Obama’s Two-State Delusion

The author is a PhD historian, writer and journalist living in Israel.


Let there be no mistake: President Obama’s attack on Israel’s right to govern in eastern Jerusalem has nothing to do with American national interests, and nothing to do with a “peace process.” Other American leaders may have disagreed with Israeli policy, but none of them made it a casus belli.

No other prominent politician sought to impose the “two-state solution,” based on 60-year-old cease-fire lines with Jordan, instead of a negotiated agreement. Obama’s move leaps beyond all previous “accords,” plans and “road maps.” Never before has the United States sought to dictate the terms of Israeli surrender, thereby undermining its only reliable ally in the region.

Obama’s obsession with the establishment of a second Arab Palestinian state might be understandable if it were based on a realistic appraisal of conditions as they are, instead of what they might be. The warning signals are there.      

Two dramatic shifts have made the “two-state solution” irrelevant: the stand-off victory of Hezbollah in Lebanon and the hegemony of Hamas in Gaza and many areas of the West Bank, nominally under the Palestinian Authority, controlled by Fatah. One has to be ignorant, and/or blind not to appreciate what these situations mean – especially given the threats from Iran.

The developments have led to the widespread recognition, especially among Israelis, that the so-called “Oslo process” (“land for peace”) has failed, that Israel has no “peace partner,” and, therefore, that a second Arab Palestinian state is no longer relevant.

Today, unilateral withdrawal from Yehuda and Shomron (“the West Bank”) and the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state is a “clear and present danger,” not only to Israel, but to the entire region.

Refusing to consider any alternatives to the “two-state” model, however, the United States and EU countries focus on an “end to the conflict,” without necessary pre-requisites.

During the last 40 years, Israeli leaders conveyed the message that “the Palestinian problem” is ours and we can fix it. This was the motivation behind various proposals: Labor’s offers to exchange “land for peace,” Likud’s autonomy plan, confederation with Jordan, the First Lebanese War against the PLO, Rabin’s recognition of the PLO and the establishment of a Palestinian state, Barak’s offers at Camp David, Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and Northern Shomron, and the current government’s failures in Lebanon and Gaza.

All of these policies failed because they were not reality-based, but clung to a desperate Israeli desire for an end to the conflict. Each time Israel paid the price and made concessions, however, the price rose, and the conflict continued.

The “two-state” proposal based on Israel’s 1949 borders is also doomed to fail for several reasons:

(1) Palestinians’ opposition to any solution; their refusal to recognize authentic Jewish rights and claims and their refusal to accept Israel’s existence.

(2) A negotiating process confounded by terrorism. Israel demands an end to terrorism before making broader concessions; the Palestinians demand concessions first and reducing terrorism later – perhaps, if that is at all possible or their plan (which all evidence suggests it isn’t).

(3) Political/demographic reality is that Israel cannot return to the 1949 Armistice lines.

(4) UNRWA continues to support the “Palestinian right-of-return;” it is part of the problem, not a solution.

(5) Even if all of the above could be resolved, a stable Palestinian state is unlikely.

Rather than abandon vital national interests, the only practical and rational policy for America, the region, and Israel, is one based on security and reality: Islamic terrorism, Jihad, is and will be a persistent threat. That should be Pres. Obama’s main concern.

In comparison, issues such as definitions of Israel’s borders and demographic predictions are irrelevant. “Political horizons” can only have meaning when there is a stable government that is accountable and responsible. Otherwise, such proposals are recipes for disaster.

At the least, the Obama administration must present not only a realistic, coherent policy, but an explanation of how and why it will work. Slamming Israel is not a substitute for reason.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

    You guys just gave up telling the truth a year ago didn't you. The two state solution was Bush's plan you moron….

    Why don't the jews just admit that they will never give up what they believe God gave them, they are only humoring the rest of the world by pretending. Just admit it and the United States can take it's kooky ideas for peace, it's weapons and billions in support and leave poor Israel to work it out on it's own.

