Anyone holding the idea that Israel needs to accept a two-state solution to survive has not thought through the problem. Or perhaps they have indeed thought through the problem and have decided that a two-state solution is a step along the way to dissolving Israel as a state of the Jews, which is just fine for them but not for the Jews.

What would be the result to Israel if it were reduced to its ‘67 borders? At that time, the narrowest distance from its eastern border to the Mediterranean Sea was less than 10 miles…actually, closer to 9 miles. Before the ‘67 Six-Day War, to get from Jerusalem to Beit Shan near the Sea of Galilee required leaving Jerusalem, going west towards Tel Aviv, traveling up the Coast Road to Haifa, turning East to Tiberias, and then south to Beit Shan, a trip of 4-5 hours. The military risk to the country was being cut in two at that choke point.

When the question arose as to why the town of Dimona was chosen as the site of Israel’s nuclear facility, Israel offered the following explanation: Though Dimona is only a few miles east of the Egyptian border and a few miles west of the Jordanian border, it is the point in Israel that was furthest from any border.

The hills of Judea and Samaria run north-south along the top of the Jordan Hills, with the Jordan River at the bottom of the Rift Valley to the east. The hills naturally sit above the lowlands to the west. Before the ’67 War, most of Israel’s population sat below those hills to the west, as is still the case today. There is one hill east of Ben Gurion airport that can see the takeoff and landing of every aircraft, making them easy targets. Giving that hill to the Arabs would be similar to a cow raising its neck to the slaughterer so he can make a better cut.

These points address the topography of pre-’67 Israel and its effect upon the lives of the Jews. No one who wishes a secure future for Israel should think of returning to those suicidal borders.

Image: Israel’s pre-1967 borders. Jewish Virtue Library.

There’s also the sociological aspect of integrating Arabs and Jews. Anyone seeking a two-state solution is suggesting that perennial conflict is their goal. Jews and Arabs need to be substantially separated geographically. The Jordan River seems logical, with those Arabs remaining in Judea and Samaria becoming citizens of Jordan. They would not be stateless and they’d be unable to interfere with the development of a majority Jewish state.

A Jewish state is the only way to prevent repeated occurrences of October 7’s slaughter. While Jews are somewhat indifferent towards Arabs, Arabs have hated Jews since Mohammad walked the earth. The problem is that, while Jews can live side-by-side with Arabs, being indifferent or befriending them on an individual level, traditional Arabs will merely hate Jews when the Jews are strong but will attempt to slaughter them when the Jews are relatively weak.

This brutality is supported by Mohammad’s behavior. If Mohammad slaughtered Jews 1300 years ago, today’s Arabs consider it laudable behavior and will try to do the same. And, of course, Mohammad slaughtered Jews to the last man at Khaybar (except for those who agreed to pay the Jizya tax or converted to Islam). He waited until he had gained enough strength to beat them and then acted despite the interim peace.

One must also consider Iran, the key villain in this mess. Let me urge you to explore the following two links that may be eye-opening for those on the fringes of this conflict: 1) There is no question that, for ideological reasons, there are those in the United States government who are strengthening Iran to the detriment of Israel. 2) These same people are strengthening Hizb’Allah in Lebanon at the expense of Israel as well.

These links imply that Israel is considered expendable except to the Jews themselves and others with a conscience and a memory. Therefore, Israel must resist physical compression and cultural suppression.

To this, I must add that the continued existence of Israel as a state of the Jews is imperative for the entire world. The flourishing of Israel prevents world dominance by globalists who wish uniform entropy and powerlessness among all populations. This goal of uniformity is so lacking in sense that, if permitted to do so in the future, people will write entire scholarly volumes about its stupidity.

Israel is a bulwark against globalism and enforced uniformity. That’s because it’s a fine example of a nation that is both tied to the past through Judaism and is responsive to changing socio-economic conditions that require flexibility. It has not needed the presumptions of globalism, Marxism, or even capitalism to succeed. At every choice point, it tinkers without fear and restrictions until it finds solutions that work. Israel’s independence and success explain much of the antipathy directed at the state of the Jews. I call this antipathy ‘anti-Semitism.’

This week, in every synagogue in Israel and around the world, we read the section called Noah, which tells how God decides to destroy all living creatures except for Noah and his family. Men had become so corrupt they no longer merited continued existence. The Hebrew word for corruption is ‘Hamas.’ Yes, Hamas was and is the pinnacle of corruption. Apparently, things are no different today than they were in pre-flood history.