The two-state “solution”: Around the world and in history

The government of Israel wants to negotiate, and apply to the Land of Israel, a two-state “solution.” Is the concept of two states considered by countries, other than Israel, for the purpose of resolving territorial conflicts?

China: No negotiation is permitted by China in relation to its national interests in Taiwan, in Tibet, in the Spratly Islands, or in the Paracel Islands. China does not entertain a two-state solution for Tibet, or a two-state solution for Taiwan. Rather, China invaded Tibet in 1950, and annexed it. In the decades since, there were sinofication of Tibet and strong measures against the Tibetan population. A standing policy of China is invasion and conquest of Taiwan, should Taiwan declare independence. In addition, China does not refer to Taiwan as the Republic of China, in the manner of the reference by the government of Israel to Judea, Samaria and Aza as “Palestine.” China refers to Taiwan as “Chinese Taiwan.” The world accepts those facts.

---

Russia: No negotiation is permitted by Russia in relation to its national interests in Chechnia. Russia does not entertain a two-state solution for Chechnia. Rather, Russia fought two wars against Chechnian attempts at independence (1994-1996; 1999-2000). Tens of thousands of Chechnians were killed by the Russians. They leveled half of Grozny. Russia retains sovereignty over Chechnia. The world accepts those facts. India and Pakistan: No negotiation is permitted by India or by Pakistan in relation to its respective national interests in Jammu and Kashmir. Neither India nor Pakistan entertains a two-state solution for Jammu and Kashmir. Rather, India and Pakistan fought three wars (1947; 1965; 1999) over Jammu and Kashmir. Each of India and Pakistan retains sovereignty over its respective part of Jammu and Kashmir. The world accepts those facts. United States: When, in 1861, southern states of the United States seceded from the Union, the United States did not negotiate its national interests at an international meeting. The United States did not entertain a two-state solution in relation to the Confederate States. Rather, the United States denied entirely the right of the southern states to secede and to form the Confederate States. The United States fought for, and took back, and retains to the present, sovereignty over the entire territory claimed by the Confederate States, which the United States destroyed. In 1973, a meeting took place between members of the American Indian Movement and members of the Oglala Sioux of South Dakota, who lived on the Pine Ridge Reservation, the site of 1890 Wounded Knee Massacre. There were violent clashes between traditionalists and modernists. On February 23, 1973, AIM proclaimed the Second Battle of Wounded Knee. They occupied buildings, and vowed to fight to the death, if necessary. The next day, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents, U.S. Marshals Service deputies, and Bureau of Indian Affairs police, surrounded the AIM-occupied buildings. On March 11, 1973, members of AIM and elders of the Oglala Sioux met, and they proclaimed the revival of the Independent Oglala Nation. They proposed discussions, between the Oglala Nation and the United States, as equal nations. Fruitless words mentioned the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, and the act of 1871 which provides that no Indian nation may be recognized as an independent nation capable of entering into a treaty with the United States. On May 9, 1973, after 71 days, AIM and the traditionalists surrendered. The United States arrested, tried, convicted, and meted long prison terms to the Indians who occupied buildings. A two-state solution was not implemented by the United States.

Failure at Lake Success

The State of Israel was not created by the United Nations. In 1948, bureaucrats at Lake Success devised a partition plan which the Jews accepted and the Arabs rejected. The proclamation by Ben-Gurion of re-establishment of Jewish sovereignty over the Land of Israel was independent of bureaucratic machinations. Had there been creation of the State of Israel by the United Nations, the legal position of the government of Israel, and of Jews in the Land of Israel, would be always tenuous. Whatever the United Nations gives, the United Nations can take away.

