Tuesday, August 04, 2009

Peace Now's "From Two-State to No-State" Solution

From Martin Sherman's piece:

Americans for Peace Now: A case of misleading dogma


The recent article, "Obama means what he says" on July 22 by CEO of Americans for Peace Now (APN) Debra DeLee, was a breathtaking display of misplaced arrogance and misleading dogma.

...Today - after 16 years of disaster, death and destruction - a more sober approach is called for. Today, the burden of proof must be on the proponents of the two-state solution to show that their preferred policy not only has (a) an reasonable probability of success, but (b) the risk it entails is tolerable. Given the post-Oslo experience, it is not immediately evident how they would go about this - on either count.

FOR WHAT are the security risks implicit in a two-state solution? Consider the following list of strategically significant items: major airfields in the country (civilian and military) including the only international airport; major sea ports and naval bases; vital infrastructure installations; the sweet water system; main land transportation axes (road and rail); principal power plants; the nation's parliament; crucial centers of government and military command; and 80 percent of the civilian population and of the commercial activity in the country.

If a Palestinian state were established atop the limestone hills east of the 1967 frontier, in any territorial configuration even remotely acceptable to the Palestinians, all of these would be in range of weapons being used today from territory transferred to Palestinian rule...merely hoping that dangers will not materialize - which is all that DeLee seems to be suggesting - is not a responsible approach to risk management. Especially when experience suggests there is little hope they will not.

BUT RISK aside, the continuing advocacy for the two-state solution by those professing support for Israel and genuine concern for its future is being made to look increasingly ludicrous by the frequent statements of allegedly "moderate" Palestinians who repeatedly and resolutely refuse to acknowledge Israel as the nation-state of the Jews...Ms. DeLee should know that Palestinian persistence on this point is not mere tactical posturing but strategic positioning...

...So what precisely do the Palestinians have in mind when they feign agreement to this principle? Which "two peoples" do they mean? For if the one is the Palestinians, and they refuse to acknowledge the right of Jews to a state of their own, who are the "other" people?

...Delee is meticulous in not putting any onus of the Palestinians...she goes make the staggeringly absurd statement: "But what the Arabs do or not do doesn't change what Israel should do."...

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

What kind of name is DeLee? changed?
intermarried?
non Jewish?