International backing
Even during the Obama administration – the most hostile administration towards Israel in many a decade – most of the senators and congressman in Capitol Hill who advocated the idea of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River, set down very specific terms and limitations, which rendered the plan virtually impractical. As has always been the case, the Europeans are fervent supporters of the Arab position, for various reasons – be they economic (dependence on Arab markets, such as the oil market), political or international (their desire to position themselves apart from the USA and taking a different stance in order to turn into a world power). However, in recent years, this equation has expanded to include the impact of the ever-growing Muslim minorities in some European countries. One can also not disregard the emotion-driven anti-Semitic sentiments (be they subconscious or those camouflaged by subtle diplomatic European mannerisms) that are always at play. Hence, European countries will always prefer the Arab position because it serves them better and also fits in well with traditional European hatred for Israel. A change of attitude can only take place if the rules of the global oil market change, or, alternatively, if the Road Map for Peace plan hits a dead end, in which case Europe would no longer be regarded as an entity that contributes in any real fashion to the Arab aspirations. The fact that Iran is becoming stronger is also disconcerting for Europe, the latter being well aware of Iran's influence in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. It goes without saying that Europe has no desire for Iran to effectively take over the future Palestinian state for which they so yearn. However, in light of the massive Muslim immigration to Europe (approximately sixty million Muslims as of 2009), many Europeans are starting to view Israel's position differently. More and more Europeans now view Israel as the eastern front of Western culture, a military post of sorts, standing firm against the attempt of the Jihadists to take over the West. Geer Wilders, a Dutch politician who heads the Party of Freedom, is the most prominent representative of this worldview. He adamantly opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state and is known for his words: "If Israel falls, Europe falls."
The current plans for the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River, which have been presented before the international community and the involved parties in the Middle East, make high demands of Israel and call for extensive concessions on Israel's part. The said plans place the security and welfare of Israel in the hands of the Palestinians, or, alternatively, in the hands of an international force that would come to oversee and vouch for the full execution of the plans, and prevent Israel from taking practical action against terrorism. These plans include content which, by definition, undermines and threatens the very existence of Israel in the middle and long term, and refutes Israel's moral grounds for existence. These plans are fully endorsed by the Arabs and the Europeans and even have partial American support. The present opposition in the USA (as expressed by tens of millions of American Evangelicals) to some of the significant clauses in the said plan e.g., the establishment of a Palestinian state, will not prevail should Israel itself accept the plan. One cannot expect any person on earth to fight for the interests of Israel, if Israel itself fails to do so.
Hence, the only way to trigger a process of broad international endorsement for such a plan is to express firm opposition to the "two-state solution" plan, rendering the latter impractical. Such a plan should not be accepted "conditionally" either – as prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu currently seems to be doing. Should Israel accept the notion of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River, even if only in principle, no entity worldwide would make an effort to find another solution. The solution, which is based on Israeli concessions – some even pertaining to the basic conditions needed for Israel's survival - is perceived by Europe and the UN as the one most easily attainable. Political pressure will always be exerted on the party that opposes less fiercely. Israel is currently perceived as easily prone to pressure and, consequently, the chances it will concede are believed to be high. In the face of the surmounting delegitimization of the State of Israel, the fact that such a plan might lead to the ultimate annihilation of Israel won't serve to deter some of Europe's politician; it might even delight them.
Is Israel an apartheid state?
One of the main arguments made against the application of Israeli law in Judea & Samaria is that such an act will turn Israel into an apartheid state.
It is said that if two million people west of the Jordan River were to become residents of Israel with a foreign citizenship, this would create second-class citizens. This, in turn, would be unethical and entirely unacceptable in the international arena; sanctions on Israel would immediately ensue until Israel is completely subdued. But all those who claim as much seem to have forgotten that this was the very model suggested by the UN, and that there are approximately thirty million people living in the US with a Green Card, which means they are residents with no voting rights. Every such resident has foreign citizenship and is entitled to take part in the national elections in his/her country of origin. Europe, too, has millions of immigrant residents who are not citizens. The aforesaid claim is mainly used by the anti-Israeli radical left. However, if the international community reaches the conclusion that a two-state (west of the Jordan) solution has reached a dead end, it is sure to show more support for alternative plans.
Hence, the key to rendering the plan to establish a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River impossible by proposing an alternative plan is in Israel's hands. If we are wise enough to draw a firm line and say out loud to the world – Israel does not plan on committing suicide, and will therefore never agree to a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River – then such plans will come to be considered unfeasible by the global community.
And what of peace?
But will a two-states-on-both-sides-of-the-Jordan solution bring about peace? Probably not. Definitely not in our generation. If we keep in mind that the Arabs' biggest driving force in this conflict is Islam, then even the Jordanian border will not resolve the conflict. However, the plan we propose will still give the Palestinian a nation state that will fulfill at least some of their national aspirations, but will also not threaten the very existence of Israel. The Jordanian border will be a defensible one. Furthermore, the plan will help, in part if not entirely, solve the refugee problem and, in turn, disarm the Arabs of their priceless propaganda weapon, and will also reduce the number of potential terrorists who act because "they have nothing to lose". A Palestinian nation state in Jordan will greatly decrease the volatile friction existing between the two populations. I do not delude myself, nor am I attempting to delude you: Even in their new homes, the descendants of the refugees will still keep the keys to their old homes in Jaffa and Safed and Ramlah. The only difference is that once they are settled down in their new state, and no longer able to send their children to educational institutions that propagate the destruction of Israel on a daily basis, using state funds to do this – the dream to return some day to the western part of the Land of Israel and conquer it will somewhat have dwindled, and the chances of this happening – likewise. After a few generations, we might even expect peace to prevail in the land.
