Two, Or One State??

I've read so many articles about the "two-State" solution as well as the "one-state" solution. So many other articles were written about "One-state" solution. Many of the on-state solution articles, from far, they look beautiful, but, in fact, they are far from beauty. I detected in them 1. a streak of submission, 2. a tinge of caving in to the Israeli pressure, 3. and I also found in those articles a weft of Zionist stickiness in the guise of advice; something which exists in abundance on the Internet. Therefore, I advise the reader to be always on guard, and not let himself get entangled in a web the logic of its weaving is built on a false premise.

"One State' Solutionists VS the "Two -State" Ones

"One State' Solutionists

The one-state-solutionists suggest that two-state solution is not the right solution because: 1. the settlements have become "realities" on the occupied territories and it is unrealistic and unjust to kick out all those Jewish families from their homes, 2. Palestinians, under one-state umbrella, will be given full citizen rights and be treated as equally as the Jewish citizens are treated, 3. "Two-States" means two separate Palestinian lands: one in Gaza and the other on in the West Bank as Israel will find it difficult to accept a highway running on Israeli land to connect the two states, and 4. "One-State" solution may resolve the complicated problem of "Jerusalem", and keep it undivided to become the national capital for Israel with full access for both Israelis and Muslims.

My answer to the above is it is total BS for the following reasons: 1. it is a total erasure of the word "Palestine" from history, despite the fact that the name existed for thousands of years, regardless of the Zionists arguments about historical events that the state of Palestine never had clear nationalistic borders. Word-erasure of the name "Palestinians" will consequently result in word-erasure of the race; "Palestinians", as a few generations from now, People will ask who those people who allege to be Palestinians are? There has never been a "Palestine"!!!. Some people may think that I am delusional. The actual fact is Israel has already shown its intention decades ago when they propagated their allegation: "Land with no people, for people with no land", though the Palestinians existed in Palestine for thousands of years, and it is the Jews who came from their places of origin in Russia and Europe and usurped Palestine under false pretences. It is unfair to maintain the existence of the name "Israel" that has been created in 1948, and abolish the name "Palestine" that has always been in existence. 2. As fare as the "realities" of the settlements are concerned, the word "realities" is a Zionist way of playing with words. It is known that the Jews are clever in playing with words. Settlements are not realities, but "displacement" of the rightful owners by a whole bunch of Jewish thieves and thugs. I heard one day a Jew claiming that "possession of the land is one half of ownership", ignoring the fact that his alleged possession is established by illegal means: coercion, theft and aggressions, 3. In case the Palestinians opt to "two-state" solution, and as far as the land connection between Gaza and the West Bank is concerned, why not in the spirit of peace, both Israel and Palestinians with financial assistance from the international community build such a highway, 4. Now comes the shit that is filling the Jewish crockpot to the brim; Palestinians living under the Jewish umbrella. There is no way in heavens or in hell that the Palestinians under such umbrella will enjoy full civil rights, except only on paper. The Jewish hatred and discrimination towards the Arab Palestinians; Muslims and Christians, and the Jewish atrocities committed against them since the early days of the Zionist state of Israel is indicative of their real intentions. They are lying bastards; wolves in the hide of sheep. Any person who believes in what they say is a fool. If that really happen it will be like we have solved a problem by creating another problem; internal affair's problem of discrimination that perhaps will take another 62 years until it is solved, meanwhile the Palestinians (Israeli citizens) will starve to death for lack jobs and lack of opportunities to improve their lives. 4. As far as Al-Qus aka Jerusalem is concerned, the actual problem is not whether it be the capital of Israel or not, but the Jewish intention to destroy Al-Aqsa mosque under the pretext of building Solomon’s temple. They have already set the mosque on fire one time before in August 1969.

Al-Aqsa Mosue

Al-Aqsa Mosque on fire

"Two -State" Solutionists

The "two-state" solutionists believe that this solution is the right one, because of the following: 1. It will achieve total sovereignty to the Palestinians as well as total autonomy, 2. It will preserve the existence of "Palestine" as a state as well as the existence of the "Palestinians" as a race, 3. All complications, mentioned above in the "one-state" solutions, will be totally avoided.

However, I firmly believe that "two-state" solution under the "proviso" stated by the Zionist state of Israel, which are: 1. Demilitarized Palestine, 2. Total Israel sovereignty on the Palestinian air space, 3. No right to return for the Palestinians in Diaspora, is obviously a rotten deal, and should be rejected. Israel is trying, and will always, in light of this deal, keep Palestine and it inhabitant under the Zionist thump.

