Can I simplify the Israel-Palestine conflict to one issue?
Yes, I can!
Not all facts and ideas are created equal. Some truths and insights are superior to others. Sometimes the superiority is so great that it can reduce muddy complexity to clear simplicity. I think Israel vs. Palestine provides an opportunity for that kind of clarifying reductionism.
The dispute reduces to this question…
Which side should have sovereignty over the land currently occupied by Israel, including the West Bank and Gaza?
This is the crucial question because both sides reject the so-called two-state solution. Both sides want to rule all of Israel-Palestine, from the river to the sea. They also appear unlikely to stop fighting about it anytime soon. So which side should get what they want? A second question provides the simple answer…
Which side would provide better laws?
There is no contest. The Arab citizens of Israel have more freedom and justice than the Arab citizens of a Palestinian state would have. The facts are stark…
Freedom House reports that 16 of the 22 Arab League countries are unfree, while the remaining six are only partially free. The V-Dem Institute ranks Arab countries as the worst in the world for civil liberties. And the performance of the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank, and Hamas in Gaza, tells us quite clearly that a Palestinian state would give us more of the same.
The last thing the world needs is yet another Arab-Islamic hellhole. But the world sure could benefit from an expanded Israel that gives Palestinian Arabs an improved legal framework in which to produce, contribute, self-actualize, and prosper. To me, this means…
Israel should rule, from the river to the sea!
Please understand, the “Free Palestine” slogan is an oxymoron. A Palestinian state would be anything but free. It would be an authoritarian dumpster fire.
The Palestinians have an honor culture with heaping helpings of Islamic fundamentalism and jihad enthusiasm. Many Palestinians think it’s okay for a father to murder a son or a daughter if either one brings dishonor to the family. Examples of such dishonor include being gay or having extramarital sex. And as recently as 2015 a poll showed support for jihad among 71% of Palestinians in the West Bank and 84% in Gaza.
The Islamic radicalism in Gaza is especially notable given that Palestinians have been fully self-governing there since 2005. In other words, Gaza has been the de facto Palestinian state that two-state advocates say they want. You would think that would make for less extreme views, but the reverse has been true. In addition…
The behavior of Palestinians in other Arab/Islamic countries, such as Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt, has been horrific. Palestinians destabilized Lebanon and assassinated the Prime Minister of Jordon, a country that had given them sanctuary. They also started a civil war in Jordon. This is one major reason why no Arab countries will accept Palestinian refugees, even if the United Nations pays for them. Palestinian culture is simply toxic, over and above the poison that exists in other Arab Islamic honor cultures.
Sorry Palestinians, no state for you!
But what about the crimes committed by the Israeli setter movement on the West Bank?
Nothing I’ve said above justifies the criminality of the settler movement in the West Bank. But that problem can best be solved without creating a Palestinian state. Instead…
Israel should formally annex both the West Bank and Gaza and then impose due process and the rule of law on both the settlers and the Palestinians.
That approach would give the settlers the main thing they want — sovereignty over the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) — while also protecting Palestinian property rights against settler theft and violence.
But what about the Great God Democracy?
Should Israel give Palestinians the vote? Let me be clear about this…
No!
Hell no!
That would simply create the kind of toxic Palestinian state that decent people should want to avoid. Instead…
The Palestinians should be resident aliens in Israel, not citizens. Millions of people live with that status around the world without having their civil and property rights violated.
No one deserves voting rights in a state they seek to destroy, but maybe future generations could become deserving of Israeli citizenship. Millions of other Arabs have happily done so.
Doesn’t my approach violate majority rule?
Hell yes, it does, but that’s a benefit, not a flaw.
Democracy may be a reasonable way to select and replace government officials, but it must never be seen as a system that can justify or sanctify the kind of criminality a Palestinian regime would inevitably produce. Indeed, that is exactly why we have the Bill of Rights in the United States, to prevent majority tyranny.
Majority rule by Palestinians would be exactly that kind of tyranny, pure and simple.
Sorry Palestinians. No vote for you!
Moral clarity
The complexity of the Israeli-Palestine dispute reduces to this one simple conclusion…
Israel should have sovereignty over the entire territory, including the West Bank and Gaza, because it would do more to protect human rights, including Palestinian rights.
Israeli behavior doesn’t even have to be perfect or optimal to justify this conclusion, because the example provided by the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza has set such a low standard for the Israelis to improve upon.
Israeli sovereignty would also remove most of the motivation for settler crimes in the West Bank/Judea-Samaria, thereby improving the lives of the Palestinians who live there.
This is not a utopian solution. But it is practical, and it would make things better for all involved. I think it might also reduce the conflict to a dull roar.
If you like the kind of thinking reflected in this article, please follow me. I need your support.
Copyright © Perry Willis 2024
Perry Willis is the co-founder of Downsize DC and the Zero Aggression Project. He co-created, with Jim Babka, the Read the Bills Act, the One Subject at a Time Act, and the Write the Laws Act, all of which have been introduced in Congress. He is a past Executive Director of the national Libertarian Party and was the campaign manager for Harry Browne for President in 2000.
