PA official to Lebanon TV: Two-State solution will cause Israel's collapse

Yet another reason Israel doesn't want a two-state solution. Can you blame them?
May 26, 2009

In an interview with Lebanese TV, PLO Ambassador to Lebanon Abbas Zaki aired the Palestinian strategy: Give us two states so we can wear down the Zionist mindset. Once that happens, the Palestinians can take over all of the land, so Zaki told ANB TV on May 7, 2009. He actually lays out the strategy in two separate interviews and, besides rocks and rockets, it includes ideological warfare: "When the ideology of Israel collapses, and we take, at least, Jerusalem, the Israeli ideology will collapse in its entirety, and we will begin to progress with our own ideology, Allah willing, and drive them out of all of Palestine." 

"With the two-state solution, in my opinion, Israel will collapse, because if they get out of Jerusalem, what will become of all the talk about the Promised Land and the Chosen People? What will become of all the sacrifices they made - just to be told to leave? They consider Jerusalem to have a spiritual status. The Jews consider Judea and Samaria to be their historic dream. If the Jews leave those places, the Zionist idea will begin to collapse. It will regress of its own accord. Then we will move forward."

(To view this clip on MEMRI TV, visit http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2109.htm) 

Zaki, who is part of the 'moderate' Fatah party, has made other enlightening statements in the past: 

"In light of the blood that is being shed in Gaza, and the crying of the men - not only of the women... The hardest thing is to watch the men crying in Gaza. I now support any operation that will make the women and men in Israel cry. When the Al-Qassam Brigades and all the other forces were told to strike everywhere, I expected things to be carried out quickly. All those who always flex their muscles, and say they want to slaughter Israel - this is their opportunity. Soon, the world will view us as those responsible for the crime. Currently, in light of what is happening to the children of Gaza, any martyrdom operation is permissible, I swear by Allah."

..."Don't forget we're Arabs - we believe in blood vengeance. No one can treat our blood like water. We should have afflicted them with three or four operations, and then their women would have said to those sons of bitches: 'Come home, we are getting killed here.' When Israel focuses on one front, other fronts should be activated.

New TV, January 6, 2009(to view this clip on MEMRI TV, visit http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1980.htm ).

And then he tags the U.S. too, for good measure.

Abbas Zaki: "We consider the U.S. to be an enemy because its only strategic alliance is with Israel."

Interviewer: "How can you consider Israel to be your enemy, if you signed a peace treaty with it?"

Abbas Zaki: "Allow me... This enemy... If I had the capabilities of the U.S. - would I be fighting it or negotiating with it?"

Interviewer: "Israel ceased being an enemy once you signed a peace treaty with it. I don’t know how it could be your enemy. Do you talk to the Israelis as if they were your enemies? Do you talk to Israel as a friendly or enemy country?"

Abbas Zaki: "An enemy country, which owes us certain things. The heroic Vietnamese used to negotiate with the French, while they were slaughtering them."

Interviewer: "I can assure you that in his speeches, Abu Mazen says the U.S. is a friendly country."

Abbas Zaki: "Well, this isn’t true. Perhaps Abu Mazen, in his position, needs to use diplomatic language, but he is the greatest critic of the U.S."

OTV, November 7, 2008 (to view this clip on MEMRI TV, visit http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1933.htm ).

And lastly, some more thoughts:

"The use of weapons alone will not bring results, and the use of politics without weapons will not bring results. We act on the basis of our extensive experience. We analyze our situation carefully. We know what climate leads to victory and what climate leads to suicide. We talk politics, but our principles are clear. It was our pioneering leader, Yasser Arafat, who persevered with this revolution, when empires collapsed. Our armed struggle has been going on for 43 years, and the political struggle, on all levels, has been going on for 50 years. We harvest U.N. resolutions, and we shame the world so that it doesn't gang up on us, because the world is led by people who have given their brains a vacation - the American administration and the neocons."[...]

..."The P.L.O. is the sole legitimate representative [of the Palestinian people], and it has not changed its platform even one iota. In light of the weakness of the Arab nation and the lack of values, and in light of the American control over the world, the P.L.O. proceeds through phases, without changing its strategy. Let me tell you, when the ideology of Israel collapses, and we take, at least, Jerusalem, the Israeli ideology will collapse in its entirety, and we will begin to progress with our own ideology, Allah willing, and drive them out of all of Palestine."

NBN TV, April 9, 2008(to view this clip on MEMRI TV, visit http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1738.htm)

Israeli Newspaper: Two states based on false assumptions

May 26, 2009

Most Israeli newspapers are liberal, more left wing than the American media, if you can believe it. So when a newspaper publishes an editorial saying the two-state solution is based on erroneous assumptions, its time to take note. 

Here is Monday's editorial from Yediot Ahronot, which outlines these false assumptions which has become the basis for the "two states for two peoples" principle and American faith in it: 

1. The establishment of a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders is the substance of the Palestinians' national aspirations. A small, truncated state, the establishment of which would require them to agree to the end of the conflict and its claims is the Palestinians' nightmare, not their national dream.  Three times they could have had such a state (1937, 1947 and 2000), and three times they rejected it. 

2. The gap between the Israeli and Palestinian position is bridgeable.  The reality is otherwise.  The maximum that the Israeli Government – any government – will be able to offer the Palestinians and still survive politically is far from the minimum that the Palestinian administration – any administration – will be able to agree to and survive politically. 

3. Egypt and Jordan want to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and will, therefore, render assistance. The reality is opposite: Both Egypt and Jordan prefer the continuation of the existing situation in which the conflict continues and they can continue blaming Israel.  As long as the conflict goes on, the Egyptians have the ultimate excuse to all of their troubles in the region.  For the Jordanians, a Palestinian state on their border, under (it is reasonable to assume) a Hamas administration, would be the end of the Hashemite monarchy.  

4. A permanent settlement would bring stability and security to the region. The exact opposite.  There is no chance that a small, truncated Palestinian state would be viable.  The frustration that would be created in such a situation, certainly in Gaza, with Israel lacking defensible borders is a clear foundation for instability.  

5. There is a chance now that we cannot miss.  If we compare the current situation to that which prevailed in 2000, the clear conclusion is that the chance to reach an agreement then was far greater than it is now – and it did not happen.  Is it possible today to reach an agreement in Judea and Samaria, to say nothing of Gaza, when Hamas is the dominant Palestinian movement?  

6. Progress on the Palestinian issue is essential in order to aid the Arab countries against Iran. What does one have to do with the other?  The Arab countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt) have a supreme interest in blocking Iran, with or without the Palestinian issue.  

7. There is only one solution to the conflict. Says who? When, either here or in the US, was a deep study ever done on all the possibilities?  One can easily point to alternative solutions that would also free the Palestinians from Israeli control."  The author believes that the chances to conclude a permanent agreement, now, based on the "two state" solution are no greater than they were at Oslo, Camp David or Annapolis and declares, "One hopes that the almost assured failure will not have negative repercussions in other areas, such as stopping Iran or US-Israeli relations."