    • maryann

      What about all the talks Carter and Clinton had about the "two state solution"? Remember the Camp David Accords? Remember when Israel agreed to give away most of its land and Arafat refused and issued the second intifada?
      There can be no two state solution when only one state wants peace- that would be Israel. The Arabs want Israel destroyed. Obama, like most Leftists and you it seems, believes that Israel is the problem and if it were gone, peace would reign. It won't. Even if Israel were destroyed, there would be no peace in the M.E., because the goal is to conquere the world. Have you heard of the World Caliphate? Do you listen to what the enimies of Israel and the West say. Israel and the West are not saying these things. Islam is.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

        The two state solution pedates Obama…the author tries to make it his idea. I guess I needed a "too" there.

        You can say Israel wants peace, but they keep saying that they will go to this border or that border or give up this or get that….and all the while, none of that is honest. There are jews who want to destroy all Arabs as well and think they are dogs. Just have Israel announce that it will never go to the borders everyone else is trying to negotiate and then we can all act accordingly. I'm not saying who is "right" in this situation….since both parties are religious fanatics that think God owes them something….I don't think we will ever get anywhere…so maybe Obama and America should stop trying.

        Rabin was killed by radicals in his own country for trying to make peace.

        The whole notion that arabs or Islamic radicals have a chance in hell of taking over the world is silly. Sure, maybe they WANT to take over the world…but I hope you're not losing sleep over it.

        • Democracy First

          The Arabs refused a Palestinian state when the UN offered one in 48.

          Refusing land for peace:
          1) The "Palestinians" refused a state in 67, when Israel, immediately on winning land and not wanting to occupy Arabs, offered to negotiate its return in exchange for peace. The Arabs refused to even talk.
          2) The palestinians refused a state in 79 when Israel and Egypt both invited them to join peace talks.
          Israel returned Sinai to Egypt for peace.
          3) The Palestinians refused a state in 2000 when a frustrated Bill Clinton said to Arafat, in response to his rejectionism of ISrael's offer of land for peace, "I'm a failure and you've made me that."
          4) Israel returned Gaza, in response to which palestinians fired thousands of rockets from there at Israel, rather than create a viable state. Had they chosen peace, Israel would have by now returned the west Bank too.
          5) The Palestinians refused a state many times since 2000, last when Olmert offered land for peace, and they've refused to negotiate since Netanyahu spoke in favour of a land for peace deal.

          Israel has returned land many times: Sinai twice, Gaza twice, a strip along the Lebanese border, demonstrating its will for peace. Palestinian rejectionism explains why they remian occupied. By choice, that is.

    • courtnye

      hey BUBBA, never mind!!!!hahaha

    • BS1977

      Bubba4 is a bib overall moron…don't worry about him…Funny how both the Repubs and Democraps both ignore the 30-40 people killed every week in Iraq, the endless atrocities and genocide in Sudan and Somalia, the non stop Taliban killings and heroin trade in Pakistan and Afghanistan….but let tiny Israel allow the building of homes and gardens…..OH the Outrage!!! OH the HUMANITY!!!! What a crisis. Somebody built a home on ancient Judea and Samaria land………Oh, call the UN, get angry, sign a paper, make an outraged demand. HYPOCRISY!!!!

    • Michael Rosenberg

      OK genius, but then don't complain when in self-defense, Israel also nukes the oil fields and you end up paying $25 a gallon for your gas and freeze in the winter because you can't afford to pay for your heating oil or natural gas. Also, since Obama and the Democrats have devastated our intelligence services, who is going to give you a heads up about dirty nukes in Chicago or LA,, the Mexicans?

  • Jim02351

    Before you call anyone a moron, perhaps you should find out the facts. This goes back to a UN Security plan from the 70's and was changed from a 3 state plan back in the late 40's. Blaming Bush for this is just an example of your lack of knowledge about the subject because Carter and Clinton both wanted this long before Bush got into office, either one. Moron!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

      yeah sorry I didn't add a "too" to the end of that sentence. The point was it predates Obama…it is not his "idea" for destroying Israel.

      It wasn't to "blame" Bush…but FPM never said Bush was dictating the terms of Israel's surrender….that kind of inflammatory bullsh*t is saved for Obama.

