Recently we conducted a lengthy interview with Jerusalem Post deputy managing editor Caroline Glick on her new book, "The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East" (reviewed here).
In her book, Glick puts forth a controversial plan that calls for the complete abandonment of the so-called two-state solution, to be replaced by the so-called one-state "Israeli solution."
In light of the growing rift between doves and hawks on the right, and the centrality of America's relationship with Israel to our foreign policy, I asked Caroline Glick about her plan, and why libertarians should get behind it.
Here is how she described her plan [emphasis added]:
The Israeli solution involves the application of Israeli law and through it Israeli sovereignty to the entirety of Judea and Samaria -- the West Bank of the Jordan -- and providing the Palestinians who live there with automatic permanent residency status and the right to apply for Israeli citizenship in accordance with Israel citizenship law, and through that, the dismantlement of the Palestinian Authority and the abandonment of the two-state paradigm for peace-making. This is an idea, this is a policy that is based on an understanding that at base the Palestinian national movement since its inception in 1920 has not been about the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state but rather the destruction of the Jewish state or earlier the prevention of the establishment of a Jewish state and so it remains to this day which is why the PLO has consistently refused statehood every time it has been offered them since 1993. And so it’s about abandoning a fake idea, an idea that’s based on lies, that is that the Palestinians aspire first and foremost to a state of their own, and embracing instead the truth that Israel is capable of absorbing the Palestinians of Judea and Samaria, and giving them what they’ve always lacked which is full civil rights, and through that their ability to determine their own fate as individuals and as members of a society of Israel.
And here is what Glick said in response to why libertarians should approve of it as an alternative policy:
I mean if you don’t want the United States to have to deploy overseas, and what you want is for the United States to have the strongest allies possible because the stronger your allies are the less you actually have to do because they can actually fight their own battles, Israel is essentially the only U.S. ally I think in the world that has never asked the United States to fight a battle for it. Britain brought the United States into World War II to save it by the way. But Israel’s never done that. America hasn’t ever had to send troops into battle in order to protect Israel. To the contrary all they’ve had to do is ship weapons to Israel which Israel then knows how to shoot straight and it does and it wins. So I mean this policy of strengthening Israel enables the United States to further disengage from the Middle East in a way though that protects America’s interests.
The other thing is that you know Israel is a liberal democracy. It’s not a totalitarian dictatorship. It’s not some sort of wild-eyed military dictatorship or whatever. It’s a liberal democracy. All Israelis support the United States so you know that anybody who comes into office is going to be pro-American. It’s not like you have to worry that tomorrow Israel’s going to have an election and everybody’s gonna hate America. It just doesn’t happen that way, so you know everybody knows that the Middle East is horrible and everybody knows that the Middle East “Ugh, we don’t want to hear about it anymore.” So fine, the way not to hear about the Middle East is to enable America’s allies first and foremost Israel to take care of themselves.
In response to a separate question, Glick added:
If America were to adapt this policy, it would save a half a billion dollars a year because it wouldn’t have to finance the Palestinian terrorist army any more – that would be a good thing – it’s a net savings. The United States is actually here required to do less, rather than more.
Be sure to check out the rest of our interview, in which we discuss issues ranging from how and what a one-state solution would look like, Glick's debunking of the fallacious demographic numbers that leaders have been citing for almost two decades to argue for the two-state solution, to the true Palestinian oppressors, and the surprising similarities between Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama when it comes to Israel and views on the Middle East more broadly.