Home | Forums | Bible | +Width | Subscribe | Member Login

Thursday, September 20, 2018   11:34:56 PM  
 Welcome to The Omega Letter   Daily Briefings Commentary News Room   Contact OL Site Map How Do I?
Testimonials Prophecy Israel Globalism Terror In Defense Around the World War News Witnessing Perspective Commentary

Omega Letter Member Log In
Matthew  24 : 7
For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
Read Today's Proverb - Chapter 20



Zeteo 3:16 with Alf and Alesia Cengia




The End The Book Part 6




Bible Prophecy News Christian Current Events

The Omega Letter Commentary Archives ...

Open Text: Exact Phrase:

The X State Solution
Israel - Middle East
Friday, March 22, 2013
Alf Cengia

Most of us understand that, while most people talk about a two-state solution, the Palestinian leaders and various other interested parties really want just 'One State'.  I've also noted before that, even allowing for the continuation of an Israeli state, I couldn't see how Hamas and the Palestinian Authority could ever pull off a viable, united governing restructure.

With that in mind, this is how Rabbi Marvin Hier how President Obama in a recent meeting discussing the latter's forthcoming trip to Israel:

Everybody is for a two-state solution, but what we have on the ground now is a three-state solution with two competing Palestinian entities – one in Ramallah and the other in Gaza, who are in conflict with each other. It doesn’t make a difference, Mr. President, whether the Prime Minister of Israel is from the Likkud Party or the Labor Party. Both would be on the same page of making no concessions until the Palestinians speak with one voice and recognize the existence of the State of Israel. Mr. President, you should deliver that message to the Palestinian leaders during your trip.” (Emphases mine)

Yes, everyone talks about the two-state solution as if Israel is somehow preventing it.

Yet if we think about it and if we go back to consult history - not the usual revisionist propaganda - it would ultimately boil down to a four-state "solution".  You'd have Israel, Hamas as a state; the Palestinian Authority as another state....and Jordan.

That's four states!

Getting to the root of the many issues is too complex for people who prefer to attach themselves to simplistic slogans and accusative terms like: "Occupier Israel"; "Give the land back"; "Let them have their own state"; "Freedom for Palestine" etc.

The so-called "Jewish-problem" predated and postdates Hitler.  Europe didn't seem to really want the Jews within its empire.  Their existence there was only tolerated at varying degrees throughout the history of the Diaspora.  The tragic Holocaust only expedited something that had already been in the works.

Some saw it as a way of finally getting "rid of the problem".

The land of "Palestine" as divided between the new Transjordan [modern Jordan] and Israel was the proto type two-state solution.  It ultimately didn't work for the same reasons that Jews needed to get out of Europe.  The Arab states didn't want the Jews there.

It's that simple.

We read in Palestine facts where Sir Alec Kirkbride declared that Transjordan was:

"… intended to serve as a reserve of land for use in the resettlement of Arabs once the National Home for the Jews in Palestine, which [Britain was] pledged to support, became an accomplished fact. There was no intention at that stage of forming the territory east of the River Jordan into an independent Arab state." (Emphasis mine)

The British backed away from their promise by limiting Jewish migration to Palestine and favoring "exclusive Arab development" east of the Jordan River.  This was because of Arab protests and for "political reasons".  Paradoxically, while this was happening, Arab leaders still "sought Jewish involvement in the development of Transjordan."

They just didn't want a Jewish state next door.

The Peel Commission report refuted Arab complaints regarding Jewish land acquisition: The report noted that much of the land in question was now carrying orange groves, whereas it had been swamp, sand dunes and uncultivated before it was purchased.

Some apologists protest that Mark Twain's negative depiction of Palestine was similar to other regions (e.g. Greece, Syria and Lebanon) and was stereotypical, racist and untrue. Yet Twain's remarks have been corroborated by other observers.

The land-grab gripe is also ironic in light of the wry admission by Transjordan's own King Abdullah:

“It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping” (Emphasis mine)

I wonder if the president understands all this.  Perhaps he's just an incorrigible optimist.  After all, those Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood chaps are really nice people once you spend some time with them...and give them some neat stuff to play with.  Why would Hamas and the Palestinian Authority be any different?

Maybe the problem really is that pesky Netanyahu who won't play ball and clamp down on the "occupation".

Some may favorably point to the fact that Egypt's ruling M.B. is stopping weapons from reaching Gaza via its borders.  But, as Mark Rubin explains, their intentions are far from benign.  Moreover, it highlights the fact these regimes cannot get along:

"It (Morsi's regime) seeks to consolidate control over a highly populated country and fundamentally transform it into a Sharia state under the Brotherhood’s perpetual rule. Hamas, however, by its nature, cannot accept Islamism in one country...Hamas isn’t interested in building up a Sharia state in the Gaza Strip as its main goal because it seeks to conquer Israel and the West Bank."

Rubin notes that the Brotherhood doesn't want a war or a "high level conflict" - just now.  But Hamas has involved itself with smaller radical groups which have been actively against the Egyptian regime.  And these groups are also attacking Israel through the Egyptian-Israeli border "without Egyptian permission".

Can all these guys just get along and agree on something other than Israel's destruction? Do Libya and Syria ring any bells? Egypt?

Here's what the Gatestone Institute says:

"Even if a Palestinian State were established, Hamas and other groups would work to take control of it, and, with the help of Iran and Al-Qaeda, turn it into a launching pad for attacking Israel and other neighbors."

Anyway, how many State Solutions do you want in Palestine?

You can have as many as you like...as long as none are Jewish.

And if you want peace:

Forget about it.

Note from the Editor:  Alf submitted this article last week.  Due to Jack's promotion, we opted to move it up to be this week's commentary.  Thank you Alf for your contributions and standing firm as a watchman on the wall.

About Alf Cengia

Last article: On Lipstick & Jihad Freedom Fighters

Current Article Ranking: Average Rank of 4.70 Stars

Rank This Article: Rank this Article 1 star It's an article.
Rank this Article 2 stars It's informative.
Rank this Article 3 stars I liked it.
Rank this Article 4 stars Inspiring!
Rank this Article 5 stars It's a home run!

If you have already Registered, then Login and start a discussion.
Share on Facebook
OmegaLetter Exclusive Commentary
THE END The Book Series A God Big Enough to Believe In? Giving Glory to God Zero-Sum A Heavenly Mind
    Rss Feeds

Member Contributed Articles
Just Thinking Stage Setting On Steroids--2017 Prophetic Year in Review Professor Grant Horner's Bible Reading Plan Modified A Life (and Death) Worthy of the Gospel Sometimes Life Sucks but God is Good

Omega Letter Links
Fight For JoyGot Christianity?Hal LindseyJack KelleyJewish VoiceLion & Lamb MinistriesNow The End BeginsOilprice.comOlive Tree MinistriesOmegaletter MediaOther SitesProphecy TrackerProphecy UpdateProphezineRapture ForumsRapture ReadyReasonWorld Prophecy NetworkWorld Watch Daily

The Omega Letter Bible Prophecy Christian Intelligence