    • courtnye

      hey, BUBBA didn't take history in school, he took "milking Holsteins 101". don't worry, he'll get it on day

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/WilliamB WilliamB

    Arabs and leftists hold delusional worldviews and are thus suited to unite against the Jews. Pharaoh Hussein Obama like the Pharaoh of old will soon be up to his keister in his own wicked brew.

  • therealend

    I just don't see President Obama and Sec Clinton being able to deal with this matter or make things better. They are not cut out for this kind of thing.

  • Dave

    The fact that the Obama admin. has decided to not looking the other way on Israeli settelements doesn't mean they are antri Israel.
    All previous US admins. held same policy and looking the other way just made things worse. In order to bring the conflict to an end, Obama is doing the right thing.
    We need to be frank, Israel has no policy or agenda for peace and if it will not be imposed it will never happan.

    • New Yorker

      Exactly, just like Neville Chamberlain, in his boundless stupidity and cowardice, disarmed and ruined the prosperous Czechoslovakia, in the name of peace, Obama is determined to sacrifice a modern democratic and prosperous Israel in order to appease the wolves. Obama is not alone. Europe has long ago fallen to, in fact never recovered from, the lows it reached in the 1930-s. Just a week ago, the Economist magazine came out with the immoral and nasty name for one of its articles – Israel versus the World. The implication is that since the world, in its majority, wants you dead, you are in the wrong refusing to oblige. In other words, being in the majority somehow gives you the "right" to bully. It is tragic and disgusting at the same time to witness this unfold. The fact that the current U.S. administration chose to join up this primitive circus, abandoning the higher principles, paves the way for a disaster if this course is not reversed immediately.

      • arthur brede

        Oh, do give the 'Neville Chamberlain betrayed the Czechs' a rest, willya? The stupid Czechs first betrayed themselves (as usual – a more self-destructive, envious, backstabbing bunch of liars than the Czechs would be very hard to find) messing about with mobilisations, then failed in their usual cowardly way to defend themselves – although the legacy of the Hapsburgs they bled and betrayed was to be the 5th or 6th biggest industrial power in the world at the time, and probably the fourth or fifth biggest manufacturer of arms, with a large and excellent standing army, modern tacticians (no dumb Poles charging tanks on horseback) and a halfway decent air force. They also had a mutual defence treaty (Locarno) with France, none with England. France welsched on its obligations (as usual) dragged the Brits in to blame (as usual) then folded and collaborated (as usual). The Brits had NO obligations to Czecho whatsoever. None. In fact, they were probably sick of being bombarded by Czech Skoda guns all through the first world war, plus the rudeness and ignorance of Czech diplomats who thought that by ignoring and insulting the Brits they could suck up to the French. In the end they did what Britain refused to do – surrendered without a shot, without sabotaging one brick of the updated Hapsburg armoury, and happily beavered away betraying the Jews for money and building guns, bombs and rockets for the Third Reich unti the time came to vote communist and be a doormat for the Russians. Some pattern emerging here?

        Chamberlain came ot office at the behest of an electorate sick of war that, despite the American 'help' after the Russian defection, had cost them the cream of the nation. The depression had taken its toll on national morale. They were down and deluded, certainly; cowardly, never. I'm perpetually irritated by the never-ending tirade against the Brits for trying not to fight, as if it were they who had voted Hitler into power, they who had betrayed signed mutual defence pacts, they who had invited the Nazis to walk in unopposed, they who started the war rather than trying, like the civilized Christians they were trying to learn to be, not to kill folks.

        And where was America while this was in process? Making a fat profit out of selling kit to both sides at premium prices, as usual. If Britain was the chicken, the US was the vulture.

        Now back off, sunshine, and learn some history and some sympathy. You think the Brits actually want Islamic detritus setting up its goatskin tent culture in their green and pleasant land? They got where they are through a misguided attempt at a silly but beautiful vision of mutually supportive multiculturalism. They were brought to such a daft pass by being attacked by both Russia and America for 50 years or so – the Russians undermining social cohesion and industry, the Americans undermining first empire and then the economy, at the same time as financing terrorists making war on women and kids while they trained – wait for it – the Islamic terrorists who haunt us now and the armies of the drug barons who run South America.

