The benefit of the two state solution is not that it is feasible, but that it exists as an ideal to help, especially Americans, find comfort in supporting an ethnic state nearly identical to the state Apartheid advocates hoped to accomplish with offers - rejected by Nelson Mandela, the ANC and the broader anti-Apartheid movement - to create separate subordinate Bantu-stans which would have diverted enough non-White potential voters to make an enforced White political majority state viable.
Obama claims now that he opposed Apartheid when US activists were demonstrating against it. I believe him for the most part, except that it is difficult to reconcile that previous position with Obama's 2012 State of the Union address which contained nothing Ronald Reagan might not have said.
So for Barack Hussein Obama, a person with Muslims in his direct family, Bantu-stans were unacceptable for Black South Africans, but an admirable goal for Palestinians. That part is easy to explain: Barack Obama is now the most spectacular Uncle Tom in human history.
But over at Informed Comment, we see a guest editorial by more authors who have arrived at the conclusion that the Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank that would be necessary for a two state solution is not feasible.
To counter this argument, critics may point to the withdrawal of Jewish settlements from Gaza in 2005. That example, however, actually supports our argument. In order to remove 8,000 Jewish settlers from Gaza, an easily isolated region of no religious significance to Jews, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, a military hero idolized by both the settlers and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) had to deploy the entire man and woman power of all of Israel’s security forces. Moreover, the Gaza withdrawal was not done in agreement with the Palestinians, or in order to facilitate peace with them. It was done unilaterally, in order to make Israel’s control of Gaza more efficient. Judging by this example, removing 100,000 settlers from the West Bank, in order to enable the establishment of a Palestinian state, would be an impossible task.This article misses the point that the purpose of the two state solution is not to actually happen, but to provide a moral illusion that the permanent subjugation of the Palestinian people is temporary.
Is it genuine naivete or cynical deception of self and others? I’m not sure, but Barack Obama will tell you, and tells audiences continuously, that the United States supports Palestinians being under the military control of Israel only as a temporary measure. It will end when two states are agreed upon, which is right around corner.
From all indications, Barack Obama would feel - or at least claim to feel - morally justified in his support for Zionism if this two state solution was "around the corner" forever.
Westerners sometimes support this illusion with deliberately misleading polls asking Arab and Muslim populations if they would accept Israel if Israel met conditions that left and right wing Israeli officials repeatedly announce that they will never meet. These are efforts to deceive audiences, primarily Western and especially American audiences, to believe the day will (soon!) come when the Arab and Muslim worlds will happily accept the US and Zionist effective colonial control over their region that is necessary for Israel to be viable as an enforced Jewish political majority state.
We’ve reached and gone far past the point that US support for a two state solution is a just typical Western lie, not much different from US claims of support for democracy as it effectively maintains colonies in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, Kuwait and others.