Middle East debate

Time to look at a one-state solution

On Thursday, UNLV hosted a forum featuring advocates for a two-state solution in Middle East. The event was sponsored by the local chapter of J Street, a seven-year-old political organization that seeks to influence the peace process.

A member of the local group told the Las Vegas Sun that the symposium was intended to expose Las Vegans to the two-state proposal, which would entail the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

Given the group’s progressive pedigree, however, it’s worth considering whether J Street actually has the bestinterests of the region’s only democracy at heart.

For one red flag, J Street embraced the Obama administration’s nuclear giveaway to Iran, which seeks to wipe Israel off the map.

In addition, Paul Miller writes in a 2014 piece in The Hill that “some of the most vehemently anti-Israel money is behind J Street” and that the group backs “elected officials and candidates who support U.S. taxpayers funding Hamas, contravening Israel’s basic right to defend herself.”

In addition, Mr. Miller notes, “On campus, J Street partners with the rabidly anti-Semitic Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), a group in the forefront of the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.”

The two-state approach has for decades been the foundation for most plans to address the Middle East conflict. But it has borne precious little fruit. It is certainly fair to ask how such a proposal is truly realistic given the entire region’s current instability and the Palestinian refusal to even acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.

As The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer noted in 2015, many Palestinians don’t seen interested in a deal. On three separate occasions in the past 17 years, he writes, the Palestinian leadership has received “three astonishingly concessionary peace offers. Every one rejected.”

In February, Donald Trump astonished may observers when he broke long-standing U.S. precedent and hinted he could accept a one-state solution. That would involve a single nation with citizenship for the inhabitants of Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

The idea represents a welcome alternative to the teetering status quo. In a recent Huffington Post piece, Hastings law professor George Bisharat outlined some of the advantages: “no borders would have to be drawn, Jerusalem would remain undivided, and Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank — at least if desegregated — could remain where they are.”

Supporters of Israel should cast a skeptical eye on the “solutions” proffered by the ultra-leftist J Street. Mr. Trump’s inclination that a one-state solution may offer the best hope for peace in the region is a promising development.

In his March 12 commentary, “Ford makes grade on separation of powers,” UNLV law professor Thomas McAffee attempted to add what might be considered the third leg of the stool supporting government employees holding elected office. Let’s take a look at what has been thrown at us so far.

First there was Senate Majority Leader Aaron Ford. He said state Sen. Heidi Gansert, the Reno Republican who also works for the university system, is not “exercising the powers or functions ‘appertaining’ exclusively to the executive branch in her job.” Exclusively? Where is that in Article 3, Section 1 of the state constitution? Don’t bother to look for it because it’s not there. “Exclusively” may serve state Sen. Ford’s political interests but it certainly doesn’t serve the interests of those of us in the private sector.

Sen. Gansert herself has taken the “precedent” defense. That position says the government insiders have been treating Article 3, Section 1 like a roll of toilet paper for decades, so where does anyone get off challenging her after all this time? Case closed. It’s a done deal. Get over it, peasants.

Mr. McAffee has chosen the “round up the usual suspects” defense. He starts by saying the separation doctrine prohibits each branch from attacking any of the others. However, each branch is not a living thing. It’s only the people functioning in each branch who give government its life. That’s why Article 3, Section 1 says “no persons.” It is the persons of the executive branch who are attacking the independence of the legislative, not a bunch of Transformers.

Next, the professor plays the lawyer game: “Let’s look at other state constitutions and their Supreme Court rulings.” This is an interesting tactic since it eliminates Article 3, Section 1 from the discussion. Very convenient — for the professor. But what if our justices don’t like the idea they must fall in line and subjugate our state constitution and our state Supreme Court to the rulings of the Mississippi Supreme Court — or any other court, for that matter?

I hope our high court justices will reject secondclass status and affirm once and for all the clear mandate of Article 3, Section 1 of the Nevada Constitution: No one may function in more than one branch of government.

Your March 13 editorial: “Legislation to raise taxes in perpetuity on Nevada property owners deserves the bum’s rush,” incorrectly states “the proposal essentially codifies into state law an annual 3 percent property tax hike for residential real estate in perpetuity.” I would like to clarify that Assembly Bill 43 would not change the existing 3 percent residential cap on tax bills.

State law sets property taxes at the assessed value multiplied by the property tax rate, and then limits any annual increases to 3 percent. Taxes can decrease under the current formula or increase up to 3 percent. AB 43 does not change this.

The editorial also claims that AB 43 would push a $ 2,000 tax bill to almost $2,700 after a decade. That is not at all likely as inflation would have to remain below 1.5 percent for 10 straight years, a condition that has never occurred since 1913. Furthermore, an amendment assures that AB 43 will not increase property taxes next year — and based on CPI projections through 2022, it is not expected to increase property taxes for the following six years.

Finally the assertion that “the increases would be even higher for commercial properties, as much as 8 percent” is misleading since they have already reached this amount six times since the property tax caps were applied in 2006.

The Nevada Association of Counties fully supports the caps that were enacted by the Legislature in 2005 to provide relief to taxpayers. This year these caps have saved taxpayers $700 million.

However, the secondary calculation that caused property tax increases to drop to 0.2 percent this year — for residential and commercial properties already benefiting from significant tax abatements — was an unintended consequences of how the caps are calculated. The fact that property tax revenues in six counties are flat this year while property values in those counties increased by more than 3 percent in each of the past two years is why the secondary calculation needs to be fixed.

This is hardly a “breathtaking overreach.”

Nevada’s counties, cities and school districts support AB 43 not because they believe it will generate additional revenues. Rather, they understand the need to improve the stability of a uniform statewide tax system in order to maintain the level of services they are currently providing.