↓
 
Home » Why is the Biden administration pressing for a two-state solution?

Why is the Biden administration pressing for a two-state solution?

The New Neo Posted on by

Ah, well you might ask.

After all, as Paul Mirengoff writes:

Under any rational analysis, however, the events of October 7 conclusively demolish any claim that there’s a viable two-state solution.

Gaza was a de facto Palestinian state, though it was not officially recognized as one. Gaza had its own government — supported financially by the international community and militarily by Iran — and there was no Israeli presence in that territory.

Hamas ran the show and there’s no evidence that the Gazans, who elected Hamas years ago, were unhappy about this. In any case, Hamas’ rule was reality in this de facto state.

October 7 was the consequence of Gaza’s independence. Hamas, unconstrained, invaded Israel and committed the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. If Israel had maintained a presence in Gaza, as it has in the West Bank, Hamas could not have pulled off its butchery.

Can it be more obvious that a Palestinian state on the West Bank would leave Israel exposed to another October 7? I don’t see how.

And yet the Biden administration insists on it. Why?

Mirengoff lists several ideas: force of habit, lack of any other idea on what to do, and to please the Democrat anti-Israel base. I believe that all three are operating to a certain extent.

But there’s more. Calling for a two-state solution is virtue-signaling par excellence: showing oneself to be in favor of treating both sides the same even though that’s a total fiction, respecting the supposedly “brown” Palestinians who are by definition oppressed, placating the international community, believing that negotiations can solve any problem, not recognizing the existence of evil but blaming it on economic disadvantages and supposed persecution, and being against “escalation” by pariah Israel.

There’s another possibility: wishing Israel would just go away already and cease to exist. What a headache it is! A two-state solution would accomplish that goal while wrapping those who promote it in the cloak of kindly and evenhanded peace advocacy.

There’s also, of course, the possibility of sheer stupidity. Perhaps they actually believe their own fictions. Stranger things have happened. And after all, to give up the idea does leave a vacuum of sorts, which can only be filled by supporting a more ruthless war on the part of Israel. That is a harsh prospect that might be very difficult and depressing to accept.

Have I left anything out?

Comments

Why is the Biden administration pressing for a two-state solution? — 36 Comments

  1. Obama made a solemn promise to Khalidi…that he would TRANSFORM Israel.
    (Just ask the LA Times where they put the tape…that is, if it hasn’t gone missing…)

    And “Biden” ALWAYS keeps “his” promises…. At least when it comes to destroying certain countries that deserve to be destroyed.

    (BTW, just another reason to steal an election—OMB, curse his inelegant soul sure wasn’t going to destroy Israel…OR the USA either…leaving those uber-patriots ONLY ONE OPTION)

  2. They’re pushing a ‘two state solution’, an idea brutally discredited 23 years ago, because they’re emotionally incapable of acknowledging the reality on the ground.

  4. Keep asking leftist if they have ever looked over the 1988 version of the Hamas charter. They make it clear they want no compromise.They want Islamic control over the whole thing.

    Israel should not make any long term deal in any way. A short term pause to get the hostages back, maybe. But any long term deal will be broken by Hamas and the press will largely ignore it till Israel reacts.
    I still think Israel’s best option in a set of bad options is to eventually withdraw from Gaza, increase their perimeter and air defense security while leaving open the option to respond militarily to any attack . Make no long term deal.

  5. “……There’s also, of course, the possibility of sheer stupidity…….”

    IMHO, stupidity accounts for about 10% of their two state solution proposal.
    The other 90% is that they hate Jews (as does the UN and many / most nations).

    Israel had better find ways to be less reliant on the USA, esp. in times of war, for the day will come when Israel, at the worst possible time, WILL be abandoned by the USA.

  6. “Why is the Biden administration pressing for a two-state solution?”
    Hmmm.
    OK, let’s try another head scratcher!

    Why is the Biden administration insisting that the 2020 elections were “safe” and “secure”?

    Hint: The two questions are related. Most definitely related….
    ‘DHS warned of integrity of mail-in voting in 2020 election but at the same time censored questions;
    ‘ “The federal government was trying to basically spread propaganda that 2020 was “safe and secure”, and that there was no issue with the mail-in ballots when they themselves knew that this is a huge vulnerability”….’
    https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/dhs-agency-warned-about-integrity-mail-voting-2020-election-while
    Opening graf:
    “The Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) was aware of the issues with mail-in voting during the 2020 election cycle but censored social media narratives about the risks as alleged disinformation, according to agency documents….

