The 2-State Peace Solution will Never bring a Lasting Middle East Peace
After 66 Years of the 2-State Solution the U.S. should throw in its Hand
And not wait for more favorable new cards to be received in a new Deal
But simply wait for Christ to return and fulfill Abraham’s One State Grant
March 14, 2013
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
Genesis 15:18-21 – In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: [19] The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, [20] And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, [21] And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.
Psalm 105:3-8 – Glory ye in his holy name: let the heart of them rejoice that seek the Lord. [4] Seek the Lord, and his strength: seek his face evermore. [5] Remember his marvellous works that he hath done; his wonders, and the judgments of his mouth; [6] O ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen. [7] He is the Lord our God: his judgments are in all the earth. [8] He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.
See Archive Prophecy Update Numbers 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, and 69
Micah 5:4-9 – And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth. [5] And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men. [6] And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders. [7] And the remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of many people as a dew from the Lord, as the showers upon the grass, that tarrieth not for man, nor waiteth for the sons of men. [8] And the remnant of Jacob shall be among the Gentiles in the midst of many people as a lion among the beasts of the forest, as a young lion among the flocks of sheep: who, if he go through, both treadeth down, and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver. [9] Thine hand shall be lifted up upon thine adversaries, and all thine enemies shall be cut off.
Zechariah 14:9 – And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one.
Begin Excerpt 1 from YNet News
‘Two states’ an empty slogan
Op-ed: Palestinians reiterate their ‘commitment’ to peace process, but refuse to recognize Israel as Jewish state
Shaul Rosenfeld
February 25, 2013
As pundits try to gauge the strength of the alliance between Yair Lapid and Naftali Bennett, who have so far refused to enter a Netanyahu-led coalition, it is important to discuss the main disagreement between the leaders of the Yesh Atid and Habayit Hayehudi parties.
Lapid has adopted the “two states for two peoples” paradigm, although he has refrained from talking about it in a pathetically obsessive way, as Tzipi Livni has. Bennett, on the other hand, has rejected the model out of hand. A diplomatic abyss separates Lapid and Bennett, but it has yet to damage their alliance, perhaps because they both assume the “two states for two peoples” idea will never materialize, at least not in the near future. The “two states for two peoples” slogan has no hold in reality, despite the fact that it is supported by many in Israel and the Western world.
Apart from the fact that a Palestinian leader who would be willing to sign a peace agreement without demanding the return of a significant number of refugees to Israel has yet to be born, senior Palestinian officials refuse to even utter the words “Jewish state.”
The Palestinian ethos and Palestinian literature do not signal even the slightest willingness to make progress toward recognizing the Jewish state. The demand for the return of the refugees is aimed at flooding Israel with Palestinians as part of the effort to strip the country of its Jewish character.
All this does not stop the majority of Palestinian officials from repeatedly telling Israel and the West of their “commitment to the idea of two states for two people” while at the same time objecting to any recognition of the Jewish state.
It is one thing to speak of a withdrawal from Judea and Samaria while accepting some part of the “right of return” in exchange for a peace agreement, which will most likely collapse like the Oslo Accords did, and it is an entirely different thing to view the “two states for two peoples” formula as the headline of the peace deal which is supposed to create a Palestinian nation state in the West Bank alongside a Jewish nation state in Israel.
The chances of realizing the second option do not exist anyway, unless “two states” means establishing a Jew-free Palestinian-Hamasnik nation state in Gaza and another PLO nation state, which will also be free of Jews, in Judea and Samaria.
In the State of Israel, in which many leaders and important institutions are against giving preference to the Jewish nation over the large Arab minority, the idea of a Jewish nation state cannot be realized in the framework of the fictive “two states for two people” formula.
However, since Lapid, Livni and the rest of the advocates of the “two states for two peoples” principle cannot publicly admit that the Palestinians are refusing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, they are actually rejecting that same principle.
This is what the sentence “We do not need the Palestinians to recognize us as a Jewish state” was invented for. It means that our recognition as a Jewish state, much like Shari Arison’s peace, starts with us, and it also ends with is, just like the “two states for two peoples” idea – which has always been no more than a catchy marketing slogan devoid of any content.
Begin Excerpt 2 from YNet News
Why the Left isn’t right
Op-ed: How can State of Israel reach an agreement with people who believe it should not exist?
Dan Calic
March 13, 2013
It has been said doing the same thing repeatedly yet expecting different results is one definition of insanity. One can make a case this applies to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
For example, many look to a two state solution as the best way to resolve the conflict. Yet is this a new concept? The answer is no, it’s already been tried. It happened in 1947 with UN resolution 181 which partitioned two states for two peoples. In spite of being approved by a 72% majority, the implementation on the ground was a dismal failure. Why? The Arab nations refused to accept the UN vote and attacked Israel one day after declaring independence.
Since this attempt at Israel’s destruction there have been numerous wars, two intifadas, thousands of Israeli victims of terror attacks and a host of terror organizations birthed, all with a singular goal- the destruction of Israel.
Yet the Left would have us believe two states for two peoples is the only answer which can bring a lasting peace to the decades old conflict. However, there is a major problem. Sixty-five years after rejecting a two-state solution, the Arabs have yet to change their mind. They still refuse to accept it.
It’s not that they don’t want their own state. They certainly do. However, if accepting the existence of Israel as a Jewish state is a requirement in order for them to have their own, they prefer to remain stateless. Apparently the Left is ignoring this, or simply doesn’t believe it. Yet Arab public opinion confirms this.
A 2012 poll jointly conducted by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion and American Pollster Stanley Greenberg contained the following results:
61% of Arabs/Palestinians do not accept two states for two peoples
66% would accept two states only as a first step toward one Arab-Palestinian state
92% said Jerusalem must be the capital of Palestine only
Other polls have produced similar findings.
These views reflect a belief that all the land Israel sits upon belongs to the Arabs. Why? They controlled it several hundred years ago, therefore it belongs to them forever. The Jews are seen as “occupiers.”
However, there is a fundamental flaw with this presumption. If you look back in history, is it fair to stop several hundred years ago, simply because it suits their agenda? If we are going to use ‘historical connection’ to make a case, why can’t the Jews point to theirs, which predates the Muslims by well over 2000 years? In spite of irrefutable historical and archeological evidence confirming Jewish presence, the aforementioned poll also showed 72% of Arab-Palestinians reject any Jewish connection to the land or Jerusalem.
This is a case of refusing to allow the facts to alter their agenda.
Pressuring Israel to unilaterally give up land
Yet in spite of Arab rejection of a two-state solution, PM Netanyahu has repeatedly said he’s willing to accept it. Why would he say this? Does he actually support it? Is he acquiescing to the Left? Is he saying it because there is so much worldwide support for it? Actually, it’s politics at the highest level.
I believe Netanyahu is astute enough to realize if he speaks against it he will be criticized and viewed as not wanting peace. Thus, in order to placate his critics he publically supports a two-state-solution. Yet in his heart I think he realizes it will not happen. Why? It won’t happen because no Arab leader is going to sign an agreement legitimizing Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state, with Jerusalem as its capital. Said leader would have being killed by one of his own for accepting Jewish sovereignty on land the Muslims consider theirs.
By publically proclaiming support for a two-state solution, Netanyahu accomplishes something important. He continues to be viewed as flexible by world leaders. Plus, it takes the spotlight off him and places the burden of acquiescence on the Arabs.
He also knows previous Israeli PMs have made generous offers which were refused. Lest we forget the offer made to Yasser Arafat by PM Barak? It included giving up close to 100% of Judea and Samaria, and the division of Jerusalem. Yet Arafat rejected it because a sovereign state of Israel was part of the deal.
Then-President Bill Clinton was highly disappointed in Arafat and blamed him for the breakdown of negotiations. The refusal to accept Israel by the Arabs is not lost on Netanyahu.
Yet the Left keeps pressuring Israel to unilaterally give up land. This will not produce peace. It’s the Arabs’ rejection of Israel’s right to exist which is the obstacle. A question for the Left is how do you make compromises or negotiate with people who don’t believe you should exist?
Until such time as they can provide an answer, it’s one reason why the Left isn’t right.
Dan Calic is a writer, historian and speaker. See additional articles on his Facebook page
Begin Excerpt 3 from YNet News
Do Palestinians deserve a state?
