Option, here is someone else's view on the need for a second Palestinian State:
exists
By Enoch Ziss April 6, 2003
An open letter sent to President George W. Bush and Sec. of
State Colin Powell:
The history of the Middle East, including the region once known as
Palestine, is a complicated one. Without going into too many
details, it can be summarized as follows:
The Balfour Declaration of Nov.2, 1917 issued by the British
government proposed the establishment of a national home for
the Jewish people.
The area in which that Jewish national home was to be
established was understood, at the time of the Balfour
Declaration, to be the whole of historic Palestine, which includes
the area currently known as the modern state of Jordan.
All of "Palestine" was supposed to be shared by both the Jewish
people and the existing Arab-speaking population. In other
words, historic Palestine was supposed to become the home of
two major groups: the Jewish-Palestinians and Arab-Palestinians.
In 1921, Britain subdivided the Palestine Mandate, drawing a line
along the Jordan River to the Gulf of Akaba. The eastern portion,
known as Transjordan, was renamed Jordan and became
independent in 1946. This state was carved out of almost 78% of
Palestine Mandate and approximately 80% of its citizens call
themselves Palestinian. No Jew has been allowed to live there or
to become its citizen.
Thus, the viable, independent Palestinian state already exists and
it is called Jordan.
In reality, a two-state solution for Palestine has been in place for
more than half a century.
As Prince Hassan, brother of King Hussein, said while addressing
the Jordanian National Assembly on February 2nd, 1970:
"Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine; there is one people
and one land, with one history and one and the same fate."
Common sense dictates that the rest of the territory of historic
Palestine should become a Jewish-Palestinian state.
There are many arguments against the creation of a second
Arab-Palestinian state.
A mere glance at the map of the region shows both how tiny is
the size of the land east of the Jordan river and how contrived is
the idea of carving yet another state out of it. It should be
obvious that the Jordan River is the only natural eastern border
of Israel.
Judea and Samaria, or the west bank of the Jordan River, are the
heartland of the ancient Jewish homeland where most of the
Biblical holy sites are located.
As recent and painful events have shown (including the
destruction of Joseph's Tomb in Nablus, the desecration of the
ancient synagogue in Jericho, and the unlawful digging and
excavation conducted by Moslem Waqf on the Temple Mount), the
only way to ensure the sanctity of Jewish holy places is to place
them under the protection of Israel.
There is also a strategic military consideration. The proposed
creation of a second Arab-Palestinian state will leave Israel yet
again with only a 9-mile width at its midsection. Considering the
history and reality of the Middle East it is obvious both to laymen
and military experts that this would expose Israel to unacceptable
existential risks and leave the country with indefensible borders.
The scarcity of natural resources as basic as water is another
argument against dividing the area between the Jordan River and
the Mediterranean into two states, as this is clearly a recipe for
conflict.
Once the idea of a second Arab Palestinian state is rejected it will
become possible to concentrate on finding a creative solution to
the conflict.
Residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza have already been offered
broad autonomy in most spheres of cultural and economic life.
One possibility might be to offer financial incentives and help in
relocation may be offered to those who would opt to join their kin
in Jordan or other countries.
If tiny, embattled Israel with its limited resources has been able
to absorb millions of repatriates from all over the world (including
a million of refugees from Arab countries), than it is certainly
should be possible to resolve the problem of Arab-Palestinian
refugees as well.