Leslie J. Sacks has sent an email about pushing a Two-State Solution on Israel; viz., Israel and Palestine side-by-side. He as too many people don’t see a problem with a Two-State Solution, except for one thing. Why in the world would the West force Israel to allow a sovereign State on their border that explicitly announces there would be no Jews allowed to live there?
So I am inline and out of line with Sacks’ reasoning.
Sacks is absolutely correct to believe it is lunacy to allow the Palestinian Authority (or Hamas for that matter) to be the government structure of a sovereign Palestine. I tend to delineate from his other thoughts.
You see I don’t view what Jordan has called the West Bank as disputed territories. I am with Israel in calling that land Judea-Samaria because it is a chunk of land with Jewish heritage and history and NOT a land that belonged to a group of people that were not even called Palestinians until after 1967.
The land in question is not occupied by Israel but rather reclaimed by virtue of Jordan losing in 1967 that which they unilaterally annexed in 1950s.
Well that is my two-cents. Here is Leslie Sacks’ post.
Please Support SlantRight 2.0 - Donations are not tax deductible but are appreciated to help with the bills.
TWO STATE SOLUTION: Israel and Palestine
By Leslie J. Sacks
Sent: May 25, 2012 at 12:45 PM
Website: Strength and Tolerance
That is not the question.
The vast majority of Israel and much of the West Bank agree: The million dollar question rather is - What kind of kind of states?
We know Israel to be the only functioning democracy in the Middle East, a country where over a million Arabs live as full citizens: safely, securely, and viably. Some are judges, doctors, and members of parliament.
However, if the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority (with or without their prior blood enemies, yet current partner, Hamas) become racist and Jihadist dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and others in this area, then what exactly are the advantages to a peace treaty for Israel?
Should they become a democracy, protective of all religions and races - wonderful. I have no doubt most on both sides would then welcome them with open arms.
The elephant in the room remains, however, the Jews living in the settlements throughout the disputed territories, those remaining on the West Bank after cosmetic adjustments incorporating, into Israel proper, the main population centres close to the '67 border.
Yet the Palestinian Authority has made it abundantly clear that no Jews would be allowed in any future state. This does not bode well for peace - it's hard to find a more racist and discriminatory position that legislates for hate and enmity. Jews and bibles are banned from Saudi Arabia; the persecution of minorities is predominant in the Middle East. Why is it impossible to follow Israel's example where Jews, Arabs, Christians, Druze and others all live with reasonable comfortability and equality under the law.
Another "Judenrein" state smacks of Nazi Germany, not a peace-loving West Bank come to terms with the adjoining Jewish state of Israel. Most of the Jewish settlers would be happy to live there as part of a new democratic state, provided their safety was reliably guaranteed.
No reason why existing populations are not all respected, unless indeed the ultimate goal of some of the Arab leaders is not only a Jew-free Palestine, but a Jew-free Israel as well.
Leslie J. Sacks | 10550 Wilshire Blvd | Los Angeles | CA | 90024