        So, enough. There are a load of Brits who detest Islam and support Israel, right now. Like the Americans, they've been deprived of representation by a combination of stupidity and media cupidity. Both nations have got to find a road back. Taling drivel about Chamberlain gets no-one anywhere. Digging the dirt on Obama, Blair, Brown and cronies is far more constructive.

        In rough transliteration, Byez doh purrdellay, tea vollay. Get real, already.

        • New Yorker

          By the way, digging the dirt on Chamberlain and his cronies would also have been far more constructive at the time.

        • New Yorker

          I am not your sunshine and I have learned history. The fact is, Chamberlain ALONG with the French, fed Czechoslovakia to the Nazis. It is undeniable and well documented. No revision necessary.

    • New Yorker

      But a great damage has been done already. The current U.S. administration deserves no respect and its brazen attacks on Israel's security and sovereinty should be resisted. It's high time a minister in Netanyahu's government told the "world" loud and clear that Israel in 2010 will not follow the example of Czechoslovakia of 1938, regardless that perhaps she might in the process disappoint and "insult" little chamberlains that dominate international politics nowadays.

    • aliko

      I don't blame you for not knowing the strategic importance of Samaria to Israel. It's no secret that Israel rarely if ever explained the significance of this land.

      Geographically it's an elevated area above the center of Israel with easy views to Hadera in the North and Ashdod in south with Tel Aviv metropolitan in the middle. The distances are between 10 to 20 miles which are easy to target both land targets and planes taking off and landing at the Ben Gurion Int.

      Historically, these lands are where much of the Jewish history took place with many holy sites, archeological sites and much more.
      When the Jordanians occupied this area, they demolished holy sites and synagogues. Under "palestinian" rule, Joseph's tomb was burned.

      You might remember – the Taliban demolished several ancient and huge Buddha statues in Afghanistan before 9/11. No one stopped them. At the most, the west just complained a bit. These are the lessons we need to learn from.

      For 8 years, the south of Israel was targeted by thousands of rockets. Because of the early warning alarms, only few died or injured. However, there's no X-ray for traumatized people, especially the thousands of children in that area so the most you could see is the damaged buildings and maybe what's left in bed after they urinated for fear. Without spilled blood, Israel doesn't get much support and even then, it's a muted support that amounts to nothing.

      However, when Israel decided to put a stop to it, the world showed its double standards big time. The left jumped on Israel with a propaganda taken from Goebbels.

      So you tell me, why leave our historical land just to be targeted with no support for defending ourselves from an impossible position?

      What action would you support after the first rocket? 10th rocket? first victim? how many victims would it take to support action and what should be the goal of that action? – Obama better answer these questions before bringing the sides to the table.

    • seels4truth

      And what about Oslo? Barak's offer of 99% of all Arafat asked for? Leaving Gaza? All these were greeted with more aggression from the Arabs yet you in your warped view state that it's the Israelis that don't want peace? Yes lets be frank: you are just as obtuse as the Arabs and you wish to see Israel destroyed. If you knew the history there is nothing illegal about the CITIES built in the "Disputed" territories. NOTHING! Go take your hatred elsewhere fool.

    • Democracy First

      The Arabs refused a Palestinian state when the UN offered one in 48.

      Israel returned Gaza in 1956

      Immediately after winning Gaza again in 67 and the west Bank too, Israel offered to negotiate their return in excahnge for peace. The Arabs refused to even enter talks.

      In 79 Israel and Egypt invited the Palestinians to join in on land for peace tyalks. They refused. Israel returned Sinai for peace.

      In 2000 a frustrated Pres Clinton told Arafat he had made him a failure by rejecting ISrael`s offer of a Palestinian state on nearly all captured land for peace.

      Olmert re-offered the same satte for peace in 08. Again, rejected.

      Netanyahu offered terms for a Palestinian state. Abbas refuses to negotiate.

  • Edip Yuksel

    Years ago when Hamas was not born and PLO was doing all kinds of contortions and compromises to get a state, any statehood for Palestinians, Israel used other excuses. Israel has vested interest in keeping the status-quo, the no border policy, since under such a controlled slaw war and subjugation of Palestinian, is able to grab more lands and increases its size. Israel has no interest in peace. Majority of the world has seen this obvious fact. Zionists are in delusions to think that they can still regurgitate and peddle the same propaganda.

