Read Ebook {PDF EPUB} The Israeli Solution A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East by Caroline B. Glick The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East by Caroline B. Glick. The endgame for Mahmoud Abbas is the destruction of Israel. Caroline Glick’s latest book, "The Israeli Solution, a One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East", carefully explains the political, legal, demographic, and military position of Israel in the modern world. She corrects many faulty notions that are prevalent about Israel. The reader learns from her that Israel was not created as an emotional reaction by a world horrified by the Holocaust. Its legitimacy and destiny as a State is grounded in historical and political realities that antedate the Holocaust, and in the prayerful longings of the Jewish people to be restored to and to rule their own homeland after dispossession by the vengeful Romans 20 centuries ago. Although she does not place much emphasis on the visionary and incredibly determined work of Theodore Herzl and Chaim Weizman, their vision is foundational and cannot be separated from the existence of present-day Israel. Rather, she derives Israel’s right to exist primarily from three sources: the continued presence of Jews in the territory now called Israel for 2000 years, the Palestine Mandate to the British, and from the British after World War I, and U.N. Resolution 181 which established the state of Israel (as a Jewish state). With amazing logic and compelling detail, she depicts every phase and aspect of Israel’s struggle to come into existence and remain in existence from 1920 until the present. The reader can see plainly that the Arab world accepted France’s mandate to create an independent Syria and Lebanon, and the legitimacy of the British prerogative to create Iraq and Jordan, but at the same time found the British mandate for a Jewish state to be illegal and untenable. Self-determination became a by-word, a new, significant idea in international affairs after WWI and especially after Wilson’s Fourteen Points, but self-determination for the Jews who had remained as a continuous presence in Palestine for 2000 years – to this, the Arab world’s resounding answer was no. Israel has had to struggle all these decades against a pathological and almost fiendish opposition by the Arab world to her claims. "One State Solution" is utterly and properly offended by the racism and religious bigotry of the Arab world with respect to the Jews living in their midst. She depicts with seeming effortless, elegant writing the hatred of the PLO towards Israel and towards Jews. The book corrects many myths about the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab world. One myth in particular stands out, namely that Yasser Arafat failed in his goals because the two-state reality of Israel and an Arab Palestine was never realized despite his engagement in the Oslo process. She debunks the idea of his failure, but in beautiful detail demonstrates the extent of his success. With the help of the USSR, he managed to create a worldwide diplomatic climate of opinion hostile to Israel where many countries now believe, falsely, that Israel is a colonialist power in the Middle East and racist to the core. This portrayal fits the Marxist interpretation that the West needs to be “imperialistic” in order to perpetuate capitalism, but that, based on historical necessity, the West is thereby sowing the seeds of its own destruction. In short, imperialism so-called is slated to self-destruct and will bring down the colonialists with it. By the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, this narrative with respect to Israel’s role in the Middle East whereby Israelis are colonialist exploiters of the Palestinian Arab people, was firmly entrenched. It is a narrative that has been played thousands of times until, for many ears, it has the ring of truth. But Caroline Glick argues forcefully on every page for the falsity of this vision. Further, Arafat was bailed out time and time again by the U.S., lionized by a sycophantic world press for his “flexibility” and “moderation,” and excused for his masterminding of massacres and murders. He was behind the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Olympic games in Munich, his Intifada killed hundreds of Israelis, and he repeatedly broke every signed agreement made under the Oslo Accords. Yet, he remained the teflon terrorist throughout. After being kicked out of Jordan and Lebanon by his fellow Arabs, the U.S. found a place of sanctuary for him and his cohorts in Tunisia. Furthermore, the U.S. has financed the security forces of the Palestinian Authority, and thus increased significantly the dangers to Israeli life and limb, and the precariousness of Israel’s national existence. Ms. Glick documents Arafat’s criminal intentions and actions with overwhelming detail, and yet, as she sadly reports, he remained supported and encouraged by a long list of U.S. Presidents. It is hard for an American reader of this book not to come away believing that the American Executive Branch played the part of a prostitute in our relations with Arafat. Not only were American values of liberty