Home

Two-state solution is 'ridiculous'

Ms. Katherine Olstein's letter of support for a "two-state solution" is terribly misguided. She's a supporter of J Street. They support an even smaller Israel to win friends and convince our enemies we're magnanimous. The Muslims in Palestine have already said that the Jews have no right to rule anywhere in Palestine. Not in Bethlehem, Judea, Samaria -- not even in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.

The Muslims have stated they will take what they can in a two-state negotiation, then demand or fight for the rest of Palestine. Given the relatively recent formation of Islam, and the ancient history of the Jews, these positions should be a wake-up call. Instead, misguided Jews are siding with the Muslims. That Jews would do this is just unbelievable and disheartening.

The whole argument for a two-state solution is ridiculous. In Palestine today there are three governments: Jordan, Israel, and Gaza. The Muslims clearly own the vast majority of Palestinian lands, with Jordan alone occupying about 76 percent of pre-partitioned Palestine. The notion that a Palestinian Muslim state does not exist is to ignore reality. What J Street is really saying is that the Jewish section of Palestine should be carved up, while the Islamic parts remain intact. Why would any Jewish group take such a position?

Unfortunately, the choices for Israel's survival all have their drawbacks. There may have to be a population exchange, with Muslims being paid off to settle in eastern Palestine, i.e., Jordan. The suicidal option would be ceding Judea and Samaria, aka the West Bank, to the Muslims. If Israel ever handed over Judea and Samaria to the Muslims, then Israel would be faced with another fanatical Islamic state no different than Hamas in Gaza.

In summary, with Jordan and Gaza already comprising 77 percent of Palestine, could Ms. Olstein or any other J Street supporter kindly explain why carving up Israel to make a third Islamic state in Palestine makes sense?

Allan Searz
Hightstown