    Ironically, this policy will one day realize the nightmare for Zionists: a huge Palestinian population with no citizenship, rights and hope. The gestapo state will be seen naked by everyone! Wait and see.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Swemson Swemson

      Well if it isn't eDip again, one of the most offensive anti-semitic bigots on the internet.

      This is one of the creeps who's constantly spewing lies about Israel, while trying to con everyone into buying his BS claims that Islam is a religion of peace.

      Don't believe a word this POS says!

      fs

    • stern

      Funny how Israel unilaterally pulling out of Gaza is considered a "land grab". Funny how Israeli offers of land swaps to compensate the Palestinians for the land Israel needs for its own security are "land grabs". Funny how you can smell an anti-Semite even through the Internet.

    • Democracy First

      The PLO was born in 1964. Israel won Gaza and the west Bank in 1967.

    • Democracy First

      In fact it is not Israel that has an invested interest in maintaining the status quo to gain land, it is the Palestinians. They refused a state in 48. Refused land for peace talks Israel offered right after the 67 war. Refused to join Sadat in 79 peace talks, which led toing Israel exchanging land for peace with Egypt. Again in 2000 they refused a state, and ongoing since. That's because they don't want to settle for gaza and the west bank. They want all Israel. Rather than accept a 2 state solution on only part of what they want, they maintain the status quo in the hope of winning more land, i.e., all of Israel.

  • stantonian

    What alternative to the "two-state solution" do you propose, a "one-state solution," Israel? Why don't you say it? I am all in favor of pulling the plug on "Palestine." It's just a tool of Muslim terrorism.

    • Tom W.

      There is no alternative to a 2 state solution, it's all just a matter of where the border should be drawn and that border is at the Jordan River. The British Mandate of Palestine consisted of all the land known today as: The Gaza Strip, Israel, The West Bank and the country of Jordan. It was the Saudis (a eastern tribe on the Arabian peninsula) that attacked a fellow Arabian tribe in Western Arabia (the Hashemites) that held the cities of Mecca and Medina. The Saudis not only attacked the Hashemites and won but did they performed an act which would never have been sanctioned by Muhammad, kicking a fellow Arabian tribe out of the country!

      It was the British that artificially divided up their mandated held territory of Palestine and lopped off approximately 80% of it and gave it to the Hashemites as a form of compensation (also British gave them the area now known as Iraq) for getting kicked out of their country. The Arabs east of the Jordan River are the same as the Arabs west of the Jordan River, therefore the Hashemites need to go back to Arabia whether the Saudis like or not! Then give the Arabs what is now called Jordan and let them call it Palestine and let the Jews have the 20% of the original British Mandate of Palestine (everything west of the Jordan River). If the Arabs complain that 80% of the piece of pie is unfair on them then this will finally prove to the world how damn greedy the Arabs are–time to wake up everyone!

  • USMCSniper

    The Palestinians are a criminal Islamic subculture that straps munitions on their own women and children and sends them out on homicide-suicide missions to murder other innocent women and children in restuarants, supermarkets, on school buses, etc.,. and have forfeited their rights to even exist. Kill 'em all, wrap 'em all in their prayer rugs, put 'em all in piles and burn 'em, and let Allah sort 'em out.

    • Ron Grant

      "have forfeited their rights to even exist. Kill 'em all, wrap 'em all in their prayer rugs, put 'em all in piles and burn 'em, and let Allah sort 'em out."

      It's called genocide,and it was tried several times and fortunately failed.You should be banned from this forum.Furthermore,you bring shame and disrespect on the Marine Corp.Muchiboy

      • USMCSniper

        I guess then it okay with you if Palestinians strap munitions on their own women and children and sends them out on homicide-suicide missions to murder other innocent women and children without any payback?

        • Muchiboy

          “okay with you if Palestinians strap munitions on their own women and children and sends them out on homicid..”

          Not ok.They have their motives for doing what they do as you have your motives for saying what you say. I

          • Ron Grant

            Not ok.They have their motives for doing what they do as you have your motives for saying what you said. If I said about the Israelis/Jews what you said about the Palestinians I would expect to be warned or banned from this forum.From previous warning I have received from the mod this forum is monitored and furthermore we are expected to respect the guidelines.Otherwise it's Dodge City without Marshall Dillon.Muchiboy.

