Agha & Malley Are At It - Again

Hussein Agha and Rober Malley have an op-ed in...the NYTimes (how'd you guess?).

The Two-State Solution Doesn’t Solve Anything


Excerpts and comments and I'll keep it short:

1.

Bowing to American pressure, Mr. Netanyahu conceded the principle of a Palestinian state, but then described it in a way that stripped it of meaningful sovereignty.

Anything truly 'meaningful', well, means existential survival danger of Israel: uncontrolled weapons imports; alliances with other countries; unchecked refugee return; influx of other various terrorists; etc.

2.

The dueling discourses speak to something far deeper than and separate from Palestinian statehood. Mr. Netanyahu underscores that Israel must be recognized as a Jewish state — and recalls that the conflict began before the West Bank or Gaza were occupied. Palestinians, in turn, reject recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, uphold the refugees’ rights and maintain that if Israel wants real closure, it will need to pay with more than mere statehood.

Exactly. But the 'conversation' or 'communication', rather than 'discourse', was initiated by the Arbs who reacted and responded to increased Jewish immigration and the recogniztion of the world of our patrimonial rights to the Land of Israel in extreme and blind violence.

3.

The exchange, for the first time in a long while, brings the conflict back to its historical roots, distills its political essence and touches its raw emotional core.

So, is that bad for the Jews, bad for the Arabs, good for who?

Who will lose out?


4.

The modern Palestinian national movement, embodied in the Palestine Liberation Organization, has been, above all, a refugee movement — led by refugees and focused on their plight.

Really? And here I thought it was about killing Jews and preventing a Jewish state from being established. What does he mean by "modern"? There was no 'ancient' movement, at least not, for sure, as ancient as the Jews. It only started in the early 1920s and only due to the Jews.

5.

The ultimate territorial outcome almost certainly will be found within the borders of 1967.

Within? Don't they mean "without"? Or do they mean the 1947 borders?

6.

...the heart of the matter is not necessarily how to define a state of Palestine. It is, as in a sense it always has been, how to define the state of Israel.

Exactly. But moreso: will there be a Jewish state if the Arabs have their way?