Settlor, trust instrument and beneficiary

When God gave the Land of Israel to the Jews, as recited in the Bible, He did so in trust. In law, a settlor is an owner of specified property, such as a parcel of land, who gives the specified property to another person, but subject to a trust. To do this, the owner of the property (the settlor) transfers ownership of the specific property (the corpus) to an entity (the trust) for the benefit of a named person (the beneficiary). The means of transfer is a document (the trust instrument). The corpus is owned by the trust, and the corpus is managed by the manager of the trust (the trustee). It is the duty of a trustee fulfill the intention of the settlor, as expressed in the trust instrument. Utmost fidelity is required of a trustee toward the corpus of the trust and toward the beneficiary of a trust. God is the Settlor of the trust, the corpus of which is the Land of Israel. Portions of the Bible are the trust instrument. E.g., Genesis 15:1-21; Numbers 21:21-22:1, 34:1-15; Deuteronomy 2:17-3:27. The trust is a concept expressed in the Bible, rather than an entity. Terms in the trust instrument include the boundary of the Land of Israel, the transfer of the Land of Israel to Jews, the permanence of the possessory interest of Jews in the Land of Israel, and the permanence of the trust. By default, the present trustee of the trust is the government of Israel. The beneficiaries of the trust are all Jews, throughout their generations. The world does not accept those facts, because they are decisive to Jews. Without God and the biblical trust, there is no superior claim of Jews to the Land of Israel. As trustee, the government of Israel is entirely without fidelity. The giving away by the government of Israel of swathes of the Land of Israel to Arabs, and the potential giving away by the government of Israel of more swathes of the Land of Israel to Arabs, stem from the contempt of the government of Israel for the Settlor of the trust, for the corpus of the trust, for the terms of the trust, for the Book in which it is written, and for the beneficiaries of the trust. Instead of declaring and enforcing the rights of Jews, the government of Israel continues the touchy-feely policy toward Arabs put in place by left-wing Jews in Mandatory Palestine after World War I. The self-defeatism inherent in that policy caused the government of Israel to lose the peace in 1948, to lose the peace again in 1956, to lose the peace once again in 1967, and, in ensuing years, to cement its loss of the peace. Baseball has a rule: three strikes, you're out. That rule should have been applied by the government of Israel in 1967, after the third major Israel-Arab war. It was not.

Denial of Jewish sovereignty

Creation of a “Palestine” was made possible by denial, by the government of Israel, of Jewish sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and Aza. Denial created the condition precedent for entry of some other sovereignty there. A population was needed. Creation of “Palestinians” was made possible by denial, by the government of Israel, of the right of Jews to live everywhere in the Land of Israel. Lebanese, Syrian, Iraqi and Jordanian Arabs live in Judea and Samaria. Egyptian Arabs live in Aza. Joan Peters, From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine (1984). The government of Israel connived with those Lebanese, Syrian, Iraqi, Jordanian and Egyptian Arabs to apply to them the label “Palestinians,” a term which theretofore never connoted a national identity. With further connivance of the government of Israel, those Lebanese, Syrian, Iraqi, Jordanian and Egyptian Arabs manufactured the potential other sovereignty of “Palestine Authority.” Like a Dr. Frankenstein, the government of Israel engendered the monster of “Palestine.” That monster, through “Palestinians,” turned and wreaked vengeance on its creator. Vengeance included thousands of murders of civilian Jews at the hands of Arabs; thousands of killings of military-service Jews at the hands of Arabs. Unlike the fictional monster, the Arab monster will express no remorse, and will not immolate itself.

“International law” and “international community”

