(Author: Johan Rhodius)

It was my privilege to attend the Jerusalem premiere of a film which promotes the two state solution and the ensuing discussion with many of the people who feature in this film, like Sharansky, Caroline Glick and Dore Gold. 
The first question to the panel was why the film promoted the two state solution as this concept is passé. One member of the panel answered that the two state solution had validity as otherwise Israel would be confronted with the one state solution. As the discussion developed I realized - with all respect to those who took part in it - that was not only a waste of time, but counterproductive: As if Israel is the problem of the Arab - Israel conflict and the one who has to provide the solution. 

I felt increasingly uncomfortable with the word solution. Firstly it implies that there is a problem. And there is a problem. The problem is that most Arab states and groups like Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah and Al Qaida and others want to annihilate Israel. That is in breach with international law; sometimes it is useful to mention the obvious. I will refer to those who want to annihilate Israel as the Arabs or the Muslims, although I am fully aware that not every Arab or Muslim wants to annihilate Israel. And even if the large majority of the Arabs and Muslims want to really live in peace with Israel, one never or hardly hears from that silent majority; so they are irrelevant in that respect.

Israel is not the problem. Israel is - like about 140 other states - a sovereign state. Period. "Next question please ". The problem has to be solved by the one who has the problem: The Muslims. The problem is not be solved by the one who does not have the problem, Israel. Even stronger: the one, who does not have the problem, can for that very reason not solve the problem.  

Legal procedures are often decided by the question which party has the onus of proof, the obligation to proof something. If you cannot prove your point, you lose the case. In this case the party who has to solve the problem. For that reason it is very important in legal procedures to put forward your view and only your view and only react to the view of your opponent where necessary to clarify your own position or refute the view of your opponent if it is incorrect. So not to appropriate the view of your opponent as your own and deal with that. 

 The two-state solution, the one-state solution or whatever solution is not - at least not originally - the view of Israel (Israel just wanted a state of her own), but of Israel's enemies. It is therefore very unwise to take whatever solution as starting point for a discussion. In doing so - and that is what Israel and Dershowitz do - they appropriate the problem, draw the problem to themselves. That is very dangerous. It makes Israel the problem and Israel the one who has to solve the problem. And if the problem is not solved, the consequences of the problem are for Israel. That is the corner in which the Muslims have manoeuvred Israel. And the US, Europe and the rest of the non-Muslim world, represented by the Quartet, have taken over this Muslim view. By the way very much to the detriment of that non-Muslim world.  

The fact that the Muslims cannot solve their problem - the annihilation of Israel - , means that they lose the "procedure". Period. Moreover the fact that the Muslims cannot solve their problem does not therefore mean that it is up to Israel to solve this problem. Because then again Israel would fall into the trap of appropriating the problem of the Muslims. Moreover Israel cannot solve this problem as it would have to annihilate itself, commit suicide. 

The second reason why I do not like the word solution - in that respect I hate it - that in German solution is Lösung. Hitler had a Lösung, the Endlösung. The Muslims were in agreement with that Endlösung. See the contacts of Arabs with Eichmann in 1936 and the contacts between Hitler and the Grand mufti of Jerusalem. The Muslim view has not changed. They see as the solution of the problem the dissolution of Israel and of the Jews.
The conclusion is that the problem that Muslims want to annihilate Israel, the Jews, cannot be solved. The sooner Israel and the rest of the non-Muslim world come to that realization, the better. In the interest of the whole world. Also in the interest of the Muslim world, of that vast majority of Muslims that want really to live in peace with Israel, like almost all other people live peacefully next to their neighbours, this is yours and that is mine. Then the Muslim world would eventually use their energy for what it is meant to be used for: to build and not to destroy, to live and not to kill.  

I speak about Muslims and not about Arabs. On purpose. The conflict Muslims have with Israel and with the rest of the non-Muslim world is not a matter of territory or something else, but of religion. Islam wants to dominate the whole world. The Muslims are very consistent: They say what they do and do what they say. And so should the non-Muslim world be: if we do not agree with the Muslim view, we should say so. And do so. That is the solution of the problem. Then we have the maximum possible peace in our world.