For years, outsiders have cajoled, prodded, threatened and demanded that Israel do what may well constitute an act of national suicide, but Israel has not even been permitted the opportunity to try it because of the intransigence of the Palestinian Arabs.
Isn’t it about time Israel takes the opportunity to try an alternative which, while also a great risk, is one that brings with it the one chance for Israel to recognize and dignify its own rights and history?
Glick’s option is a one-state plan. It is one in which the so-called Green Line, the 1949 Armistice Line, is dissolved, and the laws of Israel extend throughout Judea and Samaria. Arabs living in those areas would immediately become permanent residents of Israel, with the option of applying for Israeli citizenship. They would have the right to live wherever they choose, work wherever they choose, and they would have the right to elect their local governments.
The Israeli military government currently operating in the territories would be dissolved, as would the Palestinian Authority and its security forces.
Eligibility for citizenship would be decided by a government ministry, with certain eligibility standards such as membership in terrorist groups or history of incitement as disqualifiers. But even those for whom citizenship will not be extended can remain as permanent residents.
When this reporter queried Glick on whether people who have belonged to terrorist groups should really be allowed to remain in Israel, Glick stares back with a steady gaze.
“Why not? This is where they live.” The unstated part of that sentence is, “we have criminals living in Israel now, we have terrorists who live in Israel now, did you really think we don’t?”
Perhaps to allay the look of doubt on her interlocutor’s face, Glick expounds a bit. “So long as Israel enforces the laws we have, without embarrassment, and without exceptions, we will be able to handle problems as they arise.”
DUAL “DEMO” DEMONS
The biggest obstacle pro-Israel Jews will need to overcome in order to rationally consider and evaluate Glick’s alternative is the reflexive fear of Israel “being overrun with Arabs” unless there is a separate state of Palestine. That is the bogeyman ironically presented, either overtly or subtly, by the liberal Jewish mainstream and their leadership.
In second place, but only by a little, is the perception that Israel cannot remain a democratic country if the Palestinian Arabs become Israeli Arabs.
These two shibboleths, demography and democracy, are raised like twin swords of Damocles: sure you’ll get a complete state, but the Arab “womb bomb” and the toxic effect of racism will combine to ensure there will be no Jewish State at all.
Glick is here to tell you, “’tain’t so.” You’ll have to read her book to see how she deals with these, and all the other, potential problems with the paradigm she presents. But that’s good, because you should.
She addresses all the issues you or your friends will raise. And if there are certain issues the book doesn’t satisfactorily answer it nonetheless achieves Glick’s goal: to start the discussion for pro-Israel Americans of an alternative to the conclusively failed non-solution of two states.
“The Israeli Solution” reads like a hard-hitting legal brief: she marshals the relevant facts but presents them clearly, she straightforwardly addresses the counterarguments, then disposes of them decisively.
Yet at the same time, Glick’s book is a great read because she weaves statistics, history and facts – including her own view from her own seat at some very important tables – into a compelling narrative that is powerfully persuasive.
By unabashedly calling for the One State of Israel, Glick has turned the tables on many of Israel’s enemies – and even some of its friends – who believe Israel is doomed to an apocalyptic future unless it embraces the tired, failed, two state option.