There is no “international law” any more than there is an “international community.” The term “international community” is a euphemism for the totality of disparate, motley countries which fight endless wars of all against all. Thomas Hobbes wrote, in another context, that “. . . during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man.” Leviathan, ch. 13. Actions of the government of Israel in line with “international law” are anomalous. Some countries other than Israel pay lip service to “international law.” Most countries do not even that. Lip service or no service, every country acts in accordance with its national self interest, because there is no “international law” and there is no “international community.” The lowest common denominator of countries large and small is Jew-hatred. That explains widespread use of “international law” by the “international community” as a club with which to clobber Israel. Two examples among many are the countless anti-Israel resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly, and the innumerable anti-Israel resolutions by the UN Human Rights Council and its predecessor UN Commission on Human Rights. A visitor from Mars who counts all those resolutions, and who takes note of the diplomatic efforts monomaniacally devoted to drafting them, circulating them, discussing them and passing them, would be forgiven for thinking that, to the “international community,” the overriding threat to the third planet is Jews living in the Land of Israel and governing the Land of Israel. During the sixty-five years of the existence of the United Nations, no circumstance -- not the murders of seventy million people by the Red Chinese; not the Gulag archipelago maintained by the Soviet Union; not the brutalization of North Koreans; not the oppression of Burmese; not the loot-motivated wars in Africa; not the genocide in East Timor; not the genocide in Rwanda; not the genocide in Cambodia; not all of them together -- has been of greater concern to the “international community” than “the Jewish problem.” The “international community,” which knew of the World War II death camps but refused to bomb the railroad tracks which led to them, regrets that the Nazis did not fully effectuate the Final Solution to “the Jewish problem.” The one-sidedness of the “obligation” of the government of Israel, under “international law,” to create a “Palestine” out of Judea, Samaria and Aza, which are integral parts of the Land of Israel, is illustrated by application elsewhere of the concept of two states for the purpose of resolving a territorial conflict. Suppose that a call were issued to Moslem Iraq and to Moslem Turkey to give away land for peace, to create a homeland. Suppose that there were UN resolutions expressive of the obligation, under “international law,” of Iraq to deny its sovereignty over Kurdistan, and of Turkey to deny its sovereignty over Anatolia, and for Iraq and Turkey to create ex nihilo, out of Iraqi Kurdistan and Turkish Anatolia, a homeland for Kurds, with Mosul as its capital. There would be no two-state solution. No sonorous talk about a Kurdistan living side-by-side in peace and security with Iraq. No visionary sound-bites about mutually-beneficial relations between Kurdistan and Turkey. No road map; no international conferences; not a single meeting at Camp David. No shuttle diplomacy among Baghdad and Ankara and Mosul. There would be no establishment and endless funding of a United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Kurdish Refugees in the Near East (compare the UNRWA). Iraq and Turkey, respectively, would respond with outright rejection of, and outraged nationalism about, alienation of even a square foot of its territory. Each of Iraq and Turkey would say that territorial integrity is an unshakeable standard of “international law.” In that, Iraq and Turkey would be supported by the “international community.” It is otherwise for Israel. Two recent events should be juxtaposed. In June, 2010, there were systematic attacks by ethnic Kyrgyz in Kyrgyzstan against ethnic Uzbeks in Kyrgyzstan. More than 2,000 ethnic Uzbeks were murdered. Hundreds of houses and shops owned by ethnic Uzbeks were destroyed. There were 400,000 refugees, as ethnic Uzbeks fled to Uzbekistan. The “international community” took no notice. “International law” was not invoked to condemn the government of Kyrgyzstan. No one demonstrated, in any city, in protest of the systematic attacks. In May, 2010, a “humanitarian” flotilla of three ships, one passenger ship with Jew-haters as passengers, and two cargo ships with goods of unknown quality and quantity, attempted to break the Israeli blockade of Aza. The “humanitarian” passengers disdained delivery to Aza via the port of Ashdod, because the aim of the “humanitarian” passengers was not delivery of “humanitarian” goods, but was to prove the illegitimacy of Israel, and to prove that it is illicit for the government of Israel to protect Israelis from the onslaughts of the Hamas gang which is in control of Aza. The “international community” took notice of the meretricious blockade-running by praising it. “International law” was invoked to condemn the government of Israel. Nine “humanitarian” participants on board the passenger ship were killed (not 2,000, as in Kyrgyzstan), in self defense by Israeli military personnel (not in ethnic clashes, as in Kyrgyzstan). “Spontaneous” anti-Israel demonstrations were held in various cities around the world. A moment’s thought leads to the conclusion that blockades are permissible. It is well within the war powers of a country to deny war materiel to an enemy. Here’s a baker’s dozen of blockades of recent history, among numerous historical instances of blockades:

1. By the United States of the Confederate States, during the War Between the States (duration of war: 1861-1865).
2. By the Great Powers of Constantinople, during the Ottoman-Greek War of 1897.
3. By the United States of San Juan, Puerto Rico, during the Spanish-American War (duration of war: a few months in 1898).
4. By the United Kingdom of Germany, during World War I.
5. By the United States of Japan, during World War II.
6. By the Soviet Union of West Berlin in 1948-1949, during the Cold War.
7. By Egypt of the Strait of Tiran, prior to the 1956 Suez War.
8. By the United States of Cuba in 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
9. By Egypt of the Strait of Tiran, prior to the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.
10. By India of East Pakistan, during the 1971 Bangladesh War.
11. By Egypt of Israel, during the 1973 Yom Kippur War.
12. By NATO of Yugoslavia in 1993-1996, during Operation Sharp Guard.
13. By Turkey and Azerbaijan of Armenia, during the Nagorno-Karabakh War (duration of war: 1988-1994).

The gist of the “international law” prescribed by the leadership of the “humanitarian” flotilla in particular, repeated Goebbels-like by the Left comprehensively, and accepted by the “international community” generally, is that Israel, alone among countries, has no legal right to act in its own behalf. The United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, Egypt, NATO, Turkey and Azerbaijan may maintain blockades. Israel may not. Another only-Israel-may-not inconsistency is the assertion by the “international community” that “international law” prohibits acquisition by Israel of territory in consequence of the 1967 war. There is no assertion by the “international community” that “international law” prohibited acquisition by China of Tibet as a consequence of the 1950 war waged by China against Tibet; or that “international law” prohibited acquisition by Russia of Finnish territory in consequence of World War II; or that “international law’ prohibited acquisition by Russia of Japanese territory, likewise in consequence of World War II; or that “international law” prohibited acquisition by India and Pakistan of their respective parts of Jammu and Kashmir in consequence of the 1947 war; or that “international law” prohibited acquisition by India of Goa, Daman and Diu in consequence of the 1961 war by India against those Portuguese territories.

Two-state “solution” and 22-state solution

The “international community” demands a two-state “solution” detrimental to Israel. No comparable demand is made for a two-state solution detrimental to Spain and France, concerning the Basque country. Or detrimental to the Philippines, concerning Mindanao. Or detrimental to Cyprus, concerning the Greek and Turkish parts of the island. Or detrimental to Georgia, concerning each of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. There was no demand by the “international community” that there should have been a two-state solution detrimental to Sri Lanka, concerning the Sinhalese and the Tamils. The presence of Jews in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, the Golan Heights, the Sheba’a Farms, and Aza is rightful. To the perverse “international community,” that rightful presence is, and as to Aza was, an “occupation,” and a contravention of “international law.” The wrongful occupation by Arabs of Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria et al. is ignored. Nothing is said about the United Kingdom contravening “international law” by occupation of Northern Ireland; or about Spain contravening “international law” by occupation of the Canary Islands, Melilla, and Ceuta. It is high time for the “international community” to get over its fixation with the two-state “solution,” and to sign up for the 22-state solution. Israel plus 21 Arab countries would participate in the 22-state solution. Thereunder, Arabs keep the 5,300,000 square miles of 21 of the 22 members of the League of Arab States (that excludes the square miles claimed by the “Palestine Authority,” one of the members of the League). Jews keep the Land of Israel, and its mere 11,000 square miles. The two-state “solution” is a bill of goods, bought by the government of Israel at a heavy price: tens of thousands of deaths, military and civilian, of Jews at the hands of Arabs, plus abandonment by the government of Israel of the Sinai peninsula, plus abandonment by the government of Israel of Aza, plus desertion and forceful removal by the government of Israel of Jewish settlers in Aza, plus desertions and forceful removals by the government of Israel of Jewish settlers from various places in Judea and Samaria. Despite the heavy price paid to date, the bill of goods is not paid in full by the government of Israel. It will be expected by the “international community” to commit yet more crimes against the Land of Israel and against Jews, under the euphemism of “painful concessions.” If implemented, the two-state “solution” would find a vulnerable Land of Israel, hemmed by an irrational border, and surrounded by a post-Mubarak Egypt, a Hamas-controlled Aza, a post-Abbas “Palestine,” an Assad-controlled Syria, and a Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon. A coordinated ground attack from those Arabs, coupled with a rain of rockets from Iran, would cause irreparable harm.