and democracy prostituted, but the United States was like a prostitute who actually paid the client to have his way with her. Negotiations with the Palestinian Arabs, the book tells us, have stagnated into a failed prioritizing of the so-called “two state solution.” Yet, Glick avers the two-state solution is the cause of the twenty year stalemate. It is not a viable solution. In fact, the Palestinian Arabs have rejected establishment of their own state on four different occasions. The assumption that we have “just barely missed” working out a final solution is a wrong conclusion. Rather, she posits that the Palestinian leadership does not want a two-state solution, but wants the destruction of the State of Israel as a sovereign, Jewish entity in the Middle East. Her solution to the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria (often improperly called “the West Bank”) is to follow actions taken by Prime Minister Begin who placed the Golan Heights and Jerusalem under Israeli law in the 1980’s. Although technically those areas were not annexed to Israel, placing them under Israeli law was a de facto annexation. They were no longer administered by the military. Palestinian Arabs, and many Western journalists seem to think that Israeli military presence means territories are “occupied,” but it does not. The military is there to protect Israeli interests while the disputed territories are engaged in ‘dispute resolution’ with interested parties. Once Israeli law is put into effect, Israel would be unilaterally affirming the end of ‘dispute’ and settling the question of control. With passion and care, the author reviews the pros and cons of taking such a step. She expresses a great deal of concern about the European reaction to such a move. Also, there would certainly be fallout from increasing the number of Arab permanent residents and/or citizens as part of Israeli demographics. Yet, this big step will give relief from the cul-de-sac Israel now finds itself in, where she endlessly negotiates for a two-state solution that the Palestinian Arabs do not want. The endgame for Mahmoud Abbas is the destruction of Israel. The Israeli Solution projects an alternative to the dangerous gamesmanship and perpetual war we have witnessed in the quest for a so-called two state solution. Yet, is it really wise to try to absorb a fiendish population – people mired in rage, mental instability, and rigid ideology – into one’s country? Their co-Arabs have kicked them out of three different countries (Jordan, Lebanon, and Kuwait), so it seems unlikely they can be absorbed, even on a gradual basis, into the legal structure and fabric of Israeli society. The expulsion of the Palestinian Arabs from Judea and Samaria, although not suggested in Glick's book, would be much more effective in bringing peace to Israel. Yet, before doing so, an aggressive public relations campaign against the Palestinian Arabs is needed to counteract Arab and Soviet-era propaganda about Israel. This campaign would put the moral onus where it belongs – on the attitudes, beliefs, and behavior of the Arabs, who were and still remain, an implacable enemy. The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East by Caroline B. Glick. As far as we are concerned, Ahmad is a hero and a martyr - Ali Mahameed at the funeral of his relative, Ahmed Muhammad Mahameed, the Israeli-Arab killed in a recent attempted terror attack, Ynetnews, Aug. 21, 2018. Events of the past weeks have highlighted the incipient disloyalty—or at least the evident passive lack of loyalty—of significant sectors of the Israeli-Arab population to Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, and a clear rejection of the fundamental precepts on which the State of Israel was founded. It also cast grave doubts on the feasibility—and advisability—of most of the currently touted “Right” -wing proposals for the extension of Israeli sovereignty over Judea-Samaria. A catalog of repudiation of Jewish sovereignty. Following the racist cacophony of the Israeli-Arabs in the wake of the legislation of the Nationality Bill in July, denying the Jewish people the right to a sovereign nation-state (despite the constitutional assurance of civil equality for non-Jewish minorities), a series of several other disturbing events took place. In the coastal Arab village of Jisr-al-Zarka, about 40 km south of Haifa, two incidents of assault on state symbols by local residents took place. The one involved shots being fired in early August on the police station in the village, recently established as part of a wider initiative to bolster enforcement of law and order in the largely lawless Arab sector. The other entailed an attempt, on August 15, by two other residents to remove the Israeli flag flying over the station. Two days later, Ahmed Muhammad Mahameed, a resident of another Israeli-Arab town, Umm-al-Fahm, attempted to stab an Israeli policeman in Jerusalem, and was shot dead. Despite the family’s undertaking to hold a small, unobtrusive burial, the funeral swiftly developed into a mass demonstration, with crowds brandishing Palestinian flags and loudly chanting anti-Israel slogans. Significantly, this public display of anti-Israeli