The Administration’s Message: End the Jewish State

 January 1st, 2017

Secretary of State Kerry asserts the US, and the Obama administration in particular, is Israel’s closest friend, while also informing the world that Israel can choose to be ‘either democratic or Jewish, but it can’t do both.’

This was said as part of a lengthy defense of the US abstention that allowed passage of the UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution condemning Israel’s settlements in the West Bank.

Hmmm…

Mr. Kerry might have forgotten, but the reason for Israel’s existence is that it’s a Jewish state, having been established after World War II for resettlement of European Jews. This was specifically stated in Israel’s first Basic Law of 1958 (in essence a constitution) which specifically delineates that ‘Israel is a Jewish state.’ (It also states that Israel is a democratic state.)

So, ask this question: Could the West Bank survive as an independent nation?

The West Bank covers 2,173 square miles (slightly bigger than Delaware); mostly rough, landlocked terrain, seized by Israel from Jordan during the 6 Day War, June 1967. Israel has de facto control over the entire West Bank, but they administer day-to-day control over 61% of it (about 1,300 square miles – about the size of Rhode Island), of which some 500 square miles is the Judean desert.

The West Bank has few natural resources, has inadequate amounts of water, and most importantly, is landlocked between Israel and Jordan. It has no port, and no major city where industrial or technology firms might act as the seed for economic development.

Politically uniting the small, densely packed Gaza Strip – located on the other side of Israel – to the West Bank would make the West Bank even less economically or politically viable. (Besides the obvious problem that bifurcated countries never survive long.)

Can Israel survive? It has for 78 years. But it’s done so partly by controlling key pieces of terrain – the West Bank and the Golan Heights – for the last 49 years, pieces of terrain that would otherwise leave the nation in strategic peril.

Would Israel survive without controlling the West Bank or the Golan Heights? Perhaps, but perhaps not. The ongoing Syrian Civil War, and the uprising, change of government and counter-coup on Egypt in the last 6 years suggest how unstable is Israel’s neighborhood. What logical argument supports any claim that Israel would have a greater chance of peace by surrendering this territory?

And would the West Bank be a viable nation if Israel ended the settlements and gave it independence? Do we want Palestinians to have a viable nation, one that can survive without perpetual economic aid? Presumably, the answer is yes. But to do that Palestine must have enough physical assets and resources that it can generate sufficient economic activity. Various nations have solved that problem in a host of ways: Tiny Singapore occupies a critical geography in East Asia and has parleyed that position into a large and robust economy. But the West Bank doesn’t benefit from Singapore’s geography. In fact, one might argue that the West Bank is one of the poorest, and poorest situated, pieces of land on the planet. An independent West Bank would almost certainly be an economic and political basket-case.

Mr. Obama, Mr. Kerry, and the UN state they want Israel to be a safe, secure, politically and economically viable nation-state AND they want the Palestinians to also have a safe, secure, politically and economically viable nation-state.

But if Mr. Obama et al want a two party solution that actually works, then they should look to establishing nations that would actually survive, and would be able to support themselves, not live on the international dole for all time.

The reality is the West Bank would never survive as an independent state, nor would Israel be a militarily secure state without control of the West Bank (and the Golan Heights).

Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry should know that. They and their friends in the UN may not like that fact of geography. But that doesn’t change the geography; an independent West Bank would only survive by suckling off of international largesse, while leaving Israel at greater risk.

They say that 90% of communication is non-verbal. So what is Mr. Kerry really communicating? Does he really want a viable Israel? Or is he ‘saying’ something else?