National interests of Israel

It’s high time for the government of Israel to define the national interests of Israel and to implement them:

1. The government of Israel should abandon its Jew-hating subservience to the “international community.”
2. The government of Israel should say “No” to its Judaism-hating two-state “solution.”
3. The name of the country should be changed to Yisrael. Name changes of countries include Ivory Coast - Côte D’Ivoire; Burma - Myanmar; Ceylon - Sri Lanka.
4. The name of the capital of the country should be changed to Yerushalayim. Name changes of capital cities include Rangoon - Yangon (the capital was since moved to Naypyidaw); Akmola - Astana. See also Stanley - Puerto Argentino, which reverted to Stanley; Bombay - Mumbai; Calcutta - Kolkata.
5. Embassies should be required by the government of Israel to be located in Yerushalayim. A foreign government has no authority to demand that the location of its embassy be New York or Philadelphia rather than Washington; or Rio de Janeiro rather than Brasilia. If a foreign government demurs, its representation in Israel should be a mission. Not a consulate, because a consulate implies an embassy.
6. There should be a declaration by the government of Israel that the entirety of the Land of Israel, from the north to the south, from the Mediterranean to the east side of the River Jordan, and along the east side of the Salt Sea and all of the Negev, is Jewish.
7. The declaration should be implemented by kicking out all Arabs in the Land of Israel.

Why not? Serbians were successful in their kicking out of Bosnians, thereby getting Republika Serpska for themselves. South Ossetians were successful in their kicking out of Georgians, thereby getting South Ossetia for themselves. It is not by-the-bye that Arab countries kicked out Jews, thereby getting for themselves Arab countries which are judenfreien (free of Jews) and judenreinen (free of Jewish influences). The accusation of “racism” would be hurled at Jews, though that accusation is not hurled at China or Japan or Russia or Malaysia, in each of which racism is woven into the woof and warp of society. The accusation of “racism” is not addressed to Moslems, though Jew-hatred is a pestilence fomented throughout the Moslem world, including Arab countries. Racism does not describe the proposed kicking out. An action is racist if it is motivated by the color of a man’s skin. The proposed kicking out is not motivated by skin color. It is motivated by the incompatibility of Jewish culture and Arab culture. It is motivated by the unbounded hatred of Muslims, Arabs among them, of Jews and Judaism. It is motivated by massacres and murders and killings and maimings of Jews, since the end of World War I, by Arabs. It is motivated by Arab wars against Jews (1948; 1956; 1967; 1973), and repeated promises of another one. It is motivated by Arab bombs, Arab bullets and Arab rockets in and into the Land of Israel. It is motivated by two intifadas (Arabic for “crime waves”) against Israel. It is motivated by desecrations of Jewish graves in Arab countries. It is motivated by the beheading of Daniel Pearl. It is motivated by the torture-murders at the Chabad house in Mumbai. All coexistence schemes concocted for Jews and Arabs are doomed to failure. Jews are Jews, Arabs are Arabs, “and never the twain shall meet” (Kipling).

Conclusion

The alternative to the defining and implementing by the government of Israel of the national interests of Israel is yet more harm to the Land of Israel, to Jews, to Judaism, and to future generations of Jews. The government of Israel would do better to look after and preserve the Land of Israel for all Jews and their progeny, than to be the enabler of the second and ultimate stage of the Final Solution. Copyright 2011 Stephen Kruger Stephen Kruger is a lawyer, a writer, and an editor who comments on legal matters.