  7. A two state solution puts medieval barbarians on Israel’s border.
    A one state solution puts them INSIDE the border.
    If I were Israeli neither solution would appeal very much.

  8. “Have I left anything out?” asks Neo.

    Obama, I’d say.

    I haven’t listened to the Obamunist-line in a long time. But whatever it takes to better the position of the Shi’ite Islamic Republic of Iran is always the safer bet with these mad men.

  10. Virtue signaling and stupidity get my vote.

    Maybe, also, Biden and other Democrats of his ilk believe they can control the radicals leftists in their party. Much as the 1920s German industrialists and military men thought they could control Hitler.

  11. Mostly #2 – ” lack of any other idea on what to do,”
    Because Israel wants to live in peace with millions of Palestinians who are willing to support terrorists in killing Jews.
    In order to live in peace with Gaza, Israel will need to defeat Hamas and control Gaza.

    Nobody, including Israel, wants Israel to control Gaza. But that’s what is required for peace.

    So Israel should embrace this necessity, that Israel control Gaza, and be discussing how to do that with maximum human rights for people who hate Jews.

    I suggest a 3 state solution: Jewish Israel; Muslim West Bank (sometime); and secular, non-Jewish, non-Muslim Gaza. Like Hong Kong with a non-democratic governor. Maximizing local control thru 5 Swiss style cantons.

    https://tomgrey.substack.com/p/the-gaza-confederation?r=g65nf

    Israel doesn’t want to do this occupation, but nothing else will allow peace. In the Jerusalem Center video, which I had on in the background, there was a lot of reasons a two-state solution won’t work. I didn’t understand them as suggesting any better solution, tho.

    You don’t beat a lousy proposal with bad points about the proposal, you beat it with a better/ less lousy proposal.

    Israel is demanding to be a JEWISH democracy — but most US Democrats, and international Left are not happy about any religious ethno-state. The Jewishness of Israel is a reason for Jew haters to hate Jews.

    Israel needs to look at the creation of a secular Gaza Confederation city state as their new nation building exercise. Will take lots of work, and arguments. It will be somewhat opposed by the US, at first, but is likely to be accepted as Israel begins reconstruction and resettlement and de-Hamasification.

    Gaza, under benign strict police enforcement of laws with limited government, could become a Singapore of the Med. And a bit of a newer Tel Aviv South, perhaps like Newark. (NY also has 5 boroughs). More speculations there.

    Bibi needs to be pushing some vision for post war Gaza, accepting the bad points (of reality) to promote the good points, and a future actual peace.

  12. “Why is the Biden administration pressing for a two-state solution?”

    “There’s another possibility: wishing Israel would just go away already and cease to exist.”

    You’re getting hotter neo. The hardcore Left does not merely ‘wish’ “that Israel would just go away and cease to exist”.

    It is an ideological imperative that Israel cease to exist.

    Along with every other nation in the world because it is an article of faith on the Left that nationalism itself is the causal factor in wars.

    That’s what George Soros’ “Open Borders Society” is all about. That’s what the Left’s enabling of massive illegal immigration into Europe and America is all about.

    Transnationalism baby, that’s what it’s all about for Israel, America, every nation in the West and eventually the entire world.

    Global governance on the model of the EU. Where the elected EU parliament creates legislation, which then passes to the unelected EU council, whose approval is mandatory for legislation to pass into law.

    In coordination, the WHO ‘Pandemic Treaty’ is a ‘flanking attack’ upon national sovereignty. A transition into a ‘transnational’ elitist run world.

    W.E.F.’s Davos Agenda, the U.N. Agenda 2030… The push for Central Bank Digital Currency systems… it’s all of a piece.

    “Liberal Democracy vs. Transnational Progressivism: The Future of the Ideological
    Civil War Within the West”
    https://www.ngo-monitor.org/data/images/File/transnational_progressivism_08312002.pdf

  13. Israel should make any deal necessary to get the hostages released then immediately violate it and eliminate Hamas. Hamas is a dishonest broker. No need to treat them otherwise.

  14. If we had a legitimate fourth estate, long before holding public office Obama and Valerie Jarrett would have both been asked to explain how and why they differ on foreign policy from the views of their fathers.

    List off their fathers’ more “interesting” statements about the U.S. and West and ask them if they agree? If not, did they ever agree? If so, when and why did they change their minds?

