With the headline "A 'two-state' solution for France?",
Bernie Quigley of US political website The Hill last week wrote the following:
"Israel's situation then and now is much the same as those rising today in London, in Paris, in Germany and throughout Europe. We have been told by the Europeans for two decades that they will forcefully advance our lead on this: The only solution to all-out war, the only way to appease and accommodate Arab terrorism in Israel is a two-state solution.
"Not now, but in time and perhaps soon, the terrorists throughout Europe, possibly in allegiance with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or al Qaeda, will bring a case to the UN for autonomous state status in post-Christian Europe. With some credibility, citing Europe's and America's long-term plans for Israel as precedent."
Does this sound crazy to anyone? Why does it sound crazy for France, but not for Israel? The essence of the "two-states" was an attempt to contain the Arab extremism a certain country, to appease it - and precisely the same phenomenon is happening in France. Does it sound crazy to divide the various quarters of Paris between Islamists and the original Christian inhabitants?
After all, France has admitted that it has close to 751 "sensitive urban zones" (in French, zone urbaine sensible or "zus"), a euphemism for areas in which non-Muslims are not allowed. And if it sounds weird to divide the districts of Paris by religion, why does it not sound crazy when it comes to Jerusalem?
Every native French citizen would rush to delay such a division, but the Muslims there may actually welcome it. So what's the difference? Muslims in France make up 10-15% of the population, but in large cities that ratio is already almost 40%, and in a few years they will become the majority – a far proportion of the population than in Israel.
Protests in France against Israel's Operation Protective Edge (Photo: AFP)
Everyone understands the independence of the "zus" on the streets of France would mean uncontrollable violence and control by al-Qaeda and Islamic State, as is already happening – so why is this not clear about the capital of Israel, or land in the heart of Israel?
What is true for Israel would be doubly true for the French or any Western country. The extra-territorial areas of these countries, dominated by Muslims, would not only pop up in France –you would find them in UK cities - especially in Birmingham, Luton, Sheffield, northeast London and East London - as well as in cities in Sweden, Belgium, Italy and more.
So much has changed now, and Europe finds itself in the same situation as Israel, only with worse conditions: There are no restrictions on the crazy illegal immigration by millions into its territory, so the number of Muslims will only continue to escalate. It is not just terrorism, it is primarily demographics – an argument that Europe once made to Israel and is now being made against it too.
Europe should understand that Israel is a precedent, and what it might force upon us could well boomerang back on itself. Israel, from the European perspective, is a mirror of the way they see themselves, and therefore their considerations must undergo urgent revision.
They should bear in mind that a Muslim country on Israeli territory could tomorrow lead an independent Muslim state or emirate on its own territory. The fact is, in the United States they are already starting to talk about it.