In 1992, the Israel Communist Party [usually called Hadash, its acronym]
ran on a platform of a Two State Solution. That is, a State of Israel and an Arab state of "palestine." The two states would share the Land of Israel west of the Jordan River.
In 2006, President George W Bush of the ostensibly staunchly anti-Communist United States of America, called for two states in the Land of Israel west of the Jordan River, one Jewish state called Israel, the other an Arab state to be called "palestine." In fact, both Bush and his secretary of state, Miss Bitter Rice, expressed annoyance and irritation in 2006 that the Arab state of palestine, which they had first openly advocated a few years before [including in the so-called Road Map] had not yet come into being. Indeed, their attitude on the matter was one of determination mixed with desperation and a sense of helplessness over the inability or unwillingness of the palestinian authority leadership --which the USA and the EU and Japan had funded in the billions of dollars-- to establish internal order in the zones already under their control and to restrain --at least temporarily-- the murderous passions of their several and sundry terrorist gangs, including the PA's dozen or so police and other armed forces.
Let us consider the meaning of the Two State Solution for Israel's military security, and for the physical security of Israel's population. Let us also consider the meaning of a state called palestine for the standing of Israel and the whole Jewish people throughout the world. Is the Two State Solution a Final Solution? Is it meant to be a Final Solution? What about the convergent positions of Leftists and Rightists, of ostensible revolutionaries and super-rich Western capitalists and Arab oil magnates?
First, a little Bush family background. Michael Moore made a movie called Fahrenheit 9/11 based on Craig Unger's book, House of Bush, House of Saud
. The book and movie show the close relationship
between the two wealthy and powerful families. Whatever we may say about Moore's usual ignorance and hostility toward Jews, the movie demonstrated a long-standing reality. In fact, not only the Bush family has been close to the Saudis, but so have many other powerful and prominent American politicians. The Saudis --that is, bigoted Muslims, champions of the Arab anti-Israel cause-- had friends and supporters in the USA such as the Dulles family, who were great lovers of the Arabs and haters of Jews [maybe they loved the Arabs because they hated Jews-- think about it]. In any case, Moore [and I suppose Unger too] was wrong to imply that only
the Bush family was connected to the Saudis. FDR --the great faker-- met King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud [usually called Ibn Saud]
back in 1945 on the way home from the Yalta Conference and praised the king afterwards. His successor, Harry Truman's adminstration, gave the oil company ARAMCO special tax breaks
in order to be able to pay more to the Saudis
without taking the money out of ARAMCO's pockets. Eisenhower's administration was dominated in its foreign policy by the Dulles Brothers. John Foster was secretary of state and Allen was head of the CIA. As I recall, John Foster Dulles [maybe another official, but John Foster most likely] welcomed one of the Saudi royals to America and gave him a pistol in a public ceremony. Some thought that this represented encouragement to the Arabs to go kill Jews. To make a long story short, the Bush family is far from alone in having favored the Saudis. Both Republicans [like the Dulles Brothers] and Democrats helped make them rich.
Now, George Dubya's Daddy, George Senior, went to Saudi Arabia in the summer of 1982 while Israel was fighting Syria and the PLO in Lebanon. He went there for the funeral of the king. I don't recall whether it was Fahd or Faisal who had died. Both were sons of Ibn Saud. Bush Senior got a message to yasser arafat, who was also there for the funeral. The Saudis were big contributors to the PLO & arafat personally. Actually, an article on the front page of the Wall Street Journal
, probably in 1985, had reported the story. Probably yasser and George Senior met face to face, although the WSJ reported only transmission of a message, as far as I recall. The message was [pace
WSJ] that arafat should keep on fighting the Israelis and not surrender or agree to any terms that the PLO leave Lebanon, which Israel was demanding at that time. Arafat took Bush's suggestion. This means that Bush prolonged the war in Lebanon and that Bush wanted to keep the PLO forces in Lebanon. This means that Bush Senior was working for war rather than peace, that he was working against Israel, that he was working against Lebanon. Now, does the apple fall far from the tree? Is Bush Junior so different?
