It's hard to imagine what the Palestinians could do that is more extreme than 7 October. And a real desire for a Palestinian state from the Americans should have included more pressure for an end to terrorism and "pay to slay" as well as an end to Fatah kleptocracy.
The moderate left holds on to Oslo as a religious belief about human perfectibility and the sanctity of negotiation, not a realistic policy model. Sadly, no one other than Trump has been motivated to find an alternative.
Great piece Sheri! You keep mentioning this two-state solution; I think that it is more of a reason for grabbing money. IMHO. Also, I keep scratching my head about this so-called Palestinian State. Did it exist before, and where exactly was it? They, the "elites" in the US, do not want peace, too much money is to be made by too many modern-day grifters I did find this piece in the Times of Israel that may help some understand the utter BS that is going on with it.
I also have questions for those who demand a two-state solution: how will you guarantee the safety of Israel and all Jews by providing large areas for them to shell Israel? Where exactly will the borders be, and who will run it? I would love to hear how they plan to do that.
You had mentioned the Oslo Accords and its dismal failure, which no one wants to admit to. I think that this song from Latma TV a satire group, The Children Of Oslo
I believe that the words apply even today. All of the promises, all of the lies, the deceit, so that politicians and bureaucrats can look good, Oh Hell No!
I will stop ranting now and say that it was a good piece with a lot of valid points that were brought up. I can't wait for you view on the talking heads of the EU leaders.............hehe.
Thank you! I really appreciate the thoughtful reaction
And the links too!
You raise some great points about the “two-state solution” being more about optics (and money) than reality, and the historical questions you mention are exactly why I’m tackling it in this series.
That Latma song is a classic. Satire ages well when the promises never change. When I discovered Glick had a sense of humour and not just serious analysis, I was intrigued.
I’ll definitely be covering the EU talking heads soon. Very soon.
"The reason Israel has no security is because the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union have mischaracterized the war of extermination against Israel as a conflict over territory. They have accordingly pressured Israel to make endless concessions that undermined its security.
They have also continued to fund the Palestinian Authority despite the genocidal agenda against Israel and Jews that it shares with Hamas, and with which it indoctrinates the Palestinian Arabs with murderous hatred of the kind that erupted in the Oct. 7 pogrom."
The absence of diplomacy is not just about American retreat. It is also about the fact that too many actors in the region still reject compromise outright. Calling it “quiet abandonment” puts all the weight on the United States, when the real denial has come from those who use violence instead of negotiation. Without that honesty, diplomacy cannot be revived.
I'm not talking about a lack of diplomacy but what current diplomacy is lacking, i.e., the truth. Nobody believes in the two-state-solution. They say they do but they don't.
Curious why, although you admit that Trump, Hegseth, et al., are now in charge in DC, you insist that “Secretary of State Blinken, for example, continues …” You do realize that Blinken is no longer Secretary of State, don’t you? Marco Rubio has taken a very different line than the erstwhile blinkered-one. BTW, I appreciated the post as a whole, but I found this inconsistency disturbing, casting a shadow over the accuracy of the post.
You're right, and thank you for catching that. The phrasing "continues to express" makes it sound like Blinken is still in office, which he isn't. I should have written "During his tenure, Secretary of State Blinken repeatedly expressed..."
I'll update the article to fix this.
Thanks for reading carefully and for the feedback on the post overall. These kinds of corrections help me.
A two-state solution is a blatant utopia.
Former President Bill Clinton recently acknowledged this clearly in a speech.
If an Arab state were to emerge in Judea and Samaria, it would be suicide for Israel.
In Western countries, a two-state solution is being demanded. Naive and unrealistic. Remember, there is no Islamic democracy anywhere in the world.
It's hard to imagine what the Palestinians could do that is more extreme than 7 October. And a real desire for a Palestinian state from the Americans should have included more pressure for an end to terrorism and "pay to slay" as well as an end to Fatah kleptocracy.
The moderate left holds on to Oslo as a religious belief about human perfectibility and the sanctity of negotiation, not a realistic policy model. Sadly, no one other than Trump has been motivated to find an alternative.
Great piece Sheri! You keep mentioning this two-state solution; I think that it is more of a reason for grabbing money. IMHO. Also, I keep scratching my head about this so-called Palestinian State. Did it exist before, and where exactly was it? They, the "elites" in the US, do not want peace, too much money is to be made by too many modern-day grifters I did find this piece in the Times of Israel that may help some understand the utter BS that is going on with it.
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/was-there-a-palestinian-national-identity-prior-to-1964/
I also have questions for those who demand a two-state solution: how will you guarantee the safety of Israel and all Jews by providing large areas for them to shell Israel? Where exactly will the borders be, and who will run it? I would love to hear how they plan to do that.
You had mentioned the Oslo Accords and its dismal failure, which no one wants to admit to. I think that this song from Latma TV a satire group, The Children Of Oslo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgOS6ZOvcJs&t=13s
I believe that the words apply even today. All of the promises, all of the lies, the deceit, so that politicians and bureaucrats can look good, Oh Hell No!
I will stop ranting now and say that it was a good piece with a lot of valid points that were brought up. I can't wait for you view on the talking heads of the EU leaders.............hehe.
Thank you! I really appreciate the thoughtful reaction
And the links too!
You raise some great points about the “two-state solution” being more about optics (and money) than reality, and the historical questions you mention are exactly why I’m tackling it in this series.
That Latma song is a classic. Satire ages well when the promises never change. When I discovered Glick had a sense of humour and not just serious analysis, I was intrigued.
I’ll definitely be covering the EU talking heads soon. Very soon.
America and Britain cross a treacherous red line
"The reason Israel has no security is because the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union have mischaracterized the war of extermination against Israel as a conflict over territory. They have accordingly pressured Israel to make endless concessions that undermined its security.
They have also continued to fund the Palestinian Authority despite the genocidal agenda against Israel and Jews that it shares with Hamas, and with which it indoctrinates the Palestinian Arabs with murderous hatred of the kind that erupted in the Oct. 7 pogrom."
https://www.jns.org/america-and-britain-cross-a-treacherous-red-line/?_se
I’m running for Congress because I no longer believe in the two state solution. We shouldn’t reward bad behavior with statehood.
The absence of diplomacy is not just about American retreat. It is also about the fact that too many actors in the region still reject compromise outright. Calling it “quiet abandonment” puts all the weight on the United States, when the real denial has come from those who use violence instead of negotiation. Without that honesty, diplomacy cannot be revived.
I'm not talking about a lack of diplomacy but what current diplomacy is lacking, i.e., the truth. Nobody believes in the two-state-solution. They say they do but they don't.
Curious why, although you admit that Trump, Hegseth, et al., are now in charge in DC, you insist that “Secretary of State Blinken, for example, continues …” You do realize that Blinken is no longer Secretary of State, don’t you? Marco Rubio has taken a very different line than the erstwhile blinkered-one. BTW, I appreciated the post as a whole, but I found this inconsistency disturbing, casting a shadow over the accuracy of the post.
You're right, and thank you for catching that. The phrasing "continues to express" makes it sound like Blinken is still in office, which he isn't. I should have written "During his tenure, Secretary of State Blinken repeatedly expressed..."
I'll update the article to fix this.
Thanks for reading carefully and for the feedback on the post overall. These kinds of corrections help me.