Is Balkanization consistent with a free society?

The "only solution" to the Israel/Palestine conflict is not only unworkable, it's also a step backwards, when it comes to freedom and equality.

In an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC News, Secretary of State Antony Blinken argued that a “two-state solution” is not only the right solution, but also the only way Israel can remain a free and democratic state:

“…President Biden has been very clear that he remains committed to a two-state solution. Look, ultimately, it is the only way to ensure Israel's future as a Jewish and democratic state and, of course, the only way to give the Palestinians the state to which they're entitled. That's where we have to go. But that, I don't think, is something for -- necessarily for today. We have to start putting in place the conditions that would allow both sides to engage in a meaningful and positive way toward two states.”

The calls for a two-state solution are, of course, omnipresent these days, particularly when tensions in the region boil over into acts of violence. And there is a sizable portion of the world’s intelligentsia who seem to believe that such a solution is the only obvious, fair, and workable solution. Indeed, they have felt this way for decades upon decades. They have felt this way and called for this solution in the recent past, when like-minded people were in power around the globe. And yet, there has been no two-state solution.

And the reason there hasn’t is utterly compelling and simple: most Israelis know that a two-state solution is a death knell for Israel, contra Blinken’s claim. This isn’t hard to process yet, amazingly, the pro-Palestinian mobs in the USA, the UN, Europe, and elsewhere are unable to process it, except of course for those portions of these mobs who are anti-Semites, who have a very different agenda (and I’m referring largely to the other states in the regions, their diaspora, and the the Palestinian diaspora). They know exactly what the implementation of a two-state solution means, particularly one with a divided Jerusalem: it’s a new foothold within Israel for antisemitic Muslim forces in the region, a foothold with which they can destroy Israel once and for all.

How would this happen? Simple, once there is a Palestinian state, the proponents for such would not simply accept the victory and move on. No, they would call for more concessions from Israel, more land, more access to other regions, monetary reparations for past Israeli transgressions, and so on. A two-state solution does not guarantee Israeli’s future, it guarantees Israel’s demise.

For those who desperately want to believe that I’m over-stating the level of antisemitism in the region, forget the politics and ideologies for a moment and consider these specific situations, with regard to Jews and the Muslim world: 1) international chess tournaments and 2) international football (soccer) competitions.

With regard to the first, Iran has a rule in place for its citizens who participate in international competitions: no playing against Jews, forfeit the match/game instead. Just a few short years ago—in 2017—Iranian authorities banned Borna Derakhshani from playing for Iran in all future competitions for playing a match against an Israeli opponent in a tournament in Gibraltar. Bora was 15 at the time. Interestingly enough, his sister was also banned after the same tournament for not wearing a hijab during a match.

With regard to the second, as some readers might know, FIFA runs international football and oversees tournaments and matches involving national teams and club teams all around the word. In this regard, FIFA has regions—or “Confederations”—for the various national teams. For instance, the national and club teams for the United States are a part of CONCACAF, the Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football in North America and Central America. The national and club teams in the Middle East are a part of AFC, the Asian Football Confederation in Asia and Australia. And Israel, by virtue of geography, should be a part of the AFC. But it’s not; rather, FIFA has made made Israel a part of UEFA, the Union of European Football Associations in Europe. Israel was a part of AFC up until 1974, when the other member-states of AFC kicked Israel out. Even prior to that, many Islamic states refused to play against teams from Israel.

Set aside the news cycle for the Middle East just for a moment, forget about Israeli settlements, about Hamas, about rocket attacks and suicide bombers, about retaliatory airstrikes, about the IDF and Gal Gadot. Consider just the policies of countries around Israel, when it comes to games and sports, things that need not have a political component, at all. Consider the other perspectives of people who would openly endorse or at least not criticize these sorts of policies, wherein religion/ethnicity is a litmus test used by governments for whether or not there can be voluntary associations between its citizens and citizens of other states. Imagine that your government forbids you with associating with any Germans, with any Japanese, with any Italians, on the basis that such people cannot be trusted and are enemies of the state. Imagine your government goes even further and rounds up people who emigrated from such countries (or whose ancestors did), then either expels them or puts them in camps.

