BOA (Bush, Olmert, Abbas) sounds sinister, but it makes a handy, efficient acronym. (I certainly don’t mean it to sound disrespectful, I should append.)
When BOA (and others) talk of a two-state solution, they have in mind Israel and Palestine. Like this:
Palestinian state crucial for Israel, Olmert says
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said after peace talks in Washington that failure to negotiate a two-state solution with the Palestinians could threaten Israel’s long-term survival. |
When I think of a two-state reality, I think of Gaza and the West Bank. These are both Palestinian entities, but they are two separate entities. At each other’s throats. Frequently, literally. With Israel sorta surrounding and sorta surrounded by the pinchers.
They already threaten Israel’s long-term viability.
To continue negotiations with them, especially with the weaker pincher, only makes matters worse.
And matters will get worse. Much worse. Modern Israel ain’t seen nothing yet.
That’s how I read my Bible, anyway.
Oh, and speaking of the West Bank and Gaza (and even the Golan Heights) . . . .
Why should they be Israel’s any less than certain American states, seized and annexed from Mexico, are the US’s?
Perhaps pro-two-stater politicians in the US should lead by example and enter into negotiations with Mexico for the return of those certain American states.
Just a thought.
A wild one, I know, especially since (good) example and politics may be oxymoronic concepts. 🙂