  • http://www.hebrewtranslation.org Aharon HaCohen

    Very well written article by Moshe Dann.
    Excellent analysis, concise and to the point.
    Anyone familiar with the REALITY of this conflict, knows that the creation of a Palestinian State west of the Jordan would only make things worse for everyone involved.
    For a realistic solution – along the lines of Moshe's article – go to http://www.israelinitiative.com .

  • Lee J.

    The very conception of "state" and statehood is unfortunately a totally foreign imported idea to the Middle East, excluding its only "real" state, defined by the U.N. Note that as the U.S. and other Western protectors pull back, the Arabian peninsula and adjoining regions, revert back to tribalism and religious sects.

    Turkey starts probing into Iraq to undermine the Kurds; Iran probes into Iraq's oil territories; Iraq casually invades and nearly destroys Kuwait, and was ready to roll into Saudi Arabia had not Bush stopped him. Yemenis also probing in S.A.; Somalia is dissolved and it's tribes now probe into open seas and neigboring states like Kenya. Afgan. melting with Pakistan; India trying to keep separate from Pakistan (Hindu-Muslim zones); Iran proxy-probing into Lebanon and Pal. territories, blocked only by Israel and blockable only if U.S. supports a democracy in region. And of course the Pals, who were and are still total adolescents when it comes to statehood – they rejected it in 1948 and still reject it. Naturally, they never understood, and still don't, what the heck "statehood" means.

  • Turbeaux

    It’s easy, just like the Dar al Islam is pursuing jihad virtually everywhere the Dar al Islam borders the non-Islamic world, they are also pursuing jihad against Israel, and just like all the other jihads they are also pursuing simultaneously are all permanent, their jihad against Israel is also permanent. Indeed, the Dar al Islam can’t compromise with Israel without committing blasphemy, which is a crime under Islam that is punishable by death.

    Hence, it is high time that the West publicly acknowledge that reality at the same time that the West also publicly acknowledge the global jihad also being waged against us by the Dar al Islam, Thus, all territory captured by Israel not part of the peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan should be declared as permanently belonging to Israel and the so-called Palestinians, really the proxies of the Dar al Islam, should be expelled from the newly expanded permanent territories of Israel, and the West should offer its full and undivided support to Israel because Israel’s fight is our fight. It’s time to take a stand!

    • Smarten up world!

      Pretty much on the mark there!

  • So Cal Mike

    The world hasn't changed much in 70 years.
    Jew hatred is alive and well.
    The only difference is now they have a state of their own to protect themselves.
    And this is what irks Jew haters like Bubba and the rest of the moronic hate filled clowns who invert reality and mutilate truth for the express purpose of helping the Palestinians and Iranians finish what Hitler started.

  • Ron Grant

    (3) Political/demographic reality is that Israel cannot return to the 1949 Armistice lines

    Even a big nuclear armed fish in a small non nuclear pond i.e.Israel, cannot dictate reality alone.Just look what happened to Apartheid South Africa and racial Rhodesia.I know,I was there.It takes strategic sanctions,political isolation ,surrounding hostiles,ongoing threats and time.The same or similar could happen to Zionist Israel.But not while Big Brother,America,is watching.Besides being ungrateful,you people are
    paranoid.She is indeed and forever your best friend.Where would Israel be without America?As for the 1949 Armistice lines,Israeli policy may soften a tad with a nuclear Iran supporting a Palestinian state with its capital East Jerusalem.For the sake of world and regional peace,a contiguous,viable Palestine with E.Jerusalem as its' capital may be the best and perhaps inevitable solution,like it or lump it.When America and the Western democracies see the alternative as unacceptable,an impediment to regional peace and a threat to world peace,Israelis and Palestinians will be taken by their collective scruffs of the neck and told to "sign here".

