On Sept. 21, US President Joe Biden addressed the UN General Assembly. In his speech, he referred to a negotiated "peace between the Jewish and democratic State of Israel and the Palestinian people." He added that such a peace is "the best way to ensure Israel's security … and give the Palestinians the state to which they are entitled." Entitled?

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The pernicious political fantasy of the "two-state solution" has been so thoroughly inculcated into the minds of most Western leaders that it is almost axiomatic. It leads to the assumption that, while the time may not be right for negotiations, a Palestinian state will someday come into being, because the Palestinian Arabs have a "right" to it.

This myth has no basis in logic, history or law. To counter it, two approaches are helpful. One is to emphasize the point that there is no solid history for "Palestinian Arabs." Before the founding of Israel, the Jews in the land were known as "Palestinians." Arabs identified as part of the Arab nation or as southern Syrians.

The term "Palestinian" in reference to the Palestinian Arabs came into common usage with the founding of the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1964, established by Egyptians with the goal of delegitimizing the Jewish presence in the land. Yasser Arafat, the PLO's longtime chieftain, was Egyptian.

The PLO charter laid claim to the land held by the Jews – that is, Israel within the Green Line, excluding Judea, Samaria and Gaza. It registered no claim against Egypt, which held Gaza, or Jordan, which held Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem. After 1967, when Israel gained control of these areas, the PLO changed its charter to lay claim to them.

Finally, we might ask what distinguishes this "Palestinian people." How are they unique? What have they contributed towards the betterment of the world in fields like culture, science or diplomacy? How have they demonstrated that their state would be successful and not as thoroughly mired in corruption, repression of human rights and violence as the Palestinian Authority?

The Palestinian Arabs' "entitlement," in other words, is a myth. That the world has bought into it means nothing. It is still a myth.

President Biden, unfortunately, is not alone in continuing to adhere to this baseless paradigm. A day after Biden spoke, Israel's interim Prime Minister Yair Lapid also addressed the General Assembly. His English was excellent and his delivery first-class. He said some things that were on the mark – for example, regarding Iran. But then, as had been predicted, he endorsed the "two-state solution."

"An agreement with the Palestinians, based on two states for two peoples, is the right thing for Israel's security, for Israel's economy and for the future of our children," he said. "Despite all the obstacles, still today a large majority of Israelis support the vision of this two-state solution. I am one of them."

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

How Lapid imagines that permitting a sovereign Palestinian Arab state within the borders of Mandate Palestine would be the "right thing" for Israel's security defies imagination. Indeed, he could not have picked a worse time for his proposal, as violence in Judea and Samaria is on the rise. A good deal of the violence is the work of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, the military wing of the Fatah Party, which rules the PA. At the same time, the PA has proven increasingly reluctant to cooperate with Israel on security matters.

Lapid did attempt to cover himself by saying, "We have only one condition: That a future Palestinian state will be a peaceful one. That it will not become another terror base from which to threaten the well-being and the very existence of Israel. That we will have the ability to protect the security of all the citizens of Israel, at all times."

The prime minister would no doubt argue that he did no harm by raising the issue because of his proviso that a Palestinian Arab state must be peaceful. But this is not the case. He has brought the issue forward, which makes Israel increasingly vulnerable to international pressure.

This was Lapid's "day in the sun," an international platform for promoting his left-wing views. Elections are coming, and he is courting those who think as he does. His failure and theirs is an inability to grasp the significance of ideology.

 Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post The two-state paradigm comes round again appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Mistaken political ideas are commonplace these days, and we cannot get the better of them if we don't call them out directly. The particular idea I wish to address is a plan advanced by World Jewish Congress President Ronald Lauder.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The billionaire Lauder is, first and foremost, a businessman. We should not be surprised, then, if his involvement in financial matters significantly colors his worldview.

In accordance with his business sensibilities, Lauder has proposed a "Marshall Plan" for the Palestinian Authority. He advanced this idea in a column in the Saudi Arab News on July 2. It was then picked up by other outlets.

The original Marshall Plan, enacted in 1948 during the Truman administration, entailed the investment of more than $13 billion in aid to Europe to revitalize the area after World War II and foster self-confidence in demoralized nations.

Lauder wrote that now is the right time for US President Joe Biden – who will visit Israel and the Middle East next week – to initiate a similar plan for the PA via investments from the US, Europe, Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations. This, he claims, is an initiative that the Palestinians "cannot turn down."

"What I am suggesting is a 'Marshall Plan' that would offer the next generation of Palestinians a future of wealth, success and self-reliance, rather than the dismal prospects of the past," he said. "A fixed sum of money could be given to young entrepreneurs to create new businesses, which would be closely monitored. … In other words, provide Palestinians with all the things that made Israel and other countries financially viable, which would help create a new and successful Palestine."

"The wealthier a future Palestinian nation becomes, the more likely it is that it could be the viable, successful country it should be," Lauder asserted.

This is yet another iteration of the "pour money into Palestinian society and it will fix matters" paradigm. I do not believe that there is going to be a Marshall Plan for the PA, but I am confident that other, similar plans are likely to be suggested in coming months due to the worldview of the Biden administration. And I expect that these plans will share basic underlying assumptions, which must be challenged.

Westerners who make suggestions for ameliorating Israeli-Palestinian tensions usually fail to grasp the basics of Muslim Arab culture. That is certainly the case with Lauder. Most of all, he fails to grasp that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not all about money. There is an ideology, founded in religious as well as political beliefs, that underlies Palestinian intransigence and hostility.

For example, the Palestinian National Charter states that the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate for Palestine are null and void, that Palestine in its entirety within the boundaries of the Mandate is the homeland of the Palestinian people and that armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.

