MIDEAST UPDATE: 4.23.22 - 'The Two-State Solution': A Figment Of The Western Imagination

'The Two-State Solution': A Figment Of The Western Imagination – Ken Cohen - https://www.prophecynewswatch.com/article.cfm?recent_news_id=5317 The two-state solution--most recently advanced yet again by U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken at the Negev Summit--is a figment of the Biden administration's imaginationthat is of no value to the pursuit of true Middle East peace. In fact, it will only cause more blood to flow in Israel. Based on Palestinian leaders' pronouncements and recent Palestinian opinion polls, the danger of the two-state solution lies in how the Palestinians intend to make use ofit: They plan to pursue the destruction of Israel following an interim period of "two states." With its Palestine Partition Plan of November 1947, the U.N. General Assembly tried for a peaceful resolution to the blood-letting between Arabs and Jews in Palestine. Theplan was often referred to as a two-state solution. (In fact, two states and an internationalized zone in Jerusalem were proposed.) We now know that it wasn't to be: Like most of the hapless efforts by the United Nations, the proposal simply poured gasoline on the Palestine fire. Israel has sufferednumerous terrorist attacks and wars ever since, with little sign of any resolution. Like the tango, it takes two to peacefully partition. Unfortunately, the Palestinian Arabs and their allies wore combat boots, not dancing shoes to the party. The Arabs'genocidal war on the newborn State of Israel failed. The Palestinians were left stateless, as Jordan and Egypt swallowed Judea and Samaria (known under Jordanian rule as the West Bank), the Gaza Strip and a large portion of the supposedly internationalizedJerusalem. The United Nations did nothing to stop the Arabs' blatant violation of its good intentions. In the 1960s, the world body finally tried to enforce Middle East peace, deploying a peace-keeping force to the Sinai. But when Egypt told them to leave, along with announcinga plan to murder every Jew in Israel, it withdrew. Miraculously, Israel survived the 1967 Six-Day War, and despite numerous wars and terror attacks since has gone from strength to strength, even while engaged in an utterlyfutile pursuit of the two-state solution for decades. Why have the United Nations, the United States and Israel failed in realizing this two-state nirvana? It's primarily because for each party, the two-state solution has meant completely different things. For Israel, which has offered numerous peace proposals over the decades, the two-state solution means a Jewish state and an Arab state, with some land swaps and permanentborders drawn for national security. Israel doesn't much care about the nature of a Palestinian state--as long as it lives in peace. Israel is indifferent to internal Palestinian societal decisions--as longas their violent internecine disputes don't spill over into Israel. Israel expects the Palestinian state to ingather the millions of descendants of exiled (or self-exiled) Palestinians, with Israel only admitting a relative handful of truerefugees. Israel plans for most Israeli Arabs to remain an organic part of the Jewish state. Jerusalem will remain the undivided capital of Israel. The Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa complex will guarantee free access to visitors of any faith. The Muslim Waqf will continueto exercise control of the mount, subject to Israeli security needs. For the Palestinians, the two-state solution has little in common with Israel's vision, and Palestinian leaders have repeatedly demonstrated this disconnect by walking awayevery time Israel and the United States have made two-state solution offers, decade after decade. The Palestinians' land demands are based on a fantasy map created by Egyptian and Jordanian conquest--using so-called "armistice borders"--after the 1948 war. Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas has stated, "Israel will not keep one centimeter of Palestinian land from June 4, 1967, under any agreement." Note that Abbasdeclares land that was never Palestinian to be the starting point of negotiations. He continued, "Israel is just a nation of Jews and others. We will not go one step further in recognizing Israel," which disregards his own Basic Law, which openly declaresPalestine to be an "Islamic State" based on "Sharia Law." The Palestinian state, unlike Israel, won't welcome its 5-million-strong diaspora's homecoming. Palestinians demand that both their refugee-camp dwellers and the large,successful Palestinian diaspora in the West "return" to Israel, where most have never set foot. Jewish residency--in the unabashed apartheid tradition--will be prohibited in the new Palestinian state, according to Palestinian leaders. A Palestine-appointed religious authority can be expected to enact further restrictions on Jewish Temple Mount and Western Wall access, as Abbas has frequently demanded.Abbas has stated his disgust at "filthy Jewish feet defiling our holy Al-Aqsa." Based on history, Palestinians would also bar Jews from Hebron and Joseph's Tomb near Nablus. The Biden administration, Blinken and U.S. Ambassador to Israel Thomas Nides have offered little meaningful context when describing their version of the two-state solution. Lacking any concrete terms for a peace plan and unwilling to make any demands on the recalcitrant Palestinians, they have made do with chastising Israel for not acceptingwhatever the Palestinians want. As former President Bill Clinton learned with the Oslo Accords and at Camp David, the Palestinians, then and now, see little reason to give an inch on any version of thetwo-state solution. According to U.S. expectations, only Israel's