Israel In Prophecy

Last Name

ABUNIMAH

First Name

Ali

Title

One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse

Publisher

Metropolitan Books, Holt Paperback

Year

2006

Group

AIC8 ANT4

Comments

Ali Abunimah believes that the Two-State Solution is not practical as it would lead to endless bloodshed and apparently equals the cancellation of the right of return of Palestinian refugees. Ruling out a Two-State-Solution even as a transitory one, he therefore argues for the One State option, which he calls a pragmatic one. He believes that the Arab-Israeli conflict is an ethnic conflict rooted in colonialism, comparable to other multicultural and multi-religious conflicts. This erroneous assumption pretends to pay tribute to history, but in fact ignores the history of this conflict, and ignores the irresolvable clash of two religions, even two civilizations. This reductionist interpretation of the conflicts leads him to compare Israel with South Africa (Apartheid), Ireland (IRA) and Belgium (its ethnic conflict). His anti-Zionist bias reveals itself in his confession that he likes to use language Israelis use, and "revert it" so as to attribute equivalence in their respective claims: If Israel claims to have made unprecedented offers, so have the Palestinians, he believes. Israel claims that there is no peace partner; Abunimah says that the Palestinians are still waiting for one. As both sides are falsely portrayed to make the same claims, he exploits the apparent moral equivalence in favor of the Palestinians and gives them the right to use divestment, boycott and struggle to pressure Israel into accomplishing his ‘pragmatic’ and ‘just’ vision of a joint Israeli-Palestinian state. We must give Abinumah the credit that he rightly has come to the conclusion that the so-called Two-State Solution is an illusion. The question must be asked if his ‘One-State’ secular vision of an Israeli-Palestinian nation in which all citizens will have the same rights (one person, one vote) does not amount to replacing one illusion of justice with another one? Where is the proof that a Nation with a majority Muslim population will tolerate a non-Muslim minority as an equal partner and resist the pressure of surrounding Muslim nations to conquer, dominate or even exterminate? If Abinumah implies that the argument is wrong that Israel is the only place on earth where Jews can live in security in this nuclear age, does he imply that the Jews are wrong in believing that they have a historic right to the land that was promised to them by the God of their forefathers? What will happen if Abinumah one day comes to the conclusion that even his present 'vision' of a One-State solution is no solution at all? The hidden agenda behind his approach, and any secular approach that ignores the religious bigotry behind the conflict is the realization that what cannot be attained by violent jihad can be won easily by demographic superiority. This they are eager to package as "democratic" means to a "just and equal" end in order to rally blind allegiance and collusion of the West towards their sinister ends. Indeed, they have not wavered in their public proclamations of their ultimate aim which is to wipe out Jewish presence in the Middle East (as well as every corner of the earth to finish what Hitler started). Israel has suffered enough broken promises as it surrendered significant portions of its land again and again to Arabs, while the myth of homeless Palestinian refugees is perpetuated ad infinitum. Caroline Glick aptly writes, "That [Quartet] plan, which calls for Israel to withdraw from Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights and accept millions of foreign Arabs as citizens as part of the so-called "right of return" in exchange for "natural" relations with the Arab world, has been rejected by successive Israeli governments as a diplomatic subterfuge whose goal is Israel's destruction. By accepting millions of so-called 'Palestinian refugees,' Israel would effectively cease to be a Jewish state. By shrinking into the 1949 armistice lines, Israel would be unable to defend itself against foreign invasion. And since 'natural relations' is a meaningless term both in international legal discourse and in diplomatic discourse, Israel would have committed national suicide for nothing." When you hear rhetoric of peaceful coexistence in a secular Israel mixed with secular Muslims, ask yourself why Islam is not mentioned in any of the reviews. How is the hatred of a whole generation going to evaporate into a purely secular Islamic society? One State or Two State – it all comes to the same: smoke screens behind which to exterminate Israel. They know that there is no solution and they do not honestly want a solution. The status of Jerusalem as undivided capital which happens to be claimed as the birthplace of three religions exposes the duplicity. Even now, if the United States and the EU honestly wanted a two-State solution they would all have to move their Embassies to Jerusalem in the first place and at the same time put their Embassies into whatever part they force upon Israel to accept as the capital of the Palestinian State. They know very well that this does not work and therefore they continue to lie, EU included. This is extreme hypocrisy. And the world remains silent. So, if the issue still is the Jewish right to exist as a secure people and as a viable nation, with freedom of religion, in its God-Promised Land, that brings us to the final question: What if in the end there is NO secular-based solution? Once we allow for this possibility, we are ready to ask the ultimate question: According to their Sacred Books, Who provides a future and a home to both Arabs and Jews living together in peace, Allah or YHWH? Read their respective Scriptures and answer that for yourself.

=>« 02089 · Edit Form · 02091 »