sentiment was strongly reminiscent of the events that took place in Umm-al Fahm, just over a year ago, at the funerals of three residents of the town who were killed after they gunned down two Israeli police officers on the Temple Mount. Then, just a few days ago, it was reported that Arab Knesset members of the Joint List were colluding with members of the Palestinian delegation at the UN to initiate measures of censure against Israel. Sustained support for the enemy. Clearly then, after over seven decades of living under Israeli sovereignty, after benefiting hugely from the civil equality afforded them (despite repeated instances of expressed affiliation with Israel’s most vehement foes), Israeli Arabs still find it difficult to accept—never mind, identify with —foundational fundamentals on which Israel was established—as the nation-state of the Jewish people. Despite having experienced the societal and economic advantages those fundamentals have brought them—particularly compared to the penury and violence in the surrounding states, founded on very different ones—they continue to demonstrate that they cannot abide the notion of Jewish sovereignty over the land. In the 2015 elections, well over 80% of the Arab electorate voted for the overtly anti-Zionist Joint List, a motley amalgam of political factions. whose only common ideological bond -- its very raison d’etre—is the rejection of the Jewish character of Israel. Thus, in the 2015 elections, well over 80% of the Arab electorate voted for the overtly anti-Zionist Joint List, a motley amalgam of political factions, ranging from radical communists to Muslim fundamentalists, whose only common ideological bond –indeed its very raison d’etre —is the rejection of the Jewish character of Israel. Indeed, its elected officials, arguably among those who have benefited most from the socio-political order, have been the most vehement in their overt support for Israel’s most virulent enemies. Thus, Azmi Bishara, founder of the Balad party, currently part of the Joint List, gave a speech in Umm al-Fahm in 2001—as a Knesset member— deploring Israel's victory in the Six-Day War. Praising Hezbollah. Later the same year, he visited Syria, giving a speech mourning the death of Syria's President, Hafez al-Assad, and expressing solidarity with Syria's and Hezbollah's fight against Israel. (Significantly in light of the current debate of the role of the judiciary in the political process, the Israeli Supreme Court refused to remove Bishara’s parliamentary immunity to allow his prosecution for aiding an enemy state and terror organization.) Shortly after the 2006 Second Lebanon War, Bihsara arrived again in Syria and together with other members of his Balad party (including Jamal Zahalka , currently head of Balad) visited Lebanon, where they met the Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora. The Israeli Knesset members expressed their support for Hezbollah, praising the terror organization’s military action against Israel, informing the Lebanese PM that it had " lifted the spirit of the Arab people [sic]”. It was thus not totally unexpected to hear that in 2007, Bishara had fled the country under suspicion of aiding Hezbollah during the Second Lebanon War, later resigning his seat in the Knesset. Then, of course, there is Haneen Zouabi, who chose to participate in the infamous flotilla initiated by the terrorist-affiliated jihadist Turkish organization, IHH on the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara, endeavoring to break the security cordon imposed on Gaza. Zouabi, another Balad member, and currently an MK of the Joint List, is on recordproclaiming that the very concept of a Jewish state was " inherently racist " and expressing support for Iran’s nuclear program, which she endorsed as necessary to balance Israel’s military power, which she identified as the major regional danger. Smuggling cellphones to terrorists. Another Joint List MK, Basel Ghattas , was caught, in late 2016, smuggling cell phones and SIM cards to convicted terrorists in an Israeli prison under cover of his parliamentary immunity. Ghattas resigned his Knesset seat and is currently serving a prison sentence for aiding a terrorist organization and a string of other offences. Just months ago, Jamal Zahalka , who succeed Bishara as head of Balad, (today also a Joint List MK), declared that he “ would rather die than sing the Israeli national anthem ”—i.e. rather die than sing the anthem of the country in whose parliament he serves. As for the national flag he declared: “ It’s a lot worse than a rag”. Last but not least, there is Ahmad Tibi, who before being elected as an MK, served as a political advisor to the arch-terrorist, Yasser Arafat. Tibi, today also a Joint List MK, is a declared anti-Zionist who opposes Israel's character as a Jewish state, claiming that its self-definition as Jewish is racist. He rejects, across the board, elements that reflect the Jewish nature of Israel—including the Law of Return, the flag, and the national anthem. Tibi, as an Israeli legislator, opposes the recruitment of Arab citizens of Israel into the IDF while supporting the Palestinian right of return, calling it a prerequisite for