Posted on 07/20/2010 8:16:24 AM PDT by ventanax5
"Two states, living side by side in peace and security." This, in the words of President Barack Obama, is the solution to the century-long conflict between Jews and Palestinian Arabs in the Middle East. Washington is fully and determinedly on board. So are the Europeans. The UN and the "international community" vociferously agree. Successive governments of the state of Israel have shown their support for the idea. So far, there is—just as there has always been—only one holdout.
The story begins a long time ago. In April 1920, the newly formed League of Nations appointed Britain as the mandatory power in Palestine. The British were committed, via the Balfour Declaration, to facilitating the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. But they were repeatedly confronted with violent Arab opposition, which they just as repeatedly tried to appease. As early as March 1921, they severed the vast and sparsely populated territory east of the Jordan River ("Transjordan") from the prospective Jewish national home and made Abdullah, the emir of Mecca, its effective ruler. In 1922 and 1930, two British White Papers limited Jewish immigration to Palestine and imposed harsh restrictions on land sales to Jews.
But the violence mounted, and in July 1937 it reaped its greatest reward when a British commission of inquiry, headed by Lord Peel, recommended repudiating the terms of the mandate altogether. In its stead, the commission now proposed a two-state solution: the partitioning of Palestine into an Arab state, united with Transjordan, that would occupy some 85 percent of the mandate territory west of the Jordan river, and a Jewish state in the remainder. "Half a loaf is better than no bread," the commission wrote in its report, hoping that "on reflection both parties will come to realize that
(Excerpt) Read more at meforum.org ...
Any parent who has traveled in a car with Junior and Sis in the back seat will know how this will turn out.
We can have "America the Conservative" and "America the Liberal". Will Obama go for that? Of course not, but it's easy to tell others what THEY should do isn't it?
>>> I think we should make an example for the middle east and adopt that policy here first.
We can have “America the Conservative” and “America the Liberal”. Will Obama go for that? Of course not, but it’s easy to tell others what THEY should do isn’t it? <<<
That was my first thought. And you know what? I’d gladly move to live in a Conservative States of America. It would be fun to watch what the morons did to the Liberal States of America. It would take about 6 months before the LSA was so screwed up, they’d be begging for reunification so that they could access the wealth of the CSA.
At first glance I thought this was talking about the United States: Separate unions of Progressive and Conservative states.
That would sure be an interesting experiment.
How long do you think it would be before the financial and moral bankruptcy of the Liberal half would have them insisting that the Conservative half re-unite with them...with them in charge though, of course.
Maybe 2 years?
There is a cable channel devoted to Jewish interests called Shalom TV. On my cable system it is a free Video on Demand channel.
This month it features a documentary showing recently restored silent film from the 1920’s. It shows the pre- Israel Palestine. It includes a visit to the area by Winston Churchill. It shows the building of Tel Aviv and other Jewish towsn out of desert and nothing swamps.
It proves that everything the Arabs and their supporters claim is a lie.
In less then 60 years the Jews turned a desolate nothing into what could be considered Paradise- if not for the genocidal Arabs who would pave Paradise and make it the usual Arab/Islamic hellhole
Texas and the rest of the US ? :)
“Texas and the rest of the US ? :)”
Good luck with that. Texas will be part of Aztlan. Unless you are of Hispanic descent, you may want to rethink that.
I’m for a two-state “solution.”
The solution is, that once the Palis are a nation, they have to take responsibility for themselves. No more power, water or health care from Israel unless they pay for it. Shooting rockets into Israel will no longer be “terrorism” but an Act of War (BTW: I don’t believe in “proportional response;” if its war, you hit the enemy with everything you have and keep hitting until they give up.). “Civilian” casualties among the Palis won’t be the Israelis’ problem, but the Pali government’s, etc.
There is a reason the Palis have rejected every attempt at making them nation.
But let me add. The Palestinian state will be a welfare nation, first of the U.N., then of the U.S. That reality must be factored in as well.
But they’re already a welfare state and a kleptocracy, so that won’t be a change.
The two state solution is stupid, and Obamao is a lying Muslim.
And the Kleptocracy will remain in place the entire time.
That needs to be handled at the ballot box. Personally, I’m all for abandoning the Palis, the “Roadmap,” etc.
I don’t read anywhere in the Bible where God changes His mind and gives up His land to a people that are hell-bent on murdering the APPLE OF HIS EYE.
I do, however, see clearly why America is going down the crapper so fast. Almost like JUDGEMENT.
In order for there to be a two state solution
don’t there have to be TWO states to begin with?
Israel is a state, where is the other one?
But the situation is untenable. Israel can't remain a dog on a leash for the amusement of the West.
I’m all for pulling off the leash and collar, too.
I have been in favor of that for along time.
It’s true — they irrigated and brought growth to an area that was nothing for centuries. BUt I still think it was a mistake — they needed to have bought off and re-located the entire Arab population around there. It’s crazy to invest in a place surrounded by enemies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.