Posted on 11/01/2023 4:05:23 PM PDT by jfd1776
The criminal-in-chief has been all over the news these past couple of days, rehashing an old, foolish, thoroughly discredited recommendation. But of course, that’s nothing new for him.
In this case, it concerns the Middle East.
Wire reports quote Joe Biden (D), who spends most of his time in Rehoboth Beach instead of Washington as saying, “There’s no going back to the status quo as it stood on October 6… When this crisis is over, there has to be a vision of what comes next, and in our view, it has to be a two-state solution.”
As with virtually all of his pronouncements, this is nonsensical. But since the issue hasn’t been covered well, either in the press or in the schools in recent years, it might do to go over the details here.
The Likelihood
Let’s begin with the odds. There is approximately zero chance that Israel will accept what is commonly referred to as a two-state solution. Israel spent 20 years with those ridiculous borders (essentially, the current Israel minus Gaza, Judea and Samaria, and the Golan), and it was virtually indefensible. In fact, that’s the very reason the two-state solution is proposed: because their desired map (the pre-1967 map) is a path to the elimination of Israel.
Perhaps you have heard the Hamas chant, “From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free.” In case it’s not obvious, this euphemistic statement actually means “free of Jews.” It’s their way of calling for ethnic cleansing, the completion of the third reich’s effort, with wording that doesn’t sound as menacing to the squeamish American liberal’s ear.
Since Israel is fully aware of that purpose, Israel is not going to make the mistake of letting it happen. Israel will not allow its borders to be shrunken again. Unlike the average self-detonating member of Hamas, the nation of Israel is not suicidal.
The History
It is worth remembering the history of the region. The Hamas terrorists always claim to cite history, pretending that it is on their side. It is not.
There has been a constant and fully documented Jewish presence in what we call the Holy Land for well over 3000 years. Even when the Roman Empire conquered the country and created what we call the Diaspora, most of the towns of Israel remained populated primarily by Jews, consistently throughout the past two millennia.
Over the centuries, European and American tourists and researchers, including Dutch scholar Adriaan Reland in the late 17th century and Mark Twain in the late 19th, occasionally engaged in careful studies of the region, and remarked how surprised they were at the lack of a significant Arab/Muslim presence in Israel, and by contrast, how well-established and clearly permanent the Jewish population remained.
Late in the 19th century, a global Zionist movement began. This was an effort among the Jews of Europe, America, and elsewhere to resettle in the Holy Land. To return, not only to the land of their historic ancient kingdoms, but also to the land where many of their own distant cousins, the members of the 12 tribes of Israel, had remained, all through these thousands of years.
When the Jewish population began to swell with Zionist-inspired immigrants in the late 1800s, this created job opportunities there, which drew Arabs from nearby countries. So it was that people from the Arabian peninsula and especially Egypt, moved into Israel for the first time.
The Zionist movement began to gain respect among the diplomatic and intellectual communities in the early 20th century. Others outside the Jewish community began to say this idea made sense.
And Great Britain, which had conquered the entire region, and therefore controlled it at the end of World War I when new maps were to be drawn, briefly committed itself to the establishment of a Jewish nation, in a document known as the Balfour Declaration.
Immediately after World War I, the Arabists in the British Foreign Office began to draw down this commitment, and by the late 1940s when the final maps were drawn, they wound up splitting what was known as “the British mandate for Palestine” into two countries: Israel for the Palestinian Jews, and Jordan for the Palestinian Arabs.
We should also remember that the Holy Land is not alone in this fate in the 1940s. Most of these countries, in fact, had maps drawn for them by the Europeans at that time. It’s not like there was a kingdom of Transjordan with a 3000-year history, or a monarchy of Kuwait, with a 3000-yeur history, or anything similar with Bahrain or Qatar for that matter.
Of all the countries in that region, in fact, Israel alone has a compelling historic claim to at least the land in its current map – which, by the way, includes Judea and Samaria, which Israel’s modern enemies naturally prefer to call “the West Bank,” so it doesn’t sound so Jewish.
In short, when you hear people call for a “two-state solution,” they are counting on their audience forgetting – or having never known – that the two-state solution has already been tried; and is already in place.
In 1948, the British mandate for Palestine was split in two: Israel for the Jews, Jordan for the Arabs. So, in short, it’s already been done.
The Constant Do-Over
That’s really what this two-state solution argument is, when you think about it. An endless loop of do-overs. A scheme by the Arabists to keep on splitting up Israel, as often as it takes, until there is nothing left of it.
In the 1940s, there were going to be dozens of Arab countries, and just one Israel. Then they split the British mandate in two. And now, for the past couple decades, they have called for little Israel to be split yet again.
And if they succeed in doing so, heaven forbid, and the further-reduced Israel somehow still manages to survive?