    4) UNRWA continues to support the “Palestinian right-of-return;” it is part of the problem, not a solution

    If after two thousand years the Jews retained the "Jewish right-of-return",then after a mere 50 years a case can be made for the "Palestinian-right-of-return". Muchiboy

  • Bill

    1 of 2

    Compare:

    Israel's Declaration of Statehood, 1948:

    "THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. "

    with part 2

  • Bill

    2 of 2
    with the Palestinian Charter:

    "Article 15: The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine. Absolute responsibility for this falls upon the Arab nation – peoples and governments – with the Arab people of Palestine in the vanguard. Accordingly, the Arab nation must mobilize all its military, human, moral, and spiritual capabilities to participate actively with the Palestinian people in the liberation of Palestine. It must, particularly in the phase of the armed Palestinian revolution, offer and furnish the Palestinian people with all possible help, and material and human support, and make available to them the means and opportunities that will enable them to continue to carry out their leading role in the armed revolution, until they liberate their homeland."

    One preaches "peace," the other "eternal warfare," under the pretext of "liberation." Anyone who thinks Israel will willingly accept a populace who vows eternal violence and bloodshed against its new neighbors, is simply wrong.

  • PAthena

    President Obama is a good friend of Rashid Khalidi, a parishioner of Rev. Jeremiah Wright – hater of Jews, whites, and America, Communist ("Black Liberation"), friend of communist terrorist Bill Ayers. So he is no friend of Israel, nor of other democratic allies – e.g., Great Britain, Poland, the Czech Republic, Honduras.
    There is a simple means to peace between Israel and the Arabs – the Arabs stop waging war against Israel. They are anti-Israel for religious reasons, that Israel is a Jewish state, not Mohammedan.

  • Ruth Lawler

    Nobody cares what God has said anymore. We will have to learn the hard way, and that will be an enormous blow to our huge egos. Fact: God has established Israel Forever, and Jerusalem will not be divided. "Wise" men are telling us they can change our climate if only we turn complete control of our economy over to them and bankrupt ourselves in order to enrich them. Wanna buy a bridge?
    Man's inflated ego and insatiable lust for power will unleash the unspeakable wrath of God.

  • steve

    The arabs never cease in their insitement of hate against anyone is not like them and and the poor arab average-Pals, etc really want peace but the jihad islamic nuts keep the ball rolling. No matter what they the islamic nuts want the whole world to be a islamic world and that is their charter. So how can one over come this problem…maybe help from the other arabs..democratic states surrounding that part of the world would use their influence but they are also afraid of their kingdom falling apart. If they would allow the Jews to live in harmony with the other nuts in peace the whole part of that world would prosper. Israel would develop cures for cancer, medical, etc, etc, Whatever did the arab counties invent, develop, cure, help in this world….NOTHING< NOTHING! Look what Israel has accomplished!

  • Peter E. Coleman

    Any Palestinian who signs a peace treaty recognizing Israel will be killed. It's the one issue no one ever addresses but all know is true.

    There is no Muslim big enough to ever take that bullet.
    1400 years and counting.

  • chuck

    Where are all the history experts? There is no such thing as Palestinians (they're arabs), there is no land of Palestine legally and the Arab nations around Israel will not let the so called Palestinians into their countries to force Israel off the planet. Judgement is coming, Israel will prevail (without the United States). Remember the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob Israel!

  • Mel

    Obama and the Palestinians are doomed by their immaturity, ignorance, history and blind ideology. The Palestinians are only good at complaining and taking money and power away from their own people. To expect them to change is sheer fantasy. They deserve no respect at this time.

    Other than Israel, we have a middle east that is totally dysfunctional. To try to rely on any of its weak and unpredictable neighbours for peaceis to play with fire. Sorry, no more fire.

    Israel stands out as the ONLY mature, respectable, reliable and progressive nation in the entire region. To it's "friendly" neighbours, I say: grow up. Come back when you want to join reality.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Swemson Swemson

      And calling Israel a "progressive" nation is supposed to be interpreted as a good thing to say about the country?

      fs

  • Joy

    If a 2-state solution is good for Israel, who not mandate the same for the
    US? Just an amicable "divorce," blue from red, so we could live in PEACE!!! Of course,the "blues" would never let us go – who would pay their bills?

