A Two State Solution? -- Is It Meant to Be a Final Solution?

I Palestinesi hanno un diritto a un stato.
The Palestinians have the right to a state,
quoth Oliviero Diliberto at a war march in Rome
propounding the need for a state for a people unheard of 100 years ago. The march also demanded withdrawal of Italian troops from Afghanistan, as the chant was heard "Ten, one hundred, one thousand Nassiriyas." Nassiriya in Iraq was the location of a suicide bombing in 2003 that killed some 20 Italian soldiers and police. The war marchers also burned effigies of an American, an Italian and an Israeli soldier. The war march took place on 18 November 2006.

Diliberto leads one of the hard-line Communist Parties [Partito dei Comunisti Italiani] in Italy. The softer line Italian CP, led by D'Alema also wants a "palestinian state," as does prime minister Romano Prodi, former president of the European Commission, top governing body of the terrorist-friendly European Union that has endowed the "palestinian authority," led by yasser arafat until his death two years ago, with some five billion dollars [in their Euro equivalent] over the last twelve years since the "palestinian authority" was set up in 1994.

Before answering whether this newly invented people of palestinians should have a state, let us first ask if there is such a people. One hundred years ago, no body had heard of such a people. The Arabs in the country were overwhelmingly Muslims, and as such they were loyal to the Muslim [Sunni Muslim] Ottoman Empire. Even the Arab apologist historian, Rashid Khalidi, who sits comfortably in a prestigious American university, agrees. Khalidi also wrote that in the Ottoman period the Muslim Arabs in Israel did not think in terms of "palestine" or Lebanon or Jordan. Instead, they viewed the whole eastern shore of the Mediterranean, the Levant, as forming al-Sham or bilad ash-Sham, that is to say, Syria or Greater Syria. Indeed, authorities such as Elie Kedourie, Hans Tutsch, Zeine N Zeine, Zia Gok Alp, etc., agreed that before World War I there was little Arab nationalism among the Arabs in the Middle East or Levant, let alone "palestinian nationalism." The Muslim Arabs were loyal to their Sunni Muslim empire in which Arabs from leading familes could get high positions. Sons of the Husseini [Husayni], al-Khalidi and Abdul-Hadi families obtained powerful, prestigious positions in the Ottoman Empire as governors, diplomats, speaker of parliament, etc. The traditional geographic concept of these Arabs was bilad ash-Sham [Greater Syria] and they enjoyed more power and influence as Ottoman officials in a great Muslim state than they would have had in a small state. Hence, the Muslims Arabs in the Land of Israel did not see themselves as Arabs first, let alone palestinians first.
Nor did they have a concept of "palestine" [the Land of Israel] as a country. The term Filastin had been used by Arab rulers before the Crusades but its use was not resumed after the Crusades by either the Mamluk or Ottoman empires. Moreover, the term applied only to what the Roman/Byzantine empire had called Palaestina Prima, the southern part of the country, that is, to southern Samaria, part of the coastal plain, the northern Negev, and the land of Judah [not to be confused with the Greco-Roman term Judea {= IVDAEA} which usually meant all of the Land of Israel]. Filastin did not comprise Galilee or northern Samaria or Transjordan, which the early Arab conquerors had collectively called Urdunn. Hence, "palestine" was not an Arab geographic notion, nor was there a "palestinian people" in Arab tradition, contrary to a great deal of propaganda nowadays.
The "palestinian people" is not a historical or traditional people. It is a post-1948 invention of anti-Israel propaganda and psychological warfare, which was sold to the Arabs as a means of achieving their goal of destroying Israel, the state of rebellious, uppity dhimmis. Yes, the creation of Israel was humiliating to Arabs --mainly because the Jews were the most oppressed, most humiliated section of their dhimmi populations, of their subject peoples.

Secondly, would an Arab state in the Land of Israel, whatever it were called, lead to peace or help the Arab war effort against Israel? If Israel would lose strategically valuable lands that serve as a defense against Arab enemies, whether "palestinian" Arabs or Egyptians or Jordanians or Syrians, then Israel would be strategically weakened and made more vulnerable to Arab attack. Isn't that obvious? Then, an independent state would be able to import heavy weapons at will, as if the present situation of smuggling advanced rockets into Gaza were not dangerous enough. It would also be more powerful than now in the UN where it would have a full vote and regular state member rights to condemn and libel Israel for a new offense, real or contrived, every day. It would not satisfy Arab irredentist ambitions for all of the Land of Israel, while encouraging them to make war due to Israel's weakened geo-strategic position, loss of geographic depth, loss of deterrence, etc.

Hence, a Two State solution would encourage Arab war on Israel by making Israel more vulnerable and making Israel seem more vulnerable. Thus, the Two State Solution might be a Final Solution, and the major "democratic" Western states would not care.
- - - - - -
Coming: more on the Two State solution, Jews in Jerusalem, Engels advocates genocide, etc.