  15. Rufus T. Firefly:

    Hamas is many things but not dumb. That wouldn’t work. The deal – if there ever were one – would be staged, like the first deal they made, with many segments along the way. So many hostages for so many days of ceasefire, and then so many hostages for so many days of ceasefire, etc. etc.. Violations would end the deal.

  16. “There’s another possibility: wishing Israel would just go away already and cease to exist.”

    I’m with GB on this one. In the old “fool v knave” debate, I’m voting knave. Those still proposing “two-state” are actively seeking Israel’s demise as a nation & the Jews’ destruction as a people.

  17. There’s another possibility: wishing Israel would just go away already and cease to exist.

    Wouldn’t that be simplest — from an elite viewpoint?

  19. It’s a bit complex: “A Two-State Solution” is a phrase Joe remembers as what the good people have said for years, so it must be good, and if he says good things, he gets ice cream before bed!

  20. “A Two-State Solution” is a phrase Joe remembers as what the good people have said for years, so it must be good,

    –Ray Van Dune

    But what else are the elite globalists, of which Joe is a part, going to say? That they wouldn’t mind “from river to sea” for real?

    As I see it the elites, such as the wonderfully named Davoise, are unprincipled authoritarians. They have power, they want more, they believe without question that they should run the world, and elements like Israel just get in the way.

    There are 1.8 billion Muslims in the world with a ton of oil money.

    So just leave the Palestinians in place. It’s a horrible Realpolitik calculation.

  22. “Have I left anything out?”

    Well, um, how ’bout:
    – It creates just another massive (and always useful) distraction for “Biden”, this time making it look—to all those “River-to-the-Sea” types—as though “he” is doing something positive, something constructive (even if, for them, it won’t be nearly enough…though they should understand that IF they’re patient, they WILL be rewarded!)
    – It’s just another stratagem to NAIL that uber-irksome, uber-annoying BIBI to the wall.
    – It’s a “Quid pro Quo pro Quid”.
    Quid: Help Hamas, Iran and Hezbullah give Israel a bloody nose. (OK, Hamas went a bit overboard…but, Jeez Louise, HOW WERE WE supposed to know THAT?? )
    Pro: Claim to support Israel in its effort to prevent something like Oct. 7 from ever occurring again (whjle warning those irritating Jews NOT to “expand” the war, i.e., NOT to fight back, overly, when attacked and threatened by Hezbullah, Iran and the Houthis).
    Quid: Create a Palestinian state—more precisely—MAKE SURE that Israel pays for the damage it caused AND MAKE SURE that THIS TIME AROUND those freakin’ JEWS succeed in creating a Palestinian state (unlike those other—HOW MANY?—times they FAILED to do so)…. And if they don’t succeed THIS TIME ‘ROUND, then well, WE’LL FORCE ‘EM TO DO IT (AKA, they’ll pay the consequences)—which is only FAIR AND JUST…. Actually, if they DO succeed, they’ll also pay the consequences, heh!…(That good, ole Obama sense of humor, as always, coming to the fore!…)

  23. Barry Meislin

    “Hamas denies it slaughtered civilians on Oct. 7;

    A little late to say that, after all the videos Hamas released. Given the gullibility of the Hamas-fans in the West, they will probably get away with it.

    It is ironic that Hamas comes up with this after turning down a gift offer of returning the hostages in exchange for a two-month ceasefire. Israel should make it unequivocally clear that since their offer has been rejected, it is subsequently withdrawn.

    The absurdity of calling for the two-state solution is that neither Israelis nor Palestinians are for it. Hamas is definitely NOT for the two-state solution, and polls indicate strong support for Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank. Consider this poll, taken November 14.
    AWRAD: Public Opinion Poll – Gaza War 2023 – Tables of Results

    Table 33: Do you support the solution of establishing one state or two states in the following formats:
    Two-state solution for two peoples 17%
    A Palestinian state from the river to the sea 75%
    One state solution for two peoples 5%

    Only 17% support a two-state solution. Consider the one-state solutions. “One state solution for two peoples” envisages both Jews and Arabs living together in one state. It follows that “A Palestinian state from the river to the sea” envisages a state for only one people, the Palestinians. Which means that “A Palestinian state from the river to the sea”, supported by 75% is envisaged as being Judenrein.

    So much for the European and American politicians who try to push a two-state solution. Palis don’t want a two-state solution. Palis don’t want a one-state solution containing both Jews and Arabs. Palis want a Judenrein one-state solution.

  24. As far as I can tell, Biden doesn’t have a foreign policy. He seems to have delegated all that to the people he inherited from Obama. It seems clear that Biden is being reassured that those people know what they are doing; I suspect Biden himself has a very limited understanding of what is being done and why.