    • Jon

      The blue states would collapse in a orgy of gay marriage, carbon emission psychosis,
      all takers and no makers, 90% tax rate (but no one to tax), Obama worship etc. An by the way they can have ObamaCare all to themselves.

    • badaboo

      Grow up Joy , you too Jon

  • http://redeemthetime.net dave

    Land for peace is not a peace agreement. Land for peace is called surrendering. Israel needs to take the land that rightfully belongs to them.

    http://redeemthetime.net/2010/03/26/obama-blew-it

  • Trey Cruz

    Like a stopped clock being right twice a day, Obama the Kenyan [Manchurian] candidate finally gets one right.
    Send the so-called "Israelis" back to Poland, Russia, Lithuania, Ukraine and Latvia where their grandparents came from and give Palestine back to the Palestinians.
    And while we are at it, dispatch teams of forensic experts to the "death" camp sites to exhume all human remains and report on cause of death.
    If I were a betting man, I would wager that a number of countries would be trying to get their "holocaust" reparations money back.
    {getting money back from a Jew…..Yeah, that'll be the day}

  • BS1977

    Trey Cruz, you little flea putz……..take a long walk on a short pier!

  • badaboo

    While Trey Cruz is simply a rude ignorant anti-semite , bubba4 is partially correct , a TWO State Solution has been proposed by all US Presidents and Administrations. Obama is no dfifferent than both Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. , Clinton , etc . At the end of the day Israel will do what it must to survive , regardless of US or World opinion .
    Attempting to BLAME Obama for forcing a two state solution , is simply partisan B.S. , as Bush et al did the same and attempted the same .

    Some cannot see thru their own partisan b.s. , it is more important to put their spin on things , than to see clearly .

  • Steve

    Pulling our funding and support from Israel would not be smart. They share ALL of their intelligence with us about an enemy that we are still figuring out how to fight, and they are much more successful at collecting intelligence in the middle east than us. No president has ever attempted to force a two state solution upon Israel, neither has any admistration demanded that they withdraw to 1948 lines. This is beyond the pale.

    In regard to the two state solution: The land that would be awarded to Palestine would put Hamas, (an Iranian funded proxy government) just miles from Israel's critical infrastructure. It would be comparable to taking Al Qaeda, placing them in Washington DC, and giving them the legitimacy oIf their own state. Hamas has vowed to destroy Israel in their national charter and this is unacceptable. The two state solution will only lead to much more instability by placing terrorist regimes in a strategic advantage against Israel. It is a terrible idea, unless those pushing would like to see Israel put at a strategic disadvantage.

  • badaboo

    That's right , no Administration has ever demanded withdrawing to the 1948 borders , and neither has this Administration done so . The truth of the matter is , there really is no Two State Solution . As long as there is The Palestinian National Charter , The Hamas Charter ,and the Hezbollah Proclaimation , all calling for Israel's Destruction . So the US and Israel dance the diplomatic dance both knowing this full well , that until arab/muslim attitudes change [which is most likely never ] a two state solutiuon is not possible , nor will one ever be forced on Israel. The Congress which, claims support for Israel , would be screaming bloody murder [and rightly so ] if Israel was being forsaken ,and would be reacting to the REALTY on the ground , rather than the totallt partisan paranoid rantings heard on these threads .

  • steve from tel aviv

    ExCELLENT ANALYSIS OF THE TRUTH.
    THE ARABS WANTED TO DESTROY israel when there were no' settlements.'

  • SpudGunz

    I advocate a two-state solution via a one-state initiative.

    In short, Israel should annex the West Bank and give it to the Palestinians as a province, which will afford them all of their nationalistic aspirations.

    After they have built a stable economy, society, and government., let them break-off and become completely independent.

    http://www.youtube.com/jordanispalestine

  • timeklek

    Muslims ought to be absorbed by Jordan as Israel absorbed the Jews 'exiled from Islamic countries ('48). Most "Palestinian Refugees" willingly left the land in '48; ostencably, until the Jews were "driven into the sea"; therefor any "right of return" is abrogated by their abandonment of the land at that time.
    Return to the original borders of 1922 and evict' squatters from Occupied Israel (Gaza & W.Bank).
    Cut off' free water & electricity to a "country" that refuses to acknowledge Israels existence.