Petra Marquardt-Bigman is not happy that
the magazine known as Foreign Affairs, gave a platform to Yousef Munayyer, the
executive director of the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, to promote his
vision of a one-state solution for the conflict in the Middle East.
And so, Petra Marquardt-Bigman wrote an
article under the title: “The Myth of a Progressive Palestine,” and had it
published on November 11, 2019 in the Jewish publication, Algemeiner.
The conflict being about one piece of land
called Palestine that is claimed by two groups of people, the Palestinians and
the Jews, we'll do well to take a close look both at the claimants involved in
the dispute, and the possible options that may exist for the resolution of the
conflict.
As to the claimants, you have the
Palestinians who lived on the land in question since the beginning of time. And
you have the Jews who antagonized everyone in Europe to a point where the
Europeans wanted them out of their continent. They killed as many Jews as they
could, and pushed the rest out to go settle in Palestine or any place else that
would take them in.
As to the possible options for a
resolution of the conflict, there are three of them. The first is the Jewish
return to the borders agreed to by the United Nations––known as the 1948
borders. They represent a small enclave, originally called a Jewish homeland.
But when Jewish greed linked with European neocolonialism and American
political opportunism, the corresponding countries made common cause, and the
Jewish homeland (renamed Israel) received all the money and weapons it needed
to expand. It did so during the following two decades, and grew in size up to
the 1967 borders. A return of Israel to those borders in exchange for a peace
treaty with all the Arab nations, would represent the second option.
By this time, the Arab neighbors, were
growing strong enough to worry Israel and the colonial powers that were
supporting it. They worried because they coveted the resources of those
neighbors, such as the fresh water sources of the Levant, the oil and gas
reserves of the region, and the Suez Canal of Egypt. The Jews and the colonial
powers that were helping them, wanted to take control of these resources, and
for this to happened, wanted the neighbors to remain incapable of defending
their properties.
Thus, after a 1956 dry run that served to
show Israel how to do it, the colonial powers had Israel attack its neighbors
in 1967, thus began the six-year war that saw Israel make some initial gains
but then pushed back to the 1967 borders except for a narrow piece of land on
Syria's Golan Heights, as well as the entire Palestinian West Bank of the
Jordan River; both of which have remained in the hands of the Jews to this day.
And this is the situation that has one group of people calling themselves Jews,
occupying the indigenous people of Palestine. It is the situation for which the
world is seeking a resolution.
Thus, beside the option of confining
Israel to the 1948 borders, there is also the 1967 option. If implemented, it
will result in a two-state solution; one being Palestine which comprises the
West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The other will be Israel which comprises the 1948
borders plus whatever Israel has grabbed up to the year 1967. In addition to
those two options, there is the one-state solution, which will turn all of
Palestine, comprising the 1967 borders plus the West Bank, and maybe Gaza as
well, into one state.
The Jews reject all three options, giving
a phony excuse for each rejection because the reality is that they always
wanted all of Palestine but without the Palestinians that have lived on the
land since the beginning of time. While falsely accusing the Palestinians of
rejecting any resolution to the conflict, the Jews have come up with several
schemes to ethnic cleanse Palestine of its population but failed to implement
any of them.
Now, the Jews are finally admitting that
they were the ones who constantly rejected what they now call the myth of a
Progressive Palestine. They were lying, in fact, to justify maintaining the
status quo in the hope that a miraculous solution will present itself, and the
Palestinians will just disappear. Meanwhile, the Jewish leaders are proceeding
full steam ahead at playing the diplomatic game the only way they know how: by
adding insult to injury. They are slandering the Palestinians, attributing to
them, every sin they see in themselves.
What Yousef Munayyer has proposed, is a
resolution that would be modeled more or less after the South African deal that
ended apartheid in that country. That is, the Jewish colonial rule over the
Palestinians will end. There will be a reconciliation between the Palestinian
people and the multi-national, multi-ethnic group that calls itself Jewish. A
system of one-man-one-vote will be instituted and implemented from the Jordan
River to the Mediterranean Sea. And life will resume normally and peacefully in
the place that needs both normalcy and peace more than anywhere else in the
world.
This being the third option, Jews of the
Petra Marquardt-Bigman kind are rejecting it along with all the other models
because they still dream of a miraculous something that will result in ethnic
cleansing Palestine of its indigenous population, and give the Jews all of
Palestine.
Until this happens, the Jews will continue
to slander the people they have been victimizing for more than half a century
already. The world will hate the Jews for this kind of demonic behavior. The
Jews will call that response antisemitism and will pretend to suffer from it.