It’s not 1941, it’s 2021. Yet, the international community is largely willing to accept as perfectly valid and reasonable the same sorts of attitudes—as a basis for actual government policy—that gave the United States the Japanese internment of WWII.

And this brings us deep into the second point of this piece: a two-state solution is a giant step backward, when it comes to general ideas of freedom and equality. This hinges exactly on the conclusion offered by Blinken, a conclusion blithely accepted by the world’s liberal and progressive intelligentsia: “[a two-state-solution] is…the only way to give the Palestinians the state to which they're entitled.”

They’re entitled to a state? Why, exactly? Are the Copts in Egypt also entitled to a state? How about the Kurds? Or maybe the Uyghurs? And the Tibetans? The Basques? The list could go on forever, honestly.

But I’m not interested in rehashing the history of the Jews, of the Palestinians, of the Holy Land, of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim traditions (traditions that should be taken as utterly meaningless, when it comes to geopolitical matters), anymore than I am interested in digging into the claims of other ethnic, religious, or cultural groups. And that’s because such things are inconsequential, with regard to the very obvious consequences of granting special privileges to such groups, such as carving up the world so that they can have a “homeland” or the like.

More significantly, however, such an approach assumes such groups should be treated as groups, first and foremost. This is why the two-state solution represents a backwards step, when it comes to freedom and equality. Consider what it really means to allow that Palestinians are entitled to a homeland, to a state of their own. Such a view assumes an entitlement based on membership in a defined (in this case a loosely defined) group. And it’s an entitlement that is absolutely exclusionary, for the homeland would be for Palestinians, alone.

It’s one thing to have a homogeneous population in a state because of historical development and/or geographical factors (Japan, for instance is largely populated by a single ethnic group, the Yamato), it’s something else entirely to attempt to create a state with a homogeneous population. Though to be fair, such attempts have been made in the past.

One such notable attempt was undertaken by Bernhard Förster, his wife Elizabeth Nietzsche (Friedrich Nietzsche’s sister) and 50 or so followers in 1883. These intrepid folks—anxious to live in a world free of Jews—set out for Paraguay to establish a new Fatherland, a homeland for the Aryan people. Of course, they didn’t enjoy a worldwide network of support from people who felt similarly, so ultimately they failed (quite miserably in fact; to know more, read Ben MacIntyre’s excellent tome Forgotten Fatherland).

But I disgress. No doubt some might think it unfair of me to compare the calls for a Palestinian state to the the crazed venture of a nineteenth century anti-Semite. The point is, setting up “homelands” for specific groups is a shitty look, if one uses the right kind of lens, an unshaded lens. But many of the people anxious to support the Palestinian cause seem incapable of processing the endgame of a two-state solution, they seem incapable or recognizing that what they are supporting is a functionally racist approach.

No doubt, the Israeli government is not made up of heroes. It has—across the last 70+ years—made many mistakes. And most certainly, they are people in the Palestinian territories who are suffering. But the way to help them, is not to justify the antisemitism preached by Hamas and the leaders of nearby states by creating a state based on antisemitism, based on hate, based on group rights. Rather, it’s to integrate what should very obviously be a single state.

The two-state approach infantilizes the Palestinian people as group by assuming they are incapable of leaving in peace with non-Palestinians, with Jews. It is, I think, deeply insulting to the Palestinians, even as it’s portrayed as considerate and thoughtful. Acts of terrorism are actually deemed almost justifiable in this world view. Think about that. If I told you that you and your “people” should have your own state because I didn’t think you could coexist with people who weren’t like you without resorting to violence, how would you feel? That’s the real message, even if it’s dressed up and treated as something else.