Two states?
Published Tue, Jun 16 2009 9:41 AM
Israel and Palestine? That’s really a non-starter. They tried that solution in the beginning. Israel got her state. The Palestinians refused, unwilling to live in their own state alongside a Jewish nation. The result has been a long “peace process” punctuated by the occasional cease-fire.
Not that it will do much good, but I propose at least a three-state solution. Israel, Hamas, and Fatah. Perhaps actually, a four-state solution would be even better. Israel, Hamas, Fatah, and reasonable non-terrorist Palestinians.
Ultimately though, even if either of these last two were to be implemented, we’d still be hearing about the “two-state” solution for the middle east. Hamas and Fatah would simply demand that Israel and the “reasonable non-terrorist” states be eliminated.
Maybe that’s what the left means by a “two state” solution in the first place. The state of Hamas and the state of Fatah. It’s a sure bet though that they don’t want to include our strongest ally in the middle east.
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=1340
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2009/6/16/1340.aspx
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
David responded with:
 | I'd prefer a one state solution: Israel. The other Arab countries could provide sanctuary for "Palestineans"--so-called--if they wanted to. I'm tired of the fake "people group" called Palestinians. They're just the trailer park trash of the Muslim world. (Does that sound harsh? Looking back on the history of the "Palestinians" I'd have to say it is. To trailer park trash.)
Yes, I am feeling a tad curmudgeonly today. *heh* |
Perri Nelson responded with: Harsh?
 | Yes, the other Arab nations are actually responsible for the mess we have, refusing to take in the "refugees" after advocating for the "Palestinians" to reject their state and attack Israel.
Harsh? I don't think so. One state of Israel would be better, if the other Arab nations would act responsibly. But, by having a permanent "refugee" population they can make themselves look better in the eyes of the "world community" than the "Westerners" that "forced" the nation of Israel upon them. They have a ready-made propaganda tool and a willing outlet for their propaganda.
That's why I propose the extra "states". Let them have them, watch them fail and defuse the rhetoric of the left. |
David responded with:
| "...watch them fail and defuse the rhetoric of the left."
If only... *sigh* The Left (and lying Arab S.O.B.s) would blame the failures of any "Palestinian"-derived states on the US and Israel, anyway. Damned if we do; damned if we don't. May as well create a "Can be seen from space!" monument of radioactive glass where current so-called "Palestinians" are trashing the countryside and call it a win for the good guys. No less condemnation from the Left would result.
(But I'm not bitter... *heh*) |
Comments to this entry are closed.