Op-ed: Arabs have been unsuccessful in eliminating Israel militarily, but their lust to see it disappear hasn’t diminished
Dan Calic
February 13, 2013
With President Obama coming to Israel soon, let me ask what some consider a rhetorical question- do the Palestinians actually deserve a state of their own? Obama and most of the international community think they do. Yet if we take a closer look at the situation there are serious issues which should not be ignored. For example, would it be a peaceful, productive neighbor with Israel? This can best be answered by reviewing some guiding principles of the PLO and Fatah, which is the dominant political party of which Mahmoud Abbas is chairman.
From the PLO charter:
Article 19: “….establishment of the State of Israel is entirely illegal…”
Article 20: “….Jews do not constitute a single nation with an identity of its own…”
From the Fatah charter:
Article 12: “…complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic,
political, military and cultural existence.”
Article 17: “Armed public revolution is the inevitable method to liberating Palestine.”
Article 19: “The struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished, and
Palestine is completely liberated.”
Do these statements reflect goals of a peaceful and productive neighbor?
It’s important to understand when they use the term “Palestine,” it includes Israel. In other words, both organizations refuse to acknowledge Israel’s existence, and see Judea and Samaria and the all the land upon which Israel exists as a single state of “Palestine.” This reflects adherence to the uncompromising extremist Islamic view that any land once controlled by Muslims is seen as forever belonging to them. Abandoning the claim for said land is equal to blasphemy.
The failure to understand this by far too many has fostered unrealistic expectations of compromise by Islamist extremists. This applies to most world leaders, including President Obama.
Also noteworthy is the official emblem of the PLO and Fatah, which contains a map that blots out Israel completely and shows the entire land area in green, the official color of Islam.
While one can argue about its proposed borders, most of the international community supports a two-state solution. However, based on the quotes from both Palestinian organizations, it’s clear they do not. Instead, their goal is one state called Palestine, with no state of Israel, period.
Let’s go back in time for a moment to 1947, when the United Nations voted on the original two-state solution, which created the modern state of Israel. Did the Jews have a charter containing vitriolic statements similar to those in the charters of the PLO and Fatah? Suppose the Jews had published a document calling for the “complete liberation” of Arab Islamic existence in the partitioned Arab state? Suppose they referred to the creation of the Arab state as “entirely illegal?” Under such conditions would the United Nations have approved the partition granting the Jews their own state? Moreover, with such views, would they have deserved their own state?
The answer to these questions is clearly “no.” Yet the world community doesn’t seem to have a problem approving a state for the Palestinians, in spite of their clear zeal for Israel’s destruction. What’s wrong with this picture?
Let’s not forget it was the Arabs who rejected the UN resolution of 1947 which partitioned two states. Why? Because it included the creation of Israel.
Mahmoud Abbas has repeatedly said he “will never accept Israel as a Jewish state.” Couple this with the referenced quotes from the PLO and Fatah charters, and what has changed since ’47?
Some might suggest the contemporary demand by the Palestinians for a two-state solution means they accept Israel’s right to exist. Not so. The reality is the Arabs have been unsuccessful in eliminating Israel militarily, but their lust to see it disappear hasn’t diminished. They’ve simply changed tactics by demanding they be given statehood, which they refused in 1947 because it meant they would have to accept the existence of Israel. Today, in spite of this continued refusal, the UN vote last November 29, upgrading their status to that of a “non-member state,” demonstrates that the international community is solidly behind the Palestinians.
As a result of the vote, Palestine sits in the same auditorium with Israel, in spite of the fact it’s leader Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah party are committed to its destruction.
Let me pose a hypothetical question: Suppose France’s constitution called for the destruction of England, or America’s constitution called for the destruction of Mexico? Would the UN sit in silent acquiescence of such a situation? Yet a blind eye is turned to the venomous agenda of the Palestinians, with no demand they renounce their goal of Israel’s destruction. At a minimum this is unfair. In reality, it’s hypocritical, bordering on anti-Semitism.
At this point again I return to the original question – whether the Palestinians deserve their own state? The answer should be obvious. The operative term is “should.”
Dan Calic is a writer, historian and speaker. See additional articles on his Facebook page
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.