willingness to make sacrifices for peace will enable any version of the two-state solution. All of these points render the phrase "two-state solution" nothing but a naive figment of the Western imagination, empty of meaning or force. Why would the Palestinians, proposing to create a brand-new nation, demand that their claimed refugees--of whom perhaps 50,000 are still alive--along with their millionsof descendants, flood into Israel, rather than their new, needy homeland? There are two answers, each showing why the use of the phrase "two-state solution" should be banned: The Palestinians want to use their version of the two-state solution in order to wage war with Israel, demographically alter the Israeli electorate, and subvert the verynature of Israeli society. As Abbas, the P.A.'s Basic Law and the Hamas Charter have made clear, the two-state solution is intended to provide the Palestinians a sovereign state as a temporary platformfor the eradication of Israel. The phrase "two-state solution" is no longer helpful or clarifying. It is just noise. Above all, the Palestinians need to get realistic and acknowledge their desperate, increasingly unfavorable negotiating position. Achieving two states will require humilityon their part, and the ability to make serious compromises before they lose more leverage... and more territory. -------------------------- Middle East Review: A Tense Jerusalem � Amir Tsarfati - https://harbingersdaily.com/mideast-review-w-amir-tsarfati-a-tense-jerusalem/ Again, the situation is tense in Jerusalem. Yesterday, Israelis planned a flag march around the old city in order to remind everyone that the city belongs to us. The requestfor permission was rejected by the police citing �short notice�. The protesters gathered anyway, but their path to the Damascus Gate which would have given them access into the old city was blocked by police. Last Thursday, an Israeli air strike took out Iranian weapons shipments and radar systems in western Damascus. This was part of an on-going battle against the Tehran regimearming its proxy militias. Rockets fired from Gaza toward southern Israel sparked an Israeli Air Force attack on the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas. A weapons production facilitywas destroyed. Hamas was quite proud of the fact that they were able to fire a few Russian SA-7 anti-aircraft missiles at the Israeli jets, despite none of them finding their targets. Another rocket was fired yesterday from Gaza and it hit a house. The sinking of the Moskva, the flagship of the Russian navy, in the Black Sea has caused great jubilation amongst Russia�s enemies and no shortage of memes on social media.It is believed that two Ukrainian Neptune anti-ship cruise missiles struck the warship 60 miles south of Odessa sending it to its grave. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced Monday that Russia has launched its anticipated offensive in Ukraine�s eastern Donbas region. After failing to take Kyiv,Putin appears to be turning his efforts back to the southern areas east of the Dnieper River. As always, for detailed information as it happens, subscribe to my Telegram channel. Just today there was more Ramadan violence, as at least 22 people have been killed and 32 more wounded in a terrorist attack in Mazar-i-Sharif, Afghanistan. ISIS has claimedresponsibility for the bomb blast that destroyed the Sai Doken mosque. Another four were killed and 18 wounded in an explosion in Kunduz city. Before the end of this month, Iran will likely have enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) to create a nuclear explosive. A nuclear Iran will drastically change world geopoliticaldynamics and will put all countries at great risk, particularly Israel and Saudi Arabia. Iran claims that it arrested three Mossad agents. Because the Mossad has so many agents of various nationalities in a vast number of countries, it is probable that thosedetainees are not Israelis. Iran unveiled its new Kaman-22 UAV on Monday. This high-tech drone, similar to the US Predator MQ-1 and Reaper MQ-9, can be armed with a variety of missiles. Its range isover 3,000 kms and it can fly for more than 24 hours at a time. Kim Jong Un watched the testing of a new North Korean guided tactical weapon. The projectile system is said to bolster their ability to deliver nuclear warheads. New World Disorder: What the UN Vote on Russia Really Reveals About Global Politics - by Ahmed Charai - https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18462/un-vote-russia The latest battle zone in the Russia-Ukraine war was in the quiet, mostly mannerly halls of the United Nations. There, in the UN's iconic New York headquarters, the worldvoted on Russia's largest invasion since World War II -- revealing fractures and fissures in global support for democracy. Suspending Russia from the UN Human Rights Council was technically the issue put before the delegates. But every diplomat knew it was really a vote on Russia's assault onUkraine. The consensus for democracy and self-determination was fragile: only 93 states (out of 193) voted for removing Russia from the UNHRC, and therefore condemning its actions against its smaller, weaker neighbor. Another 24 nations (including China) votedwith Russia. Most worrisome, 58 countries abstained, refusing to take sides in what many see as a duel between the great powers. Others feared that energy, food, and fertilizer prices might continue to climb if the conflict escalates. (Both Russia and Ukraineare major producers of oil, gas, wheat, and fertilizing petrochemicals -- all of which are a matter of life and death for developing nations.) Fear and food are more important to many developing nations than democratic ideals. American and European policy makers will have to