Maybe Obama wants to do like Brits in ‘48, and walk away from the mess

by Philip Weiss on April 16, 2009 · 7 comments

Jack Ross responds to MJ Rosenberg's report of an imposed two-state solution:

Why is a promise to attack Iran an inducement for Israel to accept a genuine two state solution?  Never mind that no Palestinian leader with popular credibility would agree to it.  Is Netanyahu really THAT obsessed with Iran that he'll allow a Palestinian state in order to have said obsession appeased?  I'm not saying he isn't, but something is very very wrong if he is.

Steve Walt on his blog gives a far more muted version of the same conclusion, but frankly such a plan as described in this story could not be more contrary to what's actually in America's interest.  Rapproachment with Iran, to allow us to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan with some dignity, should be the paramount goal, not solving a certain ethnic conflict on the condition that we become more belligerent with Iran, the larger significance of said conflict and America's deep implication in it notwithstanding.

At the end of the day, Obama runs the serious risk of becoming too invested in the two-state solution that it could blow up in his face once its unambiguously off the table.  But if the British could wash their hands of everything in 1948 and come out reasonably OK, there's no reason Obama couldn't in the worst case scenario too.

Related posts:

  1. Brits lobby Jews to support Obama
  2. (Oy) Obama chooses 3 Jews as Middle East envoys
  3. Report: Obama will impose two-state solution
  4. Comic’s Appeal to Jewish Voters for Obama Is Careful
  5. Obama will fold to the generals, just like LBJ did

{ 7 comments }

1 doug April 17, 2009 at 2:13 am

I believe Israel has been holding out the two state solution as something they will do after Iran is dealt with. Obama is turning the tables. I think neither exects to follow through on part 2 if their initial goal is met.

2 Joachim Martillo April 17, 2009 at 8:57 am

The UK was able to walk away in '48 because the center of the Zionist Virtual Colonial Motherland (Judonia) moved to the USA.

Yet Britain was hardly unscathed. It lost the British Empire, and after Palestinians, Indian-Pakistani Muslims received the worst of the deal.

3 Joachim Martillo April 17, 2009 at 12:20 pm

[Somehow the hyperlinks were lost the first time I posted this comment.]

The UK was able to walk away in '48 because the center of the Zionist Virtual Colonial Motherland (Judonia) moved to the USA.

Yet Britain was hardly unscathed. It lost the British Empire, and after Palestinians, Indian-Pakistani Muslims received the worst of the deal.

4 Chris Berel April 17, 2009 at 1:44 pm

Seems to happen all the time to nations that abandon their moral commitment to Israel. England, France, Soviet Union, all down the tubes.

5 Shafiq April 17, 2009 at 2:32 pm

Hah Chris, you make me laugh.

I'd much rather live in England (or France for that matter) than live in the US. As would many others.

You still haven't answered my question about your name. Are you a Jew for Jesus?

6 Joachim Martillo April 17, 2009 at 4:03 pm

Hey Berel, Did you hear about the finance industry meltdown?

Take a look at my wife's op-ed and my commentary.

Everyone on Wall Street is aware that the so-called Jewish "New Crowd" is entirely responsible for the collapse even if no one says it out loud.

7 Chris Berel April 18, 2009 at 8:21 am

Joachim, you are a classic antisemitic nutcase. There is no reason to read anything you have written as it stems from your insanity.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post: Many official Israeli maps fail to show Occupied Territories

Next post: Norwegian doctor’s presentation on Gaza attack leaves Chicago audience ’shell shocked’