reconciliation. An incandescent “red light” The reason that I catalogue these instances is to underscore the political sentiments of the Israeli-Arabs as a collective, reflected in the parties and the individuals they vote for. After decades of life as fully enfranchised citizens under Israeli sovereignty, they—and certainly their elected representatives—resist and resent the Jewish nature of the state, in which they live and which has bestowed on them such far-reaching societal benefits—notwithstanding their clear sentiments of affiliation with Israel’s implacable foes. The fact that incipient enmity exists—indeed, persists--despite the relative social and material advantages the Israeli-Arabs enjoy relative to those of their kinfolk across Israel’s borders, should serve as an incandescent red light to well-meaning proponents of extending Israeli sovereignty over Judea-Samaria together with the Arab population resident there. One of the best known proposals—arguably, the best known—is that of the prominent columnist, Caroline Glick, which she elaborates on in her 2014 book, The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East . To briefly summarize the gist of her proposal, in her own words, Glick writes: The mechanics of the policy are fairly straightforward. Israel will apply its laws to Judea and Samaria and govern the areas as normal parts of Israel…Contingent on security concerns…Palestinians will have the right to travel and live anywhere they wish within Israeli territory…Palestinians will have the same legal and civil rights as the rest of the residents and citizens of Israel… Those that receive Israeli citizenship in accordance with Israel’s Citizenship Law will also be allowed to vote in national elections for the Knesset. Unfounded optimism vs. bitter experience. Glick bases her proposal on “alternative” demographic assessments that the Muslim population in Judea-Samaria is grossly inflated. But even granting that this is correct, her proposal involves doubling the current number of Muslims in Israel’s permanent population. Moreover, as Glick acknowledges herself, this additional population has for generations, been “ fed…a steady diet of jihadist and Nazi-style anti-Semitism ” by means of the “ Palestinian school system and media and appointed imams in mosques ”. Glick appears to be alive to the problematic potential this entails, writing: … suddenly reducing the Jewish majority from 75 percent to 66 percent will undoubtedly have unforeseeable consequences on Israeli politics.” However, I fear that the consequences may well be entirely foreseeable and equally detrimental. Optimistically, she predicts: “ an Israeli assertion of central authority over the areas will likely have a significant moderating impact. Once the population feels there is a central governing authority in place, that sense of order will likely neutralize a significant amount of opposition momentum spurred by anti-Israel animus.” This of course stands in stark contrast to the evidence of recent weeks among Israeli-Arabs, which offers persuasive proof that despite decades of assertion of central authority” this has done little, if anything, “ to neutralize …anti-Israel animus”. Indeed, one can only wonder with grave concern just how such anti-Israel animus might be spurred by doubling the Muslim population, fed for generations with “ a steady diet of jihadist and Nazi- style anti-Semitism ”. The irrelevance of initial Jewish majority. After all, even if the optimistic demographic assessments are correct, her prescription will still entail a Muslim minority of 35-40%. This, in itself, will have far reaching implications both for budget allocations and the socio-economic fabric of the country. Clearly, with a recalcitrant minority of this size, including many of whom (as Glick herself acknowledges) have been taught for decades to hate Jews and who vehemently reject the Jewish character of the state, its symbols, calendar and conduct of public life, it will be impossible to forge a coherent and cohesive society. Rather, the result is likely to be pervasive inter-ethnic strife, even violence, and the Lebanonization of Israeli society. Moreover, as I have pointed out elsewhere, the addition of the Arab residents of Judea-Samaria to Israel’s permanent population will compel a massive diversion of resources to reduce, in some measure, the yawning gaps in the socio-economic conditions that exist between the Muslim population beyond the pre-1967 lines and the rest of the Israel. This will inevitably siphon off funds currently utilized for enhancing infrastructure, welfare, education and so on, dramatically lowering the standard and quality of life for the existing citizenry. The combination of deteriorating economic conditions and increasing interethnic friction will give rise to a detrimental demographic dynamic— making Israel an increasingly less attractive destination for Jews abroad and a decreasingly appealing place of residence for the Jewish population in Israel. The almost certain result will be diminished Aliyah (Jewish immigration) and accelerated Yeridah (Jewish emigration), eroding the Jewish numerical majority and imperiling the Zionist electoral majority—especially