The problem is indeed very complicated.

Nevertheless, the just solution is very simple, but neither Israel, nor the ex-colonial countries, which have been not only closing their eyes long enough, but also were a major factor in the creation of the Illegal state of Israel, would not even let such a solution cross their minds.

I came across the article mentioned below - written on September 21, 2009 by Jeff Gates. When I finished the first few paragraph, I was a bit skeptical and not sure where the article was taking me, then I started reading about the “one-state" solution, which, when I hear about it – and I have read so many articles written thereupon as I mentioned above - I started to have some doubts.

To be able to read the script, please click on picture 

They forced Palestinians to leave their homes and farms, displacing them by settlers thugs. And trying to win European sympathy, Netenyahu says that 1/4 millions settlers need places to live, their children kindergarten, and health care. WOW, poor Israelis! He has realy hit a chord.

What is said about Israel that it is a democratic country is total BS.

In "one-state" the Palestinians, believe it or not, will still be discriminated amidst the Jews whose hatred towards the Arabs and Muslims is increasing every day in gigantic strides.

Needles to say that since the inception of the Zionist state of Israel, the Ashkenazim Jews not only have been discriminatory towards the Palestinian Arabs; Muslims and Christians, but they have also been having the same attitude towards Jews; Arab Jews and black Jews (Falasha).

Apologists, wake up from your deep slumber. You have been doped.

"Will Israel Fall in Five Years?

September 21, 2009 by Jeff Gates

'I hope so whole heartedly' - comment is mine.

Online reports of a study by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency cast doubt over the survival of Israel beyond the next two decades. Regardless of the validity of the report, with what is now known about the costs in blood and treasure that the U.S.-Israeli relationship has imposed on the U.S., its key ally, Israel could fall within five years.

For more than six decades, American support for Israel has relied on the ability of pro-Israelis to dominate U.S. media, enabling Tel Aviv to put a positive spin on even its most extreme behavior, including its recent massacre in Gaza. With access to online news coverage, that Zionist bias is becoming apparent and the real facts transparent.

Though Americans seldom show a strong interest in foreign affairs, that too is changing. While few of them grasp the subtleties of one-state versus two-state proposals, many have seen online the impact of a murderous Israeli assault on Palestinian civilians that was timed between Christmas and the inauguration of Barack Obama.

The leaders of the 9-11 Commission acknowledged that its members would not allow testimony on the impetus for that attack. Yet the report confirmed that the key motivation was the U.S.-Israeli relationship. With access to online news, more Americans are asking why they are forced to support a colonial Apartheid government.

With the election of yet another extremist Israeli government led by yet another right-wing Likud Party stalwart, it’s clear that Tel Aviv intends to preclude peace by continuing to build more settlements. With that stance, Israel not only pushed Barack Obama into a corner, it also forced U.S. national security to make a key strategic decision: Is Israel a credible partner for peace? By any criteria, the answer must be a resounding “No.”

That inescapable conclusion leaves Americans with few options. After all, the U.S. is largely responsible for the legitimacy granted this extremist enclave in May 1948 when Harry Truman, a Christian-Zionist president, extended nation-state recognition. He did so over the strenuous objections of Secretary of State George Marshall, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the fledgling CIA and the bulk of the U.S. diplomatic corps.

By December 1948, a distinguished contingent of Jewish scientists and intellectuals warned in The New York Times that those leading the effort to establish a Jewish state bear “the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party.” Albert Einstein joined concerned Jews who cautioned Americans “not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.”

Only in the past few weeks has the momentum emerged to subject Israel to the same external pressures that were brought to bear against Apartheid South Africa. After more than six decades of consistent behavior—and clear evidence of no intent to change—activists coalesced around the need to boycott Israeli exports, divest from Israeli firms and impose sanctions against Israel akin to those it seeks against others.

The focal point for peace in the Middle East should not be those nations that do not have nuclear weapons but the one nation that does. Absent external pressure, Israeli behavior will not change. Absent pressure—and likely force—applied by the U.S. as the nation that has long enabled this behavior, Colonial Zionism will continue to pose a threat to peace. Occupying powers are not known to voluntarily relinquish lands they occupy. Likewise for their readiness to surrender nuclear arms.

An End to Jewish Fascism?

The key issue need no longer be a subject of endless debate. There must be a one-state solution consistent with democratic principles of full equality. Informed Americans are no longer willing to support a theocratic state in which full citizenship is limited to those deemed “Jewish” (whatever that means). If local birth rates suggest an eventual end to the “Jewish state,” then so be it. Why wait two decades when this nightmare can be drawn to a close in less than five years?

