The EyeOpener- USrael vs. Palestine: A Two-Faced Rejection of a Two-State Solution

Presenting Distinguished  Journalists Pepe Escobar & Joe Lauria

Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas is scheduled to visit New York next week to unveil a formal bid for Palestinian membership in the United Nations. The bid has been widely reported since its announcement this month and has been fiercely opposed by the United States and Israel, who fear that such a bid represents a unilateral move on the Palestinians' part toward implementing a two-state solution, something that they argue must be the result of negotiations between the parties.

The Palestinians have expressed frustration with Israel's refusal to extend a 10-month moratorium on settlements in areas that are likely to be part of a future Palestinian state, and its rejection of the use of the 1967 borders with land swaps as the basis for a two-state solution.

Now all sides are shaping up for protracted political wrangling as the specter of a Palestinian UN membership bid has upset the balance of power in an already volatile region.

This is our EyeOpener Report by James Corbett on facts and issues missing in the mainstream media and comments by distinguished journalists Pepe Escobar and Joe Lauria on US-Israel vs. Palestine: :  A Two-Faced Rejection of a Two-State Solution:

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.


  1. Statehood (UN membership)would allow Palestine to join UN agencies but not vote, or issue legislation etc but its a step and a moral victory and shows in a concrete way Palestine’s world support. However Israel is not going to withdraw any settlements.

  2. W3WantAnswers says:

    We live in and always HAVE lived in a world where MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.

    To pretend otherwise is naive in my opinion. A perusal through the proverbial and literal pages of history will explain very clearly that this is and always has been the rule. Machiavellian geopolitics is what makes the world go round.

    Ideally, OF COURSE I’d like it to be otherwise – but I’m no naive idealist. The first country that tries to “play fair” will be the first country to pay the price. If this is the way the world works – and it most certainly is – I’m glad that it’s my country who is on the top of the pyramid.

    That’s as honest as I can be. If we are to negotiate with other countries, it’s best to do so from a position of strength. That’s just obvious. If it were not the US on top, it’d be some other nation and who knows who that’d be or how we’d be treated.

    I would, however, suggest that we should extend as much empathy and fairness as humanly possible without jeopardizing our position on top just so that if the world order as it is should change – and history suggests that it will – then at least we could make the argument that we were gracious and fair when we had the power.

    I think though, in the post-nuclear age, that it’s virtually impossible to shake from the top a nuclear armed nation. In the past, the world order changed many times because the weaponry of the day didn’t assure a nation dominance. In today’s power picture, a nuclear armed nation such as the US, with all its bases around the world is virtually impossible to jar loose from its stranglehold of the world order.

Speak Your Mind