The Folly of Fixation on ‘Two-State Solution’; Israeli–Palestinian Conflict has No Two-State Solution; If Palestinians Wanted Peace And Prosperity, They’d Already Have It

The Folly of Fixation on ‘Two-State Solution’:

Bloodthirsty Hamas terrorists on Oct. 7 invaded Israel, killing more than 1,200 Israelis, with at least 33 Americans also killed. But what is President Joe Biden focused on? Promoting Palestinian statehood and the “two-state solution.”

But a true realist in the U.S. would ask: “Does the United States really want to have any Palestinian Arab state(s) in the Middle East? Is the establishment of that really in our national interest?”

The clear answers to these questions are no and no, respectively.

The following are some U.S. national interests frequently cited by national security experts relating to the “Arab-Israeli crisis.”

1. The U.S. has an interest in ensuring its own physical security and that of its citizenry from foreign attack.

2. The U.S. has an interest in protecting its own economic well-being by keeping the oil and natural gas lanes in the Middle East flowing to the U.S. and the world.

3. The U.S. has an interest in bolstering the interests and security of its allies—i.e., positive reinforcement—and alternatively, in undermining or punishing its opponents—i.e., positive punishment—so as to incentivize pro-U.S. policies.

4. The U.S. has an interest in balancing power in every region, so as to deter future wars and help stabilize the world in peace.

5. The U.S. has an interest in maximizing its popularity with other nations.

6. The U.S. has historically expressed its desire to maximize human rights and democratic rights throughout the world.

7. The U.S. has a predisposition to aid the victims of aggression and oppose the aggressors.

None of those interests, with one possible exception—i.e., maximizing U.S. popularity—favor the establishment of Palestinian states in Gaza and/or Judea and Samaria.

The U.S. has an interest in ensuring its own physical security and its citizenry from foreign attack. —>READ MORE HERE

Israeli–Palestinian conflict has no two-state solution:

Israeli–Palestinian conflict has no two-state solution

Recognition among Western governments of the scale of death and dispossession in Gaza has been widely accompanied by references to the need to return to a two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

It’s a comforting sentiment. It was the default political answer in the United Nations to an intractable problem in the late 1940s. From the 1970s, it set an ambitious and positive framework for discussion of Middle East policy in Western capitals and, eventually, in the Arab world.

But it has no connection to contemporary realities. At best, the idea of two states has become, once again, an idea long ahead of its time.

A succession of Israeli prime ministers from the right has sought consistently to ensure that no Palestinian state would eventuate in what they call Judea and Samaria. Zionist leader Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s ideal of a metaphorical ‘iron wall’ to crush Palestinian irredentism has long been their guiding principle.

The idea of a Palestinian state being created alongside Israel always ran counter to the Likud vision of Israel extending from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River. (Indeed, a song popular among Likud supporters used to go further: harking back to Churchill’s creation in the 1920s of the Hashemite state east of the river, at the expense of Zionist wishes, it said: ‘The Jordan has two banks, and both of them are ours.’)

Even the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 was intended to freeze the peace process in place.

Twenty years ago, support on the Israeli left for a two-state approach collapsed, gutted by terrorist violence from Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Palestinian National Authority (PA) president Yasser Arafat’s failure to exercise the leadership required to quell immediately the outbreak of the second intifada in late 2000.

Coming in the aftermath of the failure of the Camp David negotiations in mid-2000, the bloodshed among Israelis that followed the return to large-scale violence traumatised Israel. Hamas, Iran and Iranian proxies, Saddam Hussein and Islamist terrorists across the Arab and Islamic world rejoiced and postured in it.

At the same time, nationalist and hardline religious parties associated with the Jewish settler movement, enjoying significant financial support from elements of the Jewish diaspora and an absence of countervailing political pressure, and dedicated to achieving perpetual Israeli rule over the West Bank, flourished. —>READ MORE HERE

FOLLOW LINK BELOW TO A RELEVANT STORY:

+++++If Palestinians Wanted Peace And Prosperity, They’d Already Have It+++++

Source