirely in September 2000, when Arafat launched a terror war rather than accept a state.
From that moment forward, the only humane solution was to relocate the folks that the UN still designates “Palestine Refugees” out of the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. Why “should” they have to leave? Because that’s what happens when you dismember an empire (in this case, we’re still working on the Ottoman): The people who liked the Empire or its nearest successor, but find themselves living in the liberated homeland of a formerly captive nation, are a source of potential instability. The only way to stabilize the region is for them to leave. The most humane solution is an orderly, compensated relocation. Next comes refugees fleeing a war. Nastiest is a large collection of corpses.
Two-staters have always been sadists, perpetuating a conflict for the sake of avoiding advocacy of a distasteful choice. What they owe the world is far more than an apology.
Comments are closed.