face a hard truth: while Russia is diplomatically isolated, it is not entirely alone, and many countries do not side withUkraine and its democratic hopes. The view from the rubble of Kyiv's suburbs isn't hopeful. Ukraine's democratically elected leaders know that they could be captured, wounded, or killed. And they also knowthat the history of sanctions, the weapon of choice of the Western coalition, shows that they almost always fail to tame invaders. All of these facts were known to the UN delegates. Indeed, they would have heard them directly from Ukrainian diplomats. Buthigh ideals and real desperation didn't move them. Let's look more closely at why 100 nations decided not to support Ukraine in the UN vote. In Africa, Russia has forged long-standing relations with Libya, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Mali, and often deploys a postcolonial pattern, which suggests thatRussia supports the independent, emerging nations over their former colonial masters. This line of rhetoric is a continuation of the theme first promoted in the days of the Soviet Union, particularly from the 1950s onwards. In Latin America, a form of anti-Americanism among the educated classes has translated into a reluctance to openly criticize Putin. This is amplified by messages vocallypropagated by Cuba and Venezuela. China's initial abstention is seen more as a sign of embarrassment in the face of the belligerent aims of its Russian partner, than as a show of their interest in a rapprochementwith the West. In Western capitals, many want to believe that Beijing has an interest in an early ceasefire, so as not to hinder its economic growth. In reality, China sees no reason to anger Russia, a major supplier of oil, gas, and coal, especially sinceWestern nations are discouraging the production of the very fossil fuels that China needs. Policy-making circles in Beijing are not crowded with idealists, and its decisions are invariably self-interested and pragmatic. India, for its part, is a long-standing ally of Russia, one of its major arms suppliers. New Delhi believes that it will need those weapons in the face of the Chinese militarybuild-up in the region, as well as in the face of unresolved issues with Pakistan. Arab nations do not intend to abandon their relations with Russia, which has established itself as a force to be reckoned with when it saved Syria's President Bashar al-Assadthrough its military intervention; nor with China, the largest buyer of oil and gas from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Indeed, Arab leaders are unhappy with the Biden administration for its precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan last year, its ongoing negotiations with the threatening regimein Iran, and its laxity in the face of the Yemen-based Houthi terrorist and rocket attacks. For the first time, Arab leaders are asking questions, publicly, about the sustainability of the American political system and the coherence of American foreign policy. On the Iranian nuclear dossier, Israel, one of the firmest allies of the US in the region, fears that the Biden administration wants at all costs to conclude an agreementwith the Iranian regime without taking into account the possible impact on the regional aggression of Tehran. The Israeli minister of defense even called for the implementation of a "solid plan B" to deal with the Iranian nuclear program. As a result, neitherthe Arabs nor the Israelis were enthusiastic about supporting the US at the UN -- although they did line up in the end. What has been eroding for some years now is the commitment of American leaders to defend, maintain, and advance an international order in which states observe common rulesand standards, embrace liberal economic systems, renounce territorial conquests, respect the sovereignty of national governments, and adopt democratic reforms. In today's increasingly complex global environment, the US can only achieve its goals by leveraging its strength through a cohesive foreign policy that responds to the challengesposed by Russia and China. To do this, the US must deliberately strengthen and cultivate productive relationships with its allies, partners, and other nations with common interests. The US must offer attractive political, economic, and security alternatives to China's influence in the Indo-Pacific, Africa, and beyond. At the same time, the US must maintain a productive strategic dialogue with China that will clearly communicate US concerns and strive to understand Chinese interests andobjectives. Universal principles must be combined with the reality of other regions' outlooks. Western leaders must recognize that non-Western leaders aren't just living in anotherplace, but rather, they are coming from another place intellectually. Henry Kissinger put it best in 2014: "The celebration of universal principles must go hand in hand with the recognition of the reality of other regions' histories, cultures, and points ofview on their security." The UN vote showed that universal principles aren't quite universal yet. Rather than condemn the nations that abstained from voting against Russia, America must seek tounderstand why they thought sitting out the vote was their best option. Next, America must make clear that it still supports the rule of law and the ideal of democracy and put steel behind its ideals. Ahmed Charai is the chairman and CEO of a media conglomerate and a Middle East adviser in the United States and abroad. He is on the board of numerous think tanks and NGOs,including the Atlantic Council, the International Center for Journalists, International Crisis Group, and the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security. His articles have appeared in leading American and Israeli publications.