In the hours
leading up to Middle East peace talks that were set to begin at the end of July,
2013, US Secretary of State John Kerry announced that Martin Indyk, a former US
Ambassador to Israel, would be his chief ‘facilitator’ for those talks (“Former
US ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk to oversee talks with Palestinians”, The
Guardian, July 29, 2013). At that time, Indyk was quoted as saying that the
goal of these talks was to facilitate the creation of "two states, living
side by side, in peace and security" (ibid).
These words were not original to Indyk. They
have been a foreign-policy mantra for the US for more than a decade.
For example,
consider this string of references to ‘two states living side by side in peace
and security’:
-On January
7, 2001, US President Clinton started the concept with two suggestions when he told
the Israel Policy Forum that, “I think there can be no genuine resolution to
the conflict without a sovereign, viable, Palestinian state that accommodates
Israeli's security requirements and the demographic realities”… and, “there is
no choice but to create two states” (“Clinton, Bush, & Obama statements on
a two-state solution”. Jeremy Pressman, May, 2011).
-On June 24,
2002, US President G. W. Bush made the concept explicit when he said, “My
vision is two states, living side by side in peace and security” (ibid).
-On April
14, 2004, President Bush wrote, ““the United States supports the establishment
of a Palestinian state that is viable, contiguous [my emphasis], sovereign,
and independent” (ibid).
-On November
27, 2007, Bush repeated his ‘vision’ at a speech at Annapolis (the US Naval
Academy), saying that he wanted to see “a democratic Palestinian state that
will live side by side with Israel in peace and security.”
-On June 4,
2009, US President Obama repeated the same message when speaking in Cairo,
Egypt. He said, “The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be
met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and
security.”
If this is
the US position, it’s a non-starter. It fails to account for the ‘Palestinian’
position. It fails to understand that the so-called ‘Palestinians’ do not see Israel
and ‘Palestine’ ‘living side by side’.
To
understand what the ‘Palestinian Cause’ does see, take a look at a map of
modern Israel. Then, compare that map with a special plaque that pictures what
the new ‘Palestine’ would look like.
First, here
is the map of Israel:
Notice its
general shape: top, bottom, sea coast on the left, border on the right.
Now, look at
a second picture—of the new state of ‘Palestine’: 
The woman in
this picture is Hillevi Larssona. She is a Swedish Parliament Member who was
instrumental in convincing the Swedish Parliament, in October, 2014, to
recognize ‘Palestine’ as a ‘state’ (“Sweden Recognizes 'Palestine' as a State”,
Arutz Sheva, October 4, 2014). Palestinian officials were so pleased
with her efforts that they honoured her with the plaque pictured above—along
with a sample ‘Palestinian’ flag’ (“Sweden approves borders of ‘Palestine’ with
Israel erased”, Times of Israel, December 3, 2014).
You can see
she is happy to hold her gift.
Notice how similar
the outline of this ‘Palestine’ is with the map of Israel above. In fact, even taking into account changes
created by graphic design, the outlines are still identical. The new
‘Palestine’, as envisioned by the ‘Palestinian Cause’, doesn’t sit
“side-by-side” with Israel. It isn’t “contiguous” with Israel.
It replaces
Israel. It’s ‘Israel’ with a new name and a new flag.
That smiling
face you see actually supports the destruction of the Jewish state. It supports
the creation of Israel’s replacement, the Arab-Muslim ‘Palestine’.
That’s what
the ‘Palestinian Cause’ is all about.
That ‘cause’
isn’t about peace. It isn’t about justice. It’s not about “two states living side
by side”. It’s about eradicating the Jewish state from the world map.
The idea of
‘two states living side-by-side in peace and security’ is, therefore, complete
nonsense. So far as the ‘Palestinians’ are concerned, ‘peace’ means only one
thing—the existence of the ‘Palestine’ you see above--in place of Israel.
If the US truly wants peace for the Middle
East, it shouldn’t pressure Israel to make sure this ‘Palestine’ will be born. That’s
not in Israel’s best interest. It’s national suicide.
Instead, the
US should pressure the ‘Palestinians’. It should tell them it must envision its
existence as one that truly aims to live side by side with Israel.
Until then, you
will hear only lies about ‘Palestine’. Until the US (and the EU, and the UN)
hold supporters of ‘Palestine’ accountable for the lies they tell about
‘Palestine’, there will be no peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment