Stephen C. Sanders
May 23, 2011 5:07am EST
Interesting that one nation endure countless terrorist acts of a significant nature with extremely limited and retrained retaliatory measures: Israel. While another nation endures, yes a major affront (9/11) against it's "super-power" status, an then finds a reason to be engaged in all out warfare, as a pre-emptive measure: US in it's war against Iraq.
So, from the viewpoint or lens of what has commonly been called World Opinion we come to understand that Israel in some warped and convoluted way is viewed as an agressor, while the nation of the United States is viewed as a peaceful and peace loving nation. How is that ever explained by these endless media commentators?
Furthermore, the United States enjoys what we have come to expect as the ability to live relatively free form the onslaught of of outrageous misfortune at the hands of what must be 100's, thousands, yes perhaps millions of "anti-US" individuals or factions throughout the world. While our brothers and sisters, also a peace loving and democratic nation supposedly have to accept some state of constant concern even when going about their daily business, be it going into a large shopping mall (ready to have your bags searched for weapons) or even simply going into a bus station or boarding a train, yes be ready for the same thing.
Yet there is this constant din for concessions from Israel, to be granted granted to their agressors. History as viewed from the eyes of the aggressors can paint any sort of picture it chooses, while the true victim of day to day terrorist actions has to always be concerned with the way the world views its acts of retaliation.
Now in what can only be clearly called as sense of unmitigated gall, we the people of the United States, a peace loving nation, maintaining a well organized and funded state of war against some nation abroad because of a theoretical concern that the nation we are at war with has been developing weapons of mass destruction: US war on Iraq. While another nation Israel, also has an definite enemy Iran, that clearly is and has been developing weapons of mass destruction, yet that nation Israel, must not attempt to initiate a pre-emptive attack on this extremely aggressive and well funded nation.Yes the intelligent conclusion can only be, history as viewed from the eye, as well as the lens of the carefully composed media, of sophisticated and technologically as well as economically wealthy nations, indeed is often quite a warped view. Sophisticated thought requires some reflection and well thought out basis for forming opinions. Yet the prevailing method it seems utilized by the media is to easily adopt what simply may be a well organized and staged "protest" against so-called inhumane treatment by a nation which values human rights. I am talking of course about the "situation" in Gaza. A nation held hostage by their own "democratically elected hostile regime"!
Of course any simple unilateral solution such as removing the hostile forces using military technology if necessary, is not what a sophisticated 21st century "peace loving" nation would do. No of course not, how could such a simple solution even be entertained in today's concept of bending over backwards for the "... tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." the thing that instead gets proposed instead is, go ahead and offer your theoretically righteously wronged and oppressed victims living in a self inflicted hell, offer them a little of your tiny precious holy land and let them call it home. Allow them to form their own government, and establish their own borders.
Sure, in what world view could a brokered peace ultimatum "A Two State Solution" handed down by a theoretically neutral third party, the United States, ever be an acceptable solution to a problem which is only caused by the fact that the aggressor who is being appeased is determined to destroy the very nation, which it seeks to gain entrance into. Certainly a two state solution would only encourage a permanent "all out" situation of what could only be deemed open warfare! Inviting your enemies to live peacefully in your own backyard is not a formula for peace, and should not earn the person or nation who brokers such a deal, an sort of prize. No, it simply is a notion which is carefully constructed on falsehoods and media crafted outrageous lies.
History as viewed through the eyes of the agressor! Our enlightened and intelligent eyes simply cannot stand to look at these upsetting images of a nation which apparently appears to suffering. So lets quickly make up some sort of solution, even if the long term affects of actually implementing it, would be outrageously destructive.Some people believe, that simply talking about the idea is fine. However history has often shown that talks often lead to action. The action in this case could easily lead to the tragic downfall of a peace loving and stable nation. The two state solution might seem on the surface to temporarily solve a growing concern, however in the long run, it looks like a truly poorly constructed idea primarily because the faction being appeased in such an offer is hesitant to even accept that the Israel, which would be offering them this kindness, their own little parcel or town to call their own, even has a right to exist. No, a plan that includes as part of its essential ingredient an offering to invite a sworn enemy of the state into their own backyard is not a recipe for success. It clearly is a recipe for failure, unimaginable future acts of terrorist activity and bloodshed.
Perhaps the time has finally come, to simple scrap this plan known as the two state solution.
Stephen C. Sanders
May 23, 2011 5:07am EST