Then they will surely demand yet another split. Again, and again, until there is truly nothing left.
What the enemies of Israel refuse to admit is that there are dozens of countries surrounding Israel with huge expanses of unpopulated land. If the Arab world really wanted the so-called “palestinians” to have their own country, the Arab world could easily carve out a section from one or more of their countries, to become the homeland for the people of Gaza, Judea, and Samaria (who are, remember, essentially recent descendants of Egyptian migrant laborers, who have only lived there a few generations themselves).
Why don’t the other Arab nations, which could easily spare plenty of land – without jeopardizing their own security, without rendering their own borders indefensible – ever even consider doing this?
Because none of them really want the Fatah and Hamas crowd to have their own country either.
They just want Fatah and Hamas to continue to do their dirty work – harassing Israel – in the hope of eventually, as they put it, “driving the Jews into the sea.”
The Status Quo
Joe Biden’s writers said “there’s no going back to the status quo.” They are right, but not in the way they think.
They think that they can take advantage of the current war to continue to whittle away the borders of Israel, until there is nothing left of it.
They are mistaken.
October 7 taught us – and more specifically, taught Israel – that we can no longer tolerate the fiction that Hamas can be allowed to be a government for the Gaza Strip.
Israel is going to wipe out Hamas, because it has to. Hamas has now proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that its goal is to wipe out Israel. Israel therefore knows it has no choice.
That’s the part of the status quo that is going to change. Biden and his pro-jihadi regime are siding with the terrorists, unabashedly advocating nationhood for the most brutal mass-murdering political organization the world has seen in generations.
But Israel knows, and gradually, the rest of the world is learning as well, that advocates for a “two-state solution” are actually advocates of a single-state solution: just one more violent jihadist muslim country like Iran and Lebanon, built upon the ashes of a destroyed and emptied Israel.
America must understand that these are the stakes; America must turn its pro-jihadist regime out of office, and elect a pro-American government again in 2024.
The foreign policy disasters that are resulting from this regime’s destructive approach to the world must come to an end.
Copyright 2023 John F. Di Leo
John F. Di Leo is a Chicagoland-based trade compliance trainer and transportation manager, writer, and actor. A one-time county chairman of the Milwaukee County Republican Party, he has been writing regularly for Illinois Review since 2009. Follow John F. Di Leo on Facebook, Twitter, Gettr or TruthSocial.
A collection of John’s Illinois Review articles about vote fraud, The Tales of Little Pavel, and his 2021 political satires about current events, Evening Soup with Basement Joe, Volumes One and Two, are available, in either paperback or eBook, only on Amazon.
The issue will be settled with the military. No negotiating. All we can do Is try to keep it from spreading. Biden isn’t up to it but like Nolan Ryan he can be ‘wildly effective’.
Israel is a corporation, owned by the UK/Crown:
The Biden regime is now working to undermine Bibi, leaking statements that they expect him to be thrown out, even claiming Biden told him that personally. They also met with opposition leaders from other parties they think might replace Netanyahu. Obviously Biden wants a lefty pacifist who will trade land for “peace” until Israel no longer exists.
To say that “rumbling” is insanity would be insult the insane.
No. No truth to it, no basis in fact, nothing.
Far more complicated and TL:DR than it needs to be.
“Islam” means “submission”. Specifically, “submission to the will of God.”
It does not mean “freedom”. It does not mean “democracy”.
There is ZERO DIFFERENCE between “submission to the will of [outsiders] or [infidels]” and being slaughtered to the last man and woman.
THAT is what any two-state solution is. It may not make any sense to us in the West, how a people could or would NOT aspire to or at least be curious about freedom and other democratic norms.
But they DON’T.
Asking Muslims to submit to an external authority of laws and societal norms OUTSIDE of Islam is asking them to renounce their religion, in favor of a societal system for which they have no experience and no history. There is no nation in the Mideast that is not a tyranny, hard or soft, or a flat out dictatorship. This is what Muslims accept. It is well known from history that there is nothing more difficult than to get people to change their religion.
There is no two-state or fie state solution to the Mideast situation. The Palis have rejected FIVE offers for a 2-stater since 1947. They are not interested in any offer made by infidels. Even if its the best thing they ever had. It is a submission to infidels, not to Islam, and thus is immutably unacceptable. It is just that simple.
“”and in our view, it has to be a two-state solution.””
GEE - why didn’t anyone ever think of that before, Joe?
That’s brilliant!!
Jeepers!!!!
ping
It’s amazing how much the repeated “two state solution” process is like repeatedly meeting progressives halfway on “reasonable gun control laws.”
In both cases, if you are dumb enough to keep agreeing, your negotiating “partner” will see you dead.
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.