Something more about Bush the Father. In November 1988, while the absurd semi-revolt [35 % Arabs, 65 % pro-Arab Western communications media] called the Intifada was proceeding in the Land of Israel, the PLO held a congress in Algiers. Shortly before the congress, riots were put down in Algiers with scores of dead. But the Western media paid little attention to those dead. They were more interested in reporting Arab dead in Israel. When Arabs die at Israel's hands it gives the Western media a chance to be self-righteous against the Jews. When Arabs die at Arab hands, the news value is nearly nil. Anyhow, the PLO's Algiers congress came up with a Declaration of a State which implicitly covered all of the Land of Israel, leaving no room for the State of Israel [I read at least two translations of the Declaration plus much informed commentary]. Hence, the Declaration of a State was also a declaration of war. However, the mendacious Western media pretended --absurdly-- that the Declaration had recognized Israel. This was merely because the Declaration had cited the UN General Assembly partition recommendation of 29 November 1947 as being available for use to further the Arab anti-Israel cause [perhaps called "palestinian rights" in the Declaration]. This mention of the Partition recommendation was groundlessly interpreted as a readiness for peace. Yet, in fact, there was no recognition of Israel nor any expression of a desire for peace with Israel. Yet, the mendacious media merrily went their lying way without any serious contradiction from the Israel govt of the time, still led by foreign minister Shimon Peres together with defense minister Rabin [both of the Labor Party]
, although Yits'haq Shamir [of Likud]
was prime minister.
Bush Senior was President Reagan's vice president at the time, and had been elected to succeed him. As a gesture to incoming President Bush, Reagan's State Department decided the time had come for the US to openly dialogue with mass murderer arafat, just as they now want to dialogue with murderers Bashir Assad and Ahmadinajad. This was the beginning of the open US relationship with the PLO which certainly had flourished sub rosa
for a long time before. Bear in mind, that this overture to the PLO, to arafat, was made as a favor to Bush Senior by President Reagan.
So much for Bush Senior. Junior Bush has been pretending to be Israel's friend. Well, you can believe what you want. But go back to March 2002. After the massacre at the Park Hotel in Natanyah on the Passover holiday, on the night of the seder
, the Israeli people wanted to suppress Arab mass murder terrorism. The army went off on Operation Defensive Wall [Homat Magen] to go into Arab towns like Ramallah, Bethlehem, Jenin, Nablus [Sh'khem], etc., where the Israeli army had not gone into for years. Bush shortly demanded that Israel immediately stop this operation and withdraw all troops from palestinian authority zones right away. Colin Powell went off on a tour of Arab capitals to consider the Israeli problem [the Jewish Problem] and hold hands with distraught Arab leaders. In other words, Bush wanted to allow the Arabs to continue their mass murder attacks. Bush wanted to save arafat from harm. He wanted to protect mass murderers from just retribution.
Is Bush Junior a friend? Does the apple fall far from the tree? And now it looks like Bush Junior is going to start on another anti-Israel offensive. Jim Baker, Bush Senior's secretary of state, is supposed to become an authoritative advisor of Bush Junior with a new, fresh report on how to make the Middle East a worse place for children and other living things. Moreover, Robert Gates, a long-time enemy of Israel and ex-head of the CIA, has been appointed secretary of defense to replace Rumsfeld. If the Democrats want to show their opposition to Bush, then they will oppose Bush's anti-Israel policy, and in particular they will oppose appointment of Gates, which needs the approval of the Senate [with its majority of Democrats] to become final. Ask yourself if Bush Junior is really serious about his "war on terror." Is he really against terrorism? Is he against it anymore than the EU member states are? Consider that the major EU members see the Madrid and London attacks as terrorism, but not the mass murder against Jews. Are the Democrats against terrorism? Are they against the murder of Jews? Are they a real opposition to Bush Junior?
--to be continued
--we will try to answer the questions in the third paragraph above in the next post.
- - - - - - -
Coming: More on Bush and his unwar on terrorism, more on Jews in Jerusalem & Hebron, more on the peace follies, etc.