There is ample evidence that the PA still adheres to this ideology. It appears throughout PA media and educational materials, in the PA's financial support for terrorists and even on its official emblem, which shows "Palestine" encompassing the entire Land of Israel.

Lauder appears to believe that giving entrepreneurs the wherewithal to create businesses in the PA will shift the climate to one more receptive to cooperation with Israel. But the Palestinian people themselves have no say in this matter, because the PA is not a democracy. Its ruling Fatah Party governs with an iron fist.

What is more, a recent poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research indicated that most residents of the Palestinian Authority do not believe in the two-state solution, and would prefer to be governed by the more militant Hamas.

Most telling was Lauder's assertion that helping Palestinian entrepreneurs will give the PA "all the things that made Israel … financially viable." Perhaps this, more than anything else, is the heart of the matter: Whatever aid we may have received from others, in the end the Jews of the fledgling State of Israel became "financially viable" through our own enormous determination and effort. It is regrettable that the same is not expected of the PA.

In fact, the Palestinians have already received more donations per capita than any other group in the world. It's time for them to show their own determination and effort. Further handouts, even if monitored, are counterproductive. Yet again and again the world seems prepared to grant perks and largesse to the PA without demanding accountability.

Lauder appears to believe that providing people with money will enable them to be self-reliant, but billions of dollars in aid have only created a situation of perpetual entitlement. The PA doesn't make requests; it demands.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

For the situation to truly change, two things must happen: First, the PA must come to understand that its ideology ill serves its people. They cannot defeat Israel. Period. And then, having come to terms with this truth, it must show a sincere desire to build something positive. At the moment, its only desire is negative: to destroy Israel.

All of this is critically important at this juncture precisely because Biden will soon arrive and make requests or demands from Israel in order to accommodate the PA.

It is frightening that Yair Lapid, who is now prime minister, will be the one to greet Biden. Lapid is in favor of the two-state solution and there is great concern about what he might agree to. Rumors abound, as usual. The results remain to be seen.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post A 'Marshall Plan' for the PA won't work appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

It is not unreasonable in a democracy to expect elected officials to reflect the views of the electorate to a significant degree. This is a given, except in today's Israel.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

It is quite clear that the electorate tilted right in the last election. The Likud Party, headed by then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, won 29 mandates – 12 more than Foreign Minister Yair Lapid's Yesh Atid, the second-largest party in the Knesset.

Given that the voters who chose the New Hope party and Yamina were predominantly right-wing, it is self-evident that the majority of voters – more than 52% – supported the right. Netanyahu fell well short of forming a government coalition, however, because New Hope's leader Justice Minister Gideon Sa'ar and Yamina's leader Prime Minister Naftali Bennett refused to sit with him. In fact, they took pride in shunning Netanyahu.

Bennett and Lapid then managed to cobble together the most diverse governing coalition in Israel's history – stretching from New Hope on the right to Meretz on the left, and including the Ra'am Party, the political arm of the southern branch of Israel's Islamic Movement.

The left often said that this coalition should be celebrated because it comprised an Arab party, which supposedly made it Israel's first inclusionary government. But those claims avoided mention of the fact that the Arab party in question is Islamist/anti-Zionist. This is a red line that should not have been crossed in a Zionist and Jewish state.

Bennett made much of his coalition as a cross-section of Israeli society but knew quite well that it had very little chance of functioning cohesively precisely because of its diversity. He frequently offered words of caution on the need to avoid going off on an ideological tangent that would split the coalition apart.

Now, precisely what Bennett feared has come to be. It was inevitable. The implosion of the coalition was precipitated by an ideological vote on a bill extending the application of Israeli law to citizens living in Judea and Samaria. The law did not pass because two MKs – Meretz's Ghaida Rinawie Zoabi and Ra'am's Mazen Ghanaim – did not adhere to coalition discipline and voted against it. They are not inclined towards reversing their votes or leaving the coalition.

Bennett now estimates that the coalition has about two weeks to fix the situation. It is highly unlikely that it can be fixed. His party is scrambling.

Just as there has never been a governing coalition in Israel as diverse as the current one, there has never been a political spectacle such as we are now witnessing. I know that I am hardly alone in my sense of horror. We are better than this. MK Yuval Steinitz (Likud) has described the coalition as a "circus," and he is not wrong.

None of this would have happened if the opposition had supported the Judea and Samaria legislation, and they were roundly criticized in some quarters for refusing to do so. But they knew that if they withheld support, it would expose the inherent weakness of the coalition. I remain confident that in due course the bill – or interim legislation – will be passed.

The only way to avoid an election when the government collapses is via a constructive no-confidence vote. This is possible when a new coalition with at least 61 mandates has been formed by the opposition. This can only happen if a sufficient number of members of the current government move over to the opposition, either independently or as part of Likud.

It could happen, but the odds are not good right now. MK Simcha Rothman (Religious Zionist Party) was correct when he recently said that there is nothing to do now but wait for the government to fall. Rothman did not seem particularly distressed by this. Nor am I. The government deserves to fall and, in the end, this has a silver lining: Since the government took office, the electorate has moved further right. Ironically, it turns out that this is the current government's gift to the State of Israel.

Depending on the poll, it is predicted that Likud will win somewhere between 34 and 36 mandates in the next election and the Religious Zionist Party between nine and 11. Polls are predicting a 60-60 tie between the government and opposition blocs, but Netanyahu is reportedly confident that in this political climate it will not be difficult to gain one more mandate.

What is more, I am seeing increased activism on the part of the right-wing of the electorate. They are taking Zionist positions with conviction and embracing their belief in our right to the land. All of this is exciting. Perhaps it will turn out that we had to go down in order to come up.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Madness and irony in Israeli politics appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.