The Israel-palestine conflict is seen from such a simplistic vantage point that it leads to a false dichotomy – One must understand the entirety of Middle-Eastern dynamics, not one localized aspect of them that has been divorced from all context.
Palestinians are simply arabs with a jihadist political agenda that draws them to the need for an ethnicity . They have no specific ethnic allegiance alone; the importance of their fight is to expand the islamic lands (“waqf) and implement sharia law. Before the decline of the Ottoman Empire, there was no distinction between arab ethnicities. Palestinians, like all muslim arabs, give their first allegiance to muslim ummah. They will never compromise, because a compromise requires both sides to make concessions; when dealt with as equals, muslims can only accept gains while giving nothing in return. This is also why Coptic Christians in the Middle-East are constantly persecuted by muslim arabs no matter if they share the same arbitrary ethnic identity – at best they live as de jure second-class citizens under the protection (or rather, at the mercy of) islamic law, where a blind eye is turned to their random – and not so random – victimization.
The argument against Israeli occupation ignores the fact that muhammaden arabs are occupying all land outside of the Arabian Peninsula. The importance of this is that there will never be a compromise in which some people are not displaced. Middle-Eastern Jews have been displaced and re-accepted by their own in Israel. Muslims choose not to accept their fellow muslim arabs because creating the “palestinian” as a political tool is far more important than the lives of their ‘brothers’. Others should not bear the burden of the consequences that stem from of the selfish priorities of the wider arab and muslim world.
There is no possible compromise with mohammaden arabs. Their political identities are shallow adoptions that are easily cast off when it becomes politically expedient to do so. Asking Israel to accept one-sided peace would just allow arab muslims to keep playing a false victim role. According to the doctrines of shariah law, all ceasefires and truces with an enemy like Israel are only for the purposes of refreshing and rearming, and never are permitted with the intent of sincere settlement or peace. Muslims will only have peace according to their own unconditional terms – that the world submit to islam, and convert, pay the jizyah, or die.
Who are the faultless victims in the Middle-East?
The false dichotomy of “Jew and arab” ignores the plight of the nationless. Zoroastrians have almost been completely eradicated by muslims. Coptic Christians have no refuge from their torment and no homeland to defend them. Time and again they are butchered in Egypt, where they have no support or security. Apostates of islam are also left helpless and homeless in the Middle-East.
The real victims of Gaza are Copts, suffering in silence at the hands of their islamic, “palestinian,” “victimized” counterparts. This is paralleled across all islamic lands in which Christians reside as dhimmis under shariah law – they endure constant, unending persecution.
Looking at ethno-nationalism alone is the flaw of bleeding hearts on the right, who swallow palestinian propaganda, as the hypocritical anti-colonial claims of occupation seen with biased tunnel-vision works for the left. The Middle-East must be viewed in terms of theocratic tribal nationalism.
The real two-state solution will require both halves of the current paradigm to make concessions – a real compromise. The palestinian territories would be Israel’s contribution. Since arab muslims have not ever been willing to give anything up they must take a loss too. Jordan should be required to give up equal land as the west bank territory to be added to it in an actual compromise, likewise Egypt equal land for the Gaza strip. This two-state solution will give a homeland to Middle Eastern Christians as a safe refuge where they no longer have to live under another theocracy’s rule. Perhaps a Coptic government can choose to provide a safe refuge for other oppressed non-muslim populations, and islamic apostates as well.
The requirements of this compromise are quite reasonable when looking at the entirety of Middle-Eastern dynamics. It puts Israel’s objections over a two-state solution to rest because they won’t fear those lands will be used as a means of political jihad and continual attack. Under current circumstances this is a valid safety concern as arab muslims under the palestinian pseudonym have made their intentions – unceasing violence and escalation until Israel is destroyed – quite clear. The current wrong-headed debate will be shut down, as the security risk to Israel posed by jihad will be properly recognized when theocratic distinctions are added in to the discussion. Israel can give up responsibility for those territories – with equally added land from Egypt and Jordan to match them in compromise – because a Coptic christian country would pose no threat to them. If anything, this gives Israel an ally in the region and more importantly gives Middle-Eastern Christians a level of protection that they have not had, massacre after massacre.
This two-state solution is just, fair, and good; allowing arab islamists to play the victims for the aims of political jihad, while they slaughter the real silent victims, is a dishonorable travesty.