Condi’s Two State Solution – or another Final Solution? 

The lamentable pressure by Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice which led to U.S. betrayal of Israel. 

By Victor Sharpe

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice meets Abu Mazen on Feb 17, 2007. Youtube 

In 1989, the U.S. State Department set three conditions for dealing with Yasser Arafat and his Palestine Liberation Organization: recognition of Israel, acceptance of U.N. Resolution 242 and renunciation of terrorism.

Predictably, the PLO did none of these three. Instead, it used the lexicon of the Arab bazaar into bamboozling a procession of U.S officials into believing it was agonizing over surrender to American diktats. Of course it was doing no such thing, but the State Department fell, hook, line and sinker, into the trap, ruling that the PLO had met all three conditions.

Almost at the same time the State Department certified PLO compliance, Arafat, speaking in Arabic to his Arab supporters, reassured them that the PLO’s diplomatic maneuvers were merely part of a phased approach to the liquidation of Israel.

Just after the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, Arafat spoke to Muslims in South Africa wherein he indicated that they should not worry. He had no intention of honoring any peace agreement with the Jews and mentioned the Treaty of Hudabiyya.

That treaty, which Mohammed, the founder of Islam, made with a non-Muslim tribe was violated by him as soon as he felt his forces strong enough to defeat the other party to the agreement. Arafat’s Muslim audience immediately understood that Mohammed’s precedent applied to every agreement signed by Muslims with non-Muslims.

Arafat was the world’s arch terrorist and leading exponent of the PLO’s two-phase strategy to first grab whatever territory it could from a naïve Israel, thus reducing Israel to indefensible borders, and from its new base continue its assault on what remained of the Jewish state.

The creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza was Arafat’s old strategy, now fully employed by the so-called moderate leader of the Palestinian Authority, the Holocaust denier and terrorist in a suit, Mahmoud Abbas.

Twenty years later from 1989 and the same State Department was pressing Israel to make catastrophic concessions to the Palestinian Authority. But then Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, made it an article of faith to relentlessly push for a Palestinian state, irrespective of whether it intended to live in peace with its Jewish neighbor, and turn what was left of Israel into a mere satrapy of the United States.

Rice grotesquely looked upon the Palestinian Arabs as a mirror image of the suffering and humiliation her African American ancestors endured in the old segregation south. This insulting delusion brought with it an almost messianic zealotry into pushing, at all costs, for the creation of a Muslim state that would inevitably be hostile to Israel and be created within the very ancestral and biblical heartland of ancient Israel: Judea and Samaria (the so-called West Bank).

Nothing had changed since 1989. Mahmoud Abbas still has not altered the harsh rhetoric of hostility towards Israel. The PLO charter still declares, “Palestine stretches from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean” and it vows “elimination of Zionism in Palestine.” This means the destruction of Israel.

Mahmoud Abbas, heir to Arafat’s soiled keffiyeh mouths the same language of dissimilitude as his mentor. Writing in an article titled “Peace As A Strategic Option,” back in an April, 2008 edition of the New English Review, Hugh Fitzgerald stated that, “Abbas for his part, has always been a weak leader, and he and his other Fatah warlords are seen, correctly, as willing to mouth certain phrases for the Americans – ‘we choose peace’ – the only words that too many credulous and willing-to-believe Americans hear.

“But Abbas never fails to add another phrase, which signals clearly to Arab audiences that Hudabiyya is the model; Hudabiyya the aim as a strategic option.

The Americans have mostly never understood what that phrase still means. It is a little puzzling or troubling, so better for them, and for the peace-process, not to think about it, much less discuss it.”

The Palestinians still deliberately misconstrue U.N. Resolution 242 as requiring complete withdrawal by Israel to the pre-June 6, 1967, borders. This was never the intention of the framers of that resolution. The Security Council did not say Israel must withdraw from “all” the territories occupied after the Six Day War. The resolution spoke of withdrawal, but deliberately without defining the extent of withdrawal.

Back in 1989, Arafat reaffirmed the goal of the two-phase strategy whereby whatever land Israel gave away would form a Palestinian state from which to launch the next phase: the destruction of Israel.

A few months later the head of the PLO’s political department said.  “. . . we shall pitch our tent in those places which our bullets can reach . . . this tent shall then form the base from which we shall later pursue the next phase.”

Leaving aside the Jewish state’s spiritual and historic patrimony in the land, the security risks that Rice imposed by demanding that Israel maintain fewer and fewer checkpoints to protect Israeli civilians from Palestinian terror attacks, became unbearable.

It also patently exhibited her seemingly total disregard for Israeli suffering and an increasingly transparent favoring of the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians. Condoleezza Rice also appeared to be pushing the Saudi peace plan, which was inimical to Israel’s security.

In appeasing Rice, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who then headed Israel’s Labor Party, gave to the Secretary of State a 35-page booklet. In that document, Israel provided details of even more far-reaching concessions.