in the light of the recent behavior of Left wing factions in the wake of the “Nationality Bill”. Evacuation-Compensation for Arabs as sole Zionist-compliant policy. Accordingly, the prescription advanced by Glick in calling for a “ A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East ”entailing extension of Israeli sovereignty over Judea-Samaria—including the Arab population—will jeopardize the Zionist enterprise no less—arguably more so—than the two- state paradigm, which she rightly repudiates with great force and eloquence. As the year draws to a close I would urge her to rethink the positions she has hitherto adopted and consider charting a different course. So, while I completely concur with her that Israeli sovereignty must be extended from the “River to the Sea,” I call on her to endorse a vigorous program of incentivized emigration (a.k.a. Evacuation – Compensation ) for the Arab residents in Judea-Samaria as the only non-“kinetic” policy prescription that can adequately address Israel’s geographic imperative and its demographic one—if it is to endure as the nation state of the Jewish people. After all, the principle of “Evacuation – Compensation” is often advanced for the removal of Jewish residents in Judea-Samaria—to facilitate the establishment of yet another homophobic, misogynistic Muslim-majority tyranny (a.k.a. a Palestinian state). So why not rather advance the same principle for the evacuation-compensation of the Arab residents of Judea-Samaria–-to prevent the establishment of such a homophobic, misogynistic tyranny…? There Should Be No Palestinian State. Caroline B. Glick is the author of "The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East" and the senior contributing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Updated December 5, 2014, 4:02 PM. When Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven announced his decision to recognize the non-existent state of “Palestine” earlier this month, he inadvertently gave the game away. “A two-state solution requires mutual recognition and a will to peaceful coexistence," Lofven said. "Sweden will therefore recognize the State of Palestine.” The Palestinians refuse to recognize or peacefully coexist with the State of Israel. Like his coalition partner, the Hamas terror master Khaled Mashaal, and despite his sweet talk to Western audiences, the P.L.O. chief Mahmoud Abbas has pledged, repeatedly, over decades that he will never, ever recognize Israel as the Jewish state, meaning he will never recognize Israel. During his speech to the U.N. General Assembly last month he reverted to P.L.O. language from the 1970s, referring to Israel repeatedly as “the occupying Power,” and “the racist occupying State.” So when Lofven recognized “Palestine,” he joined the Palestinian campaign to destroy Israel. He used the language of the “two-state solution” to reject the Jewish state. The former British foreign minister, and Labor member of Parliament, Jack Straw went a step further this week as he addressed his Parliament before its lopsided 274-12 vote to recognize “Palestine.” The vote, he explained, was not about advancing peace. It was a straightforward bid to harm Israel. In his words, “The only thing that the Israeli government…understands is pressure.” Lofven, Straw and their colleagues throughout Europe aren’t stupid. They know what they’re doing. They know that Gaza, which Israel vacated nine years ago, is a terror state run by the jihadists of Hamas. They know that if Israel succumbs to their political and economic warfare and cedes its capital city and historic heartland to its enemies, it will be unable to defend its remaining territory. And they know that like Gaza, those areas will quickly be taken over by Hamas, which will use them to launch a war of annihilation against Israel in conjunction with its jihadist brethren in surrounding states. In other words, they know that in recognizing “Palestine” they are not helping the cause of peace. They are advancing Israel’s ruin. If they were even remotely interested in freedom and peace, the Europeans would be doing the opposite. They would be working to strengthen and expand Israel, the only stable zone of freedom and peace in the region. They would abandon the phony two-state solution, which as Straw and Lofven revealed, is merely doublespeak for seeking Israel’s destruction and its replacement with a terror state. With strategic blindness and moral depravity now serving as the twin guideposts for European policy toward Israel, Israel and its supporters must tell the truth about the push to recognize “Palestine.” It isn’t about peace or justice. It’s about hating Israel and assisting those who most actively seek its obliteration. CORRECTION: An earlier version said Abbas had pledged never to recognize Israel itself. The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East by Caroline B. Glick. Caroline B. Glick is a senior columnist at Breitbart News and the senior contributing and chief columnist for The Jerusalem Post. She is also a senior columnist for Maariv. She is the author of The Israeli Solution: A One State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, (Crown 2014) and of Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad (Gefen 2008). The Israeli Solution was endorsed by leading US policymakers including Vice President Mike Pence, Senator Ted Cruz and National Security Advisor John Bolton. Shackled Warrior was endorsed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former CIA director James Woolsey. Glick is the adjunct senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and directs the Israeli Security Project at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. She travels frequently throughout the world to brief policymakers on issues related to Israel’s strategic environment and other related topics. She lectures widely on strategic and political issues affecting global security, Israel and the Jewish people, US-Israel relations, Israel-Diaspora affairs and Israel’s changing strategic landscape. In 2008 Glick founded Latma, the Hebrew language satirical media criticism website. She served as editor in chief of the site until it ceased operations in 2015. Latma changed the face of Israel’s social media and revolutionized the Israeli entertainment industry by bringing an alternative voice to the popular culture. Latma launched “Hakol Shafit,” a primetime, half hour satirical newscast on Israel television Channel 1. Glick served as the editor in chief of the program. Glick was born in Houston, TX and grew up in Chicago, IL. She moved to Israel in 1991, two weeks after receiving her BA in Political Science from Columbia University. She joined the Israel Defense Forces that summer and served as an officer for five and a half years. From 1994-1996, as an IDF captain, Ms. Glick served in the Defense Ministry as a core member of Israel’s negotiating team with the Palestinians. In 1997 and 1998 Ms. Glick served as Assistant Foreign Policy Advisor to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. From 1998-2000 Ms. Glick studied at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and received a Master’s in Public Policy in June 2000. In the summer of 2000 Ms. Glick returned to Israel and began writing at Makor Rishon newspaper, (Hebrew). She served as chief diplomatic commentator for Makor Rishon until January 2008. In March 2002, Ms. Glick joined The Jerusalem Post as the newspaper’s Deputy Managing Editor and senior columnist. Today, as Senior Contributing Editor, Ms. Glick is the paper’s most widely read columnist. She began writing a weekly Hebrew language column for Maariv in 2014. She began writing at Breitbart in January 2018. During Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, Ms. Glick covered the US-led invasion of Iraq as an embedded journalist with the US Army’s 3rd Infantry Division. Reporting for the Post, Maariv, Israel TV’s Channel 2 and the Chicago Sun Times, Ms. Glick was one of the only female journalists on the front lines with the US forces and the first Israeli journalist to report from liberated Baghdad. Ms. Glick’s writings have also been published in leading newspapers and journals including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, National Review, the Journal of International Security Affairs, and Commentary. Glick blogs at her website www.carolineglick.com and on her Facebook author page. Glick has received numerous awards for her commentary. Among others, she received the Ben Hecht award for Middle East reporting from the Zionist Organization of America, the Abramowitz Prize for Media Criticism by Israel Media Watch, the Guardian of Zion award by Bar Ilan University and the Courage of Zion Prize for Zionist pioneering by the Moskowitz Foundation. The mother of sons and owner of two dogs, Ms. Glick lives in Efrat, in Gush Etzion. 1 Comment. Hi Caroline, The new Greeks. Would you please apply proper transliteration to our holidays. It bizarre that you consciously made such a slip on an article related to the point. I feel you must have obviously known you were making a mistake as you wrote it. Your article at JNS should have appeared as follows. “This elite progressive anti-Semitism isn’t expressed only as hatred for Israel and Jews who support Israel. It is also characterized by a sneering contempt for Judaism and Jewish practices—for instance, the practice of celebrating Chanuka. Last week, The New York Times published an opinion piece under the headline, “The Hypocrisy of Hanukkah.” [sic]” See also my comments on Don Feder’s FPM article Dec 9th if you wish. The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East. A manifesto that exposes the flaws in the two-state policy of the United States toward Israel and the Palestinians and offers a direct and powerful call for Israeli sovereignty in the region. The reigning consensus in elite and academic circles is that the United States must seek to resolve the Palestinians’ conflict with Israel by implementing the so-called two-state solution. Establishing a Palestinian state, so the thinking goes, would be a panacea for all the region’s ills. 1 Comment. Your view of the genocidal desires of the Palestinians is correct. The failure of the civilized world (especially the EU) to grasp the fact is beyond my comprehension unless I conclude that it is basically does not believe that Israel existence is appropriate.