One State Solution vs Two-State Solution?

Arutz 7 Analysts,

לבן ריק
לבן ריק
צילום: ערוץ 7
Arutz 7 Analysts
Insightful and analytical, passionate and authentic, with biting wit and masterful writing - our bloggers are a source of crystal clarity in this time of confusion.

The Left wants a Rwanda Solution

Above: the Left's "One State" Solution

I have received several requests from people who are not unsure how to answer the question, "Which do you prefer, a Two-State Solution or a One State Solution?"

Let me explain. Israel's Far Left is divided these days between those promoting a "Two State Solution," and a "One State Solution." By "Two State Solution," they mean a situation where Israel is annihilated in stages, after first agreeing to the setting up of a "Palestinian" Arab state in the West Bank and Gaza with some sort of land bridge connecting them and dividing the Negev and a "right of return" for "Palestinian" "refugees." That terror state will then be used to escalate terrorism and rocket attacks on Israel until all the Arab and Moslem armies rush in to aid it in its "defense" against Israeli aggression, and then Israel will be defeated militarily and the Jews exterminated in a new Holocaust.

The "One State Solution" leftists are essentially those who wish to revive the long dead ideas from the 1930s of creating a bi-national state to replace Israel, a predominantly Arab state in which the Jews will have dhimmi second-class status, and in which Jewish sovereignty and self-determination are ended. That is, until the dominant Arabs in the new progressive bi-national state annihilate the Jews in a new Holocaust. By the "One State Solution," the Left obviously does not mean that one Jewish state, Israel, will control all of the Land of Israel west of the Jordan, a "one-state" alternative we all might consider. Actually, what they mean by a "One State Solution" is a "Rwanda Solution," where the Jews end up with the same fate as the losing side in Rwanda.

For years, when asked whether I prefer a "Two State Solution for Two Peoples" or a "One State Solution," I would reply that I am willing to settle for a 23 state solution for two peoples, where the Arabs get to keep their 22 existing states and the Jews get to keep their single state.

But that is losing its edge and many people miss the message in that quip of an answer.

In any case, when people whether you prefer a "Two State Solution" or a "One State Solution," what they are really asking you is which version of the far Left's agenda you choose, where you are not allowed to choose anything other than one of the Left's two "solutions."

So after careful consideration, I have come up with a better answer to that question about one-state vs. two-states. When asked whether you prefer a "Two State Solution" or a "One State Solution," the best answer should be: "That is not the correct question. The correct question is whether we should have a Two-Gallows Solution or a One-Gallows Solution for Traitors."

Should Jewish and Arab traitors both be hanged from the same gallows or from separate gallows? That is the REAL conundrum! There are advantages to each alternative. Hanging them separately might cause anti-Semites to denounce Israel for its apartheid system of gallows. Hanging them together on one set of gallows might cause problems of congestion. After all, so many people will want to come watch the traitors get hanged that highways and parking lots are likely to get jammed up.

Oy, Choices, choices, choices....