    Lee Smith has been covering the treasonous Obama foreign policy for quite some time, and I find his analysis very helpful. Here are two good articles by him. This is current, from October 8 of last year:

    https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/why-iran-deal-matters

    This is from March 2021; his predictions have obviously come true.

    https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/iran-deal-inevitable-sequel

    In that piece, Smith has some shocking things to say about how the Iran deal was related to Obama’s domestic political strategy:

    “Downgrading Israel as an American ally was a way to take down the pro-Israel wing of the Democratic Party, whose power depends on the strength of the U.S.-Israel relationship and which is generally seen as less “progressive”—and which had generally supported his rival, Hillary Clinton. By making the U.S.-Israel relationship toxic, Obama made the wing of the party leprous. Unmaking “Jewish power” within the Democratic Party meant permanently decoupling the United States from Israel by wedding America to the most credible anti-Israel force in the Middle East, the Islamic Republic of Iran. It was through that deliberate political math that Obama’s Democratic Party became the Party of Iran.”

  25. Israel and Jordan part deux? Does Jordan want to pull the trigger, wield the scalpel, entertain an ethnic Spring, twice?

  27. Left anything out? There’s this maxim that can’t be ignored: In the warmest of gentile hearts there is a cold place for the Jews.

  29. because they are evil, yes the tablet is perhaps the most insightful publication on these subjects, what commentary used to be, instead of the blanc mange it’s become now,

    the west wing was terrible in many respects but around 2002, they came up with a prescient timeline, they had james brolin if memory serves play their version of w, who was from Florida, brolin, the father of thanos, the husband of mega prog streissand
    9-11 denialist, yeah that guy,

    So the story goes there is an attack on one of the main bridges, and the trail goes back to the highest ranks of a minor gulf emirate, called Qumar which in later episodes was located somewhere between afghanistan and Iran, who sponsored the terrorists, called Bahi for the purposes of the story, the funding comes from the Minister of Defense
    for Qumar, of course one cannot attack a supposed ally directly so he is ambushed on refueling stop in the Bermudas, that is Qatar

  30. @miguel –

    He played Robert Ritchie. I remember that, on a comment board I frequented at the time, his character was refereed to as “WRitchie”; this was, as you recall, circa 2002, and the character was Sorkin’s attempt to relitigate the 2000 Bush v. Gore election.

    Naturally, Ritchie was portrayed as a “plain-spoken”, somewhat dim guy who spoke in bromides but didn’t have many actual policy proposals. On the show, Bartlet basically destroyed him in a debate and then won by 10 or 11 points.

  31. That has long been US policy, sometimes foregrounded, sometimes not. It’s not going to go anywhere at the moment, so why Blinken is pushing it is a mystery. It could be more or less an empty gesture, designed to appease the Democrats’ left.

  32. Note that the general rule in American foreign policy has been incompetence. At least some is rooted in the idea that everyone wants peace, etc., like we do.

    It was much the same with the department of Indian affairs in the era of the Indian wars. Pushing peace without a real understanding of the situation.

  33. @ Mikeski > “On the show, Bartlet basically destroyed him in a debate and then won by 10 or 11 points.”

    I loved West Wing for the fast-paced, witty, usually intelligent dialogue, but IMO one of the reasons the Democrats were dumbfounded by the elections of Bush junior and Trump is that too many of them mistook theater for reality.

    You can always win if you write the script.

  34. (A) When you lose a war that you started, you don’t get to dictate terms and conditions.

    (2) Since October 7, a lot of people have shown themselves for who they really are

  35. In a sane world, the consensus would be that Hamas should no longer exist … due to its insistence on war and its adherence to war-like philosophy.

    After WWII, the consensus was that Prussia and Prussians should no longer exist … due to decades of insistence on war and strict adherence to war-like philosophy.

    Both Prussia and Hamas indoctrinate children early on into the killing etc

    In the 80 years between ~1865 and ~1945 Prussians were responsible or largely responsible for three major wars. Roughly 100million deaths. Incalculable misery.

    In the ~80 years since Prussia has ceased to exist, zero wars zero deaths.

    (Surely our betters know this history this precedent -Blinken? Guterres? Sullivan? Suzi Rice? Sammy Power? Nuland Kagan? University folks?)

    Three-minute version: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-uVmogHmmWw

  36. Pingback:TVESDAY NIGHT EDITION • BigPulpit.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