Eretz Israel and the “Two-State” solution

Barack Obama’s rhetoric regarding the outdated “Two-State Palestinian Solution” (proposed in the notorious Balfour Declaration in 1917) was against the Zionist’ dream of Eretz Israel aka Greater Israel– Which as expected, has earned him the title of “anti-Semism”. This is the trick the Zionazi Jews have been using to silence the people who criticize Israel’s “Thugocracy” – as admitted by a former Israeli minister Shulamit Aloni in the video at the end of this article: “In Europe, when someone criticizes Israeli policies, we bring in Holocaust – and when someone in this country (US)criticizes Israel policizes, we bring in Anti-Semitism…..”

How for these Zionazi would stoop in their hatred of Arabs and Muslims – can be judged by the latest statement of Zionist entity’s transport minister, Israel Katz that Bibi’s government has decided to Judaize hundreds of Arabic names of cities, roads and commnities in order to erase Palestinian history like their 5,000-year-old country of Palestine. For exmple, Jerusalem (Al-Quds) would be changed to “Yerushalayim”, Jesus’ birth place, Nazreth, would be changed to “Natzrat”, and Jaffa city will become “Yafo” and the city of Nablus could become “Shechem”. Historically, it’s as old scheme as the creation of Zionists’ outlaw state in 1948 – whose first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, told the “Naming Committe”: “We are obliged to remove the Arabic names for reasons of state”.

Rachelle Marshall, an American Jewish freelance writer, in her July 2009 article titled Death of a Myth: Israel’s Support of a Two-State Solution wrote:

“…..With the exception of Jimmy Carter, American presidents and the Congress have bought into the image of Israel as a peace-loving country whose actions are intended only to protect its citizens from terrorism. Following Israel’s lead, Washington for years refused any contact with the PLO, and it continues to shun Hamas as terrorist. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Congress in April that the Obama administration would consider dealing with Hamas as a member of a unity government only if it renounced violence, recognized Israel, and agreed to abide by past agreements.

These demands, unfair to begin with, have become untenable in the light of Israel’s unequivocal rejection of a two-state solution. Hamas leaders have repeatedly indicated their willingness to make peace with Israel if it withdrew to its 1967 borders. Hamas also signed on to the 2002 Arab peace proposal that promised full recognition of Israel and was based on the same terms. The recent election of an Israeli government that opposes any form of Palestinian state means that Hamas’ position is now closer to Washington’s than is Israel’s.

The Obama administration nevertheless continues to insist that Hamas “recognize” Israel. Roger Cohen, a long-time foreign correspondent and now columnist for The New York Times, calls the argument over recognition “a form of evasion.” In a recent letter to the New York Review of Books he wrote that Hamas should be viewed as “an authentic, resilient, and many faceted political expression of Palestinian frustration rather than through the sole prism of terrorism.” He might have added that Hamas also provides much needed social services to the people of Gaza and restored order to an area that under Fatah was plagued by gang violence and corruption.

A solution may be a long time coming, however. Shortly after his election, Binyamin Netanyahu told Obama’s envoy George J. Mitchell that Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state before there could be any progress toward peace. Netanyahu also said he would accept only “limited Palestinian self-rule,” a term Israeli leaders use to mean giving Palestinians in West Bank cities control over not much more than garbage collection and street maintenance.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, the bad cop in Israel’s top leadership, took an even more extreme stand, declaring that Israel was not bound by the agreement it signed at the Annapolis peace conference in 2007 pledging to “further the goal of two states.” He also said that granting concessions to the Palestinians would “only bring pressure and more wars.” Lieberman, a former bar bouncer who immigrated to Israel in 1978 from the Soviet Union, has been under investigation for 13 years for receiving bribes, money laundering, and breach of trust. But since Israel’s new minister for internal security is a member of Lieberman’s Yisrael Beitenyu party he has little reason to worry.

So far criticism of Israel by the Obama administration has been muted. Shipments of U.S. arms to Israel have continued, and an American officer, Gen. Keith Dayton, will oversee the training of Fatah security forces for another two years. Those forces have been used almost solely to disperse Palestinian protesters and hunt down Hamas supporters. According to Netanyahu, the U.S.-trained police are an “apparatus that will fight terrorism.”

Nevertheless, the days of rubber-stamp support for Israel may be over. In his appearance before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on May 5 Vice President Joe Biden, after reaffirming America’s commitment to protecting Israel’s security, went on to say, “Israel has to work toward a two-state solution, not build more settlements, dismantle existing outposts, and allow Palestinians freedom of movement.”

Obama’s special adviser on the Gulf and Southeast Asia is Dennis Ross (a Zionist Jew), who in 1985 helped launch the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a pro-Israel think tank spun off from AIPAC. Ross was a member of the U.S. delegation at Camp David in 2000, and afterwards blamed Yasser Arafat for the failure of those talks. Arafat had turned down Israel’s offer of only a truncated portion of the West Bank as the basis for a Palestinian state.

More ominously, last summer Ross co-chaired a task force for Obama that produced a paper entitled “Strengthening the Partnership: How to Deepen U.S.-Israel Cooperation on the Nuclear Challenge.” According to an article by Robert Dreyfuss in the Nation, the paper proposed a coordinated U.S. and Israeli policy toward Iran that included plans for “preventive military action.” In a report for the neoconservative Bipartisan Policy Center, Ross recommended the “prepositioning of military assets” in the Gulf by the U.S. in case negotiations with Iran fail. Ross favors talks with Iran, Dreyfuss writes, but believes they should be limited to at most a few months. After that the U.S. should plan to take “kinetic action,” which could mean a military assault….”

How far Obama can go in his belief in the “Two-State” solution – can be judged from the remarks of a former US president, Gerald Ford, who too spoke in favour of the “Two-State” solution and end to Israeli occupation. When a reporter asked him why he did not pressure Israeli leaders to accept that while he was in the White House – Ford replied: “Because I was president”.

One response to “Eretz Israel and the “Two-State” solution

  1. Perhaps you will post one or both of these?

    Two videos from Gilad Atzmon:

    Gilad Atzmon: Israel will implode

    Gilad Atzmon on Hedonistic warriors

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s