Apart from removing as many as 50 checkpoints, which were there because Palestinians continued murdering Jews, Ms. Rice wanted Israel to open the Gaza-Israel border with all the attendant dangers to the Jewish state that would inevitably follow.

According to Israel National Radio, within hours after Israel was thus forced to remove a military anti-terror checkpoint at the behest of U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, a Fatah terrorist nearly succeeded in kidnapping an Israeli civilian. The attack was carried out by a wing of Mahmoud Abbas’s own Fatah gang.

Also, according to Israel National News, “Other unilateral Israeli moves to assist the constituency-lacking Fatah included the authorization of up to 8,000 new homes for a new PA Arab settlement in the Binyamin region; providing Fatah with armored vehicles from Russia; the deployment of PA police despite their involvement in recent fatal attacks upon Israeli civilians and the removal of security checkpoints.”

Meanwhile Arab terrorist attacks continued unabated, but Condoleezza Rice was still not satisfied with Israeli concessions. She wanted more and more and more.

According to Dan Diker, Head of the Inst. for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, who appeared on a webcast from Jerusalem given by the Likud party and titled “Israel at the Crossroads,” Israel has moved from a negotiating position based on “secure borders” to one that involves “concession diplomacy.”

In return for Israel’s physical and tangible concessions, it was understood that the Jewish state never receives anything at all in return from the Arabs. “Land for Peace,” whereby Israel gives away land to the Arabs yet never receives peace, is as ruinous for the Jewish state as for the thirsty soul lost in the desert who is led to ultimate doom by an illusory mirage.

Concessions lead down a one-way street, which only the Israeli car drives upon. It is a roadmap to national suicide. It has ever been so and its implications, as Fitzgerald implied, eludes the present crop of leftist Israeli political leaders despite all the disastrous experiences gained from previous concessions.

I am reminded of the words spoken by Max Nordau, a philosopher and Zionist leader, to perhaps the greatest Zionist of all time, Vladimir “Zev” Jabotinsky. Nordau said, “…the Jew learns not by way of reason but from catastrophes. He won’t buy an umbrella merely because he sees clouds in the sky. He waits until he is drenched and catches pneumonia.”

Jabotinsky was later to have his heart broken as European Jewry rejected his impassioned warnings of their imminent extermination at the hands of Nazi Germany. The Nazi leaders euphemistically called their planned and systematic genocide the Final Solution.

Meanwhile, Mahmoud Abbas, talking to Arab audiences at an Arab League meeting in Damascus, asked in Arabic for all Arab countries to come to the aid of the Palestinians against Israel.

These were and remain not the words of a partner to peace. Instead, Abbas agrees to a so-called “two state solution” leading inexorably to a one state solution. That one state, as far as the Palestinians are concerned, ultimately stretches from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River. Bye, bye Israel?

As Fitzgerald stated, “… one can try now this, and now that. One can fly about, conducting shuttle diplomacy. One can force this tangible concession out of the Israelis, and now that one, in exchange, as always, for promises, only Arab promises, and the statement – deeply disturbing – that ‘we have chosen peace as a strategic option.’

“Or one can do something else. One can look steadily and in whole at those texts and tenets of Islam and read what the scholars say about treaty-making between Muslims and non-Muslims. The indispensable understanding of the relevant doctrines can be found in Majid Khadduri’s ‘War and Peace in Islam,’ and if one wishes, one can find dozens or hundreds of other authoritative texts that will all say the same thing.’’

Fitzgerald’s point was and remains well taken when one sees how Israel has been led by a succession of inferior leaders down a slippery slope to its present hellish situation. The slide began at the Madrid conference in 1991 and proceeded with concession after concession forced from Israel, but never from the Arabs, and on to Oslo, Camp David and Annapolis until the catastrophe that today plagues the Jewish state.

Armed with the knowledge that no number of concessions can ever satisfy the Arabs and Muslims, for their selective acceptance of Koranic phrases makes peace for them with the Jewish state inadmissible, Israel can yet grow stronger and stronger.

In pushing for the “two state” solution, which was always Arafat’s “two phase” solution, Condoleezza Rice enabled Arafat’s dream of the piecemeal destruction of Israel to become a clear and present danger.

This was not what we were led to believe was what then President Bush ever intended.  Ominous reports spoke, however, of the president repeatedly calling Israeli Prime Minister Olmert urging him to speed up the “peace” process leading to the creation of a Palestinian state. The President’s growing insistence seemed far more to do with his presidential legacy than to Israel’s security or survival.

Sad to say, his Secretary of State also acted as a loose and very dangerous cannon, its barrel pointed at Israel. And now, fast forward to 2025 and President Trump has told Prime Minister Netanyahu that he will “not allow Israel to annex Judea and Samaria” which he instead called the “West Bank.”

Victor Sharpe is a prolific pro-Israel writer and author of seven published books including Politicide, The attempted murder of the Jewish state.