Forget about a return to pre-1967 borders, instead return to pre-1948 borders. Designate Jerusalem an international city under U.N. protection and dispatch multi-national forces to maintain peace. Palestinians should have a right of return, including the ability to recover properties from which they fled under an assault by Jewish terrorists. If Colonial Zionists (aka settlers) want compensation for “their” property, let them seek restitution from the Diaspora that encouraged their unlawful occupation.

Those who consider themselves “Jewish” can remain as part of an inclusive democracy. Or they can depart. Americans must consider how many of these extremists it wants to welcome to a nation already straining under an immigration burden. A reported 500,000 Israelis hold U.S. passports. With more than 300,000 dual-citizens residing in California alone, that state may require a referendum on just how many Zionists it wishes to receive. Likewise for Russia from which many “Jews” fled, including some 300,000 Russian émigrés who support the Likud Party but have yet to be certified as Jewish.

Zionists originally saw Argentina and Uganda as desirable venues to establish their enterprise. They may wish to apply there for resettlement. The question of why Palestinians (or Californians) should bear the cost of a problem created by Europeans six decades ago is one that Tel Aviv has yet to answer except by citing ancient claims that it insists should take precedence over two millennia of Palestinian residence.

By withdrawing Israel’s status as a legitimate “state,” those Jews long appalled by the behavior of this extremist enclave can no longer be portrayed as guilty by association. That long overdue shift in status is certain to benefit the broader Jewish community. By shutting down Israel’s nuclear arms program and destroying its nuclear arsenal, the world can be spared the key impetus now driving a nuclear arms race in the region.

Unless pro-Israelis can create another crisis by inducing an invasion of Iran (or a race war), Americans will soon realize that only one “state” had the means, motivation, opportunity and stable nation-state intelligence required to fix the intelligence that led the U.S. to invade Iraq consistent with the expansionist goals of Colonial Zionism.

Intelligence now working its way to transparency will soon confirm that, but for Zionists within the U.S. government, 9-11 could have been prevented and war in Iraq avoided. To date, this extremism has been enabled by a series of weak U.S. presidents. For the U.S. to restore its credibility requires that it not only lead the effort to shut down the Zionist enterprise but that it also share responsibility for its behavior to date"

In fact, the the so-called “two-state", which  I favor, but not under the conditions provided by the Zionist state of Israel, is my first choice. The emerging state of Palestine should: 1. have total sovereignty on their land and airspace, 2. have an army to defend itself, 3. could be demilitarized if Israel does the same, and 4. the Palestinians in diaspora should have the right to return.

Anything less than that will be a rotten deal.

And to achieve total justice, the "one-state" solution should be as explained in Mr. Gates article.

The "two-state" solution could end up being an equivalent of having someone break into your home, hold your family at gunpoint, and when the police come, they strike a compromise by allowing the prowler to have your kitchen, bathroom and bedroom while you keep the basement.

I understand the argument that America was expanded by terrorism – and think Indians and blacks are still due some affirmative action (maybe not reparations, but at least a “Marshall plan” for bringing productive employment, better education and social services to reservations and inner cities). But we’re talking about something happening now, and a “country” that terrorizes its natives and neighbors with nuclear, chemical, conventional and financial weapons. I don’t care about ethnic, religious or cultural background. Anyone who can cheer on such a state of affairs is aiding and abetting the greatest crimes that can be committed.

With countries like Germany and Russia experiencing population crises, why can’t these Israeli immigrants return to their countries of origin? I’m afraid nothing short of an international truth commission on the history of Israel, including its connection to the British financial empire, many assassinations and acts of terrorism, including its role in 9/11, will create the conditions necessary to keep extremist “jews” from setting up new Israels around the world when the current one collapses. Maybe we can even get a couple generations of reprieve while the bankers, dope traffickers and organ harvesters reconstitute their networks.

Do the Israelis really want peace?

Obama Urges Renewing Mideast Talks
September 22, 2009 11:34 AM
President Obama said that there has been progress made in renewing dialogue between Israel and Palestine, but that more needs to be done.

No, they are just kidding! Look at the Israelis' views on Obama and the peace process - 21 Sept 09


And their Cruel but Necessary: Opinions in Jerusalem about the Settlements and Obama

 

for other articles that may shed light on satanic Jewish stragedy of conquest, go to LABELS and click on "Stragedy of conquest"

Long Live Palestine