The two-state paradigm’s deadly detriments are now so glaringly apparent that it is becoming increasingly difficult to reconcile calls for Palestinian statehood with genuine concern for the well-being of the Jewish nation-state.

ed note–apologies ahead of time for the reader being forced to wade through the typically verbose, circular, and convoluted Judaic linguistics contained herein, but it must be remembered that all the thorny issues dealing with the Jewish issue, many of which are global in scale and not limited merely to the Levant region, can only be divined by wading through morasses such as this.

In this case, the central statement that needs to be honed in on and considered for all the implications it holds for every living thing on the planet is the very last line of the essay–

‘It is becoming increasingly difficult to reconcile calls for a Palestinian state with genuine concern for the well-being of the Jewish nation-state.’

Now, for those who are new to this, please let us explain a few important items.

This–as we like to say here–is an example of ‘how they do it’.

Jews by virtue of being marinated down to the bone marrow in all the twists and turns making up the brine of Torah, Talmud, and Halachic law understand how the use of language, syntax and even the placement of punctuation marks has an almost black magic type effect on how people think and thus how they behave. In this case, through the careful use of word manipulation, our unesteemed Hebraic writer gives the impression that the Jews as a people are open to any reasonable solution to the quagmire existing between them and the Palestinians, but, alas, it would seem that such solutions as Trump is proposing are simply not feasible.

Our unesteemed Hebraic author knows that shouting down and organizing against Trump’s peace deal before it has even seen the light of day can only work towards the Jews’ detriment vis them maintaining the image that they have always needed to maintain–them as the innocent victims who really, really, REALLY want to do a ‘peace deal’, but, alas, quelle dommage, those doggone AY-rabs are just too hard-headed and steeped in their anti-Shemitism to be reasonable. 

Even the title of the piece itself is an exercise in Judaic linguistic slight of hand and deception by its intimation that the Jews arriving at the conclusion that a Palestinian state is not good for Israel is something that they have yet to do, when in fact, it was already a fait accompli 2,000 years ago before Judea was destroyed by Rome.

Israel National News

With the impending public announcement of the enigmatic “deal of the century”, pledged by the Trump administration, rumors are swirling throughout the Middle East—and beyond—as to what in fact, its real nature might be. This, together with the dramatic rise in the electoral prospects of the newly formed “Blue & White” alliance between Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid, has once again raised the ominous specter of the return of the two-state principle.

Indeed, although no authoritative preview of the detailed content of the “deal” has been provided by the White House, the little that has been released referred to it as including significant Israeli concessions. Moreover, the leaders of “Blue & White” have repeatedly referred to their approval of the principals of the INSS (Institute for National Security Studies) plan for unilateral concessions in Judea-Samaria and the throttling of all Jewish communities beyond the pre-1967 Green Line. Significantly, the INSS plan explicitly defines the “preservation of the two-state option” as its “strategic purpose”—this despite the fact that in presenting the plan at its public launch in October 2018, the head of INSS, Maj-Gen. Amos Yadlin, conceded that the attempt to implement the two-state formula has failed disastrously in the past, is unfeasible in the present, and whose implementation in the future is dangerous.

Indeed, he warned his audience that the two state prescription is “detached from reality,” recounting that “the attempt to implement the two state solution—with the Oslo Accords (1993), the Camp David Summit (2000), the Annapolis process (2008), the Kerry initiative (2014)—has failed completely, and has led [only] to impasse and bloodshed.”

Yadlin proceeded to lay out the reasons for his dismal assessment: “The internal Palestinian divide between Gaza and Ramallah, Palestinian political weakness, and above all the ideological extremism of the Palestinians, make any prospect of signing a comprehensive agreement unrealistic.”

Failed in the past, unfeasible in the present, dangerous in the future

Echoing precisely what two-state opponents have been insisting on for decades, he pronounced categorically: “There is no-one to agree with, there is nothing to agree on—and the implementation [of any two-state initiative] is dangerous”.

But then, astonishingly, rather than arrive at the rational conclusion that the pursuit of the two-state objective be abandoned and alternative approaches be explored—he did precisely the opposite!

He urged that Israel should undertake a policy, set out in the INSS “plan”, that assumes that there is—or rather that there might be—someone to agree with, and something to agree on—at some unspecified future date and as a result of some unspecified process that would somehow overcome his previously stipulated obstacles of “Palestinian divisiveness, political weakness and ideological extremism.”

Yadlin’s patently perverse and paradoxical position on the two-state doctrine—or rather dogma—underscores precisely why it must be renounced—unequivocally and irrevocably.

Indeed, its deadly detriments are so glaringly apparent that it is becoming increasingly difficult to reconcile calls for a Palestinian state with genuine concern for the well-being of the Jewish nation-state.