Look who is not invited to the dinner

US president Barack Husein Obama says he is committed to the so-called Two State solution of Palestine - though not based on Balfour Declaration of 1917, which awarded 44% of land to the Natives and 56% of land to foreign Jews. However, to implement his plan - he has to front the Zionist terrorists ruling Israel and their supporters in his administration and at home.

Obama’s greatest adversary is Israel’s hardliner prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has openly defied Obama. Netanyahu doesn’t want the agenda of an independent Palestine state next to Israel on the table - because, he fears that the proposed Palestinian state, most probably, will be run by pro-Iran Islamic groups (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.) and not by USrael’s favourite secularist Fatah.

In order to confront Netanyhu’s ‘Islamic fear’ - Obama has laid down a dinner table at the White House for some of Israel’s ‘friendly Muslim rulers’. Obama has already played host to King Abdullah II of Jordan. His list of guests for the month of May includes Netanyhu, Hosni Mubbrak (Egypt), and Mahmoud Abbas (PA) - while the elected Palestinian prime minister Ismail Haniya is not welcomed to tell Obama Palestinians’ side of the story.

As far inviting the leader who wields the most influence in the world’s troubled arena and can help Washington to solve some of its problems in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Gazzah, Venzuela, and Cuba - the Iranian President Dr. Ahmadinejad, is not on Obama’s invitation list. Even the very thought of it would make the powerful Jewish Lobby shake the White House. The Jewish Lobby has already linked Palestinian solution with Islamic Iran. “The US must deal with Iran first, before Israel will even consider discussing the US’s peace agenda (on Palestine),” - Israeli deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon said recently.

On the other hand - Obama’s Zionist Jewish boy at the White House, Rahm Emanuel reportedly told a Jewish leader: “In the next four year there is going to be a permanent status arrangement between Israel and Palestinians on the basis of two states for two people, and it doesn’t matter to us who is the prime minister (of Israel)…….US sympathy for Israel position vis a vis Iran depends on Israel’s willingness to live up to its commitment to get out of the West Bank and permit the establishment of a Palestinian state there, in Gaza, and East Jerusalem……”

Anyone who has read the history of western colonialism - should be aware of the fact that European colonialist never lived side-by-side with an independent country of their vivtims. The ‘two state’ solution is like chasing a mirage. Furthermore, the dream of the World Zionist movement always have been the creation of a ‘demographic (only for Jews) state’, which play a western bully to the Arab world. The ‘two state’ solution is nothing but a short-time cosmetic surgery. The only viable and durable solution would be ‘One Palestinian State‘, a democratic state with equal rights for all its citizens - Muslims, Jews, and Christians.

“Once again the West and especially the Anglo-Americans must acknowledge the obvious fact: democracy in the Arab world mean Islam. Unless someone is really Islamophobic this should not raise a problem. But apparently, we have too many Islam haters, both in the left and in the right, who happen to be horrified by the success of Islam in the masses……One democratic and secular Palestine has apparently very little to do with the Palestinian reality. Apparently, the majority of the Palestinia people in Palestine prefer to live in an Islamic state rather than a secular and democratic one……” - Gilad Atzmon on Hamas victory, published in ‘peacepalestine’ on January 26, 2006.

“Personally, I am not in favour of the so-called ‘two state’ solution and would prefer one state with equal rights for all the dwellers of Palestine/Israel…..” - Israel Shamir in ‘Oops!’

“Sometimes we get so overwhelmed with the huge amount of propaganda that we are not able to see the whole picture, the clear chain of events with similar patterns from the Gaza Strip to Baghdad to Somalia to Darfur to Beirut. Some elements can be different in each case, but they have one thing in common, the master colonialist project of United States and the high security risks that these events cause to its main settlement in the region, Israel. These places are strategically interconnected and the success of the US plan in the region depends being able to control them….” - Nadia Hasan, America Don\’t Worry: Israel is Behind You!

Helena Cobban in her article titled “Obama and Netanyahu: Storm Clouds Ahead“, wrote:

“Policies toward Iran have, certainly, become linked to policies toward Palestine in a number of complex ways. Hillary Clinton yesterday told a congressional panel that Israeli recalcitrance on the Palestine issue would make it much harder for the U.S. to win Arab support for continuing the confrontation with Iran.

Netanyahu, for his part, has hinted openly that he might be ready to launch a pre-emptive military strike against Iran — especially if he feels he is under pressure on the peace question. The well-informed Israeli journalist Aluf Benn noted, with some understatement, that this constituted a threat “to disrupt Obama’s ‘new order’ in the region.”

For now, both Obama and Netanyahu are still engaged in “pre-game sparring” and other preparations for the big confrontation between them that may well erupt next month.

For the past 16 years — including during Netanyahu’s earlier term in office, 1996-99 — there has not been any big open rupture between Washington and Tel Aviv over the peace process or any other issue.

Throughout those years, successive Israeli prime ministers could always rely both on the support they had in the White House and on the deep funds of support Israel always had in Congress. Thus, if a president looked as if he might even be considering starting to apply pressure on Israel, the Israelis felt they could always rely on Congress to bring the White House to heel.

But now, the level of support that Israel formerly always enjoyed in Congress, regardless of the content of its policies, has been significantly reduced…..”