ePART II

In the first part of this article, we reviewed the concept of the "Palestinian people," a name taken by Arabs living in Palestine for propaganda purposes. We noted the establishment of the Palestinian National Conference and its original charter to destroy the Jewish State. This was before the Six Day War of 1967, when there were no Jewish "settlements" at all (except for all the towns and cities of Israel).

In the 12th amendment of its charter in 1974, the Palestinian National Conference adopted a phased policy for Palestinian nationalism, popularly called the "plan of stages," which postponed the one-(Arab) state solution until a later stage and introduced the two-state solution. This scheme called for a transitional Palestinian state to share "Palestine" with the Israeli state, until Israel was defeated or withered away. Yasser Arafat deftly used this ambiguous policy to gain worldwide credibility for the Palestinians, symbolized by his appearance, wearing a holster on his belt, on the podium of the United Nations General Assembly. Arafat's reincarnation as a statesman was accompanied by the outbreak of Palestinian terrorism in the air, on the land, and at sea.

The belated acceptance in 1988 of the 1947 Partition Plan paved the way for recognition by the USA of the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) as the sole representative of the "Palestinian" people. This took place only after the PLO ostensibly renounced terrorism and accepted the relevant UN resolutions: 181, 242, 333. The latter two dealt with "safe and secure" borders for Israel and "refugees,"and followed the 1967 Six-Day War.

The tangible result of these first steps in the "plan of stages" opened the door to the Oslo concessions by Israel in the early-1990s, which gave Arafat a potential state alongside of Israel in Gaza and a sizable portion of the West Bank (also known as Judea and Samaria since Biblical times). In reality, the PLO never canceled the clauses of the PNC covenant calling for Israel's destruction, a major requirement of the Oslo Accord. This was amply demonstrated by the continual terror attacks against Israel which accompanied Arafat's sporadic attempts at negotiations. Instead of a sincere change in the PLO creed, there was only the "decision" to change the covenant, minus the actual change. Arafat further dissembled by sending a letter to President Clinton reaffirming the decision to change the covenant, but again the promised change was never made.

The recent rise of the Iranianbacked Hamas movement in Gaza and the ineffective negotiations with the toothless, secular Fatah Party, which shakily represents the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, have changed the ball game. The presence and expansion of Jewish communities beyond the Green Line is identified as the major block to the creation of a Palestinian state alongside of Israel. The one-state solution for the bi-national, Arab/Jewish "State of Palestine," which would include all of Israel's territory, has regained its original popularity among the Arabs, plus many Western "intellectuals". Ironically, a Palestinian state wasn't created between 1949 and 1967 when Egypt ruled Gaza and Jordan ruled the West Bank, even though there were zero Jewish communities in either area during that period.

Underpinning the concept of the one-state solution is the argument that Israel is an illegitimate, racist state. This misstatement is disproven by the fact that modern Israel was recognized by the USA and many other countries in 1948, accepted for membership by the United Nations in 1949, contains many religious and ethnic groups among its citizens, and is the most democratic state in the Middle East. In contrast, Egypt and Syria describe themselves as "Arab States" and Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan all base themselves on Islam and identify themselves as "Muslim States."

The one-state solution has even impressed some neo-Zionist Israelis and Diaspora Jews, who swallow the Muslim narrative of Israel as a state "born in sin". They have become advocates for a frenzied surrender of Israel to Palestinian/Muslim demands, based on their fear of an imminent collapse of the Jewish state. Former Speaker of the Knesset Avrum Burg is an example of this type, traveling the world making outrageous declarations about Israel. Even the disgraced, soon to be replaced Prime Minister Olmert is beginning to sing the same tune. Fortunately, most Israelis, Diaspora Jews, and Christian Zionists are more stalwart in their support of Israel.

On November 5, 2005, British journalist Charles Moore had this to say on the "Telegraph" newspaper's website: "Well, some will say, that is the way it is: Israel has abused power, and is reaping the whirlwind. I don't want to argue today about the rights and wrongs of Israel's actions, though I think, given its difficulties, it stands up better than most before the bar of history. All I want to ask my fellow Europeans is this: are you happy to help direct the world's fury at the only country in the Middle East whose civilization even remotely resembles yours? And are you sure that the fate of Israel has no bearing on your own? In Iran, the new President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes the link. The battle over Palestine, he says, is 'the prelude of the battle of Islam with the world of arrogance,' the world of the West. He is busy building his country's nuclear bomb."

The idea of a one-state solution between the Jordan River and Palestine is a non-starter. At this point, the two-state solution appears to be at a dead end, with Hamas positioning itself to replace the secular Fatah party in the West Bank. Resolute and practical leadership by the West in the Middle East is essential to stop the Islamists in their tracks, one way or another. A powerful state like Israel cannot be wished away, nor destroyed, by terrorists or their intellectual fellow travelers. With the new year upon us, advocates for Israel should dedicate themselves to supporting strong leaders in Israel and throughout Western countries, leaders who realize that Islamic jihadist forces are one of their biggest problems, if not the major one.

Note: for a more detailed treatment of this subject, see Jonathan Spyer's article, "Forward to the Past: The Fall and Rise of the One-State Solution." [www.meria.idc.ac.il]

Stephen Kramer resided and worked in the Atlantic City area until 1991, when he moved to Israel with his wife, Michal Langweiler, and two sons. He can be reached at Sjk1@jhu.edu.