June 6, 2021 --

A New York Times story, May 22,  on the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas,  concluded by quoting President Biden's assertion, the day before that "'a two state solution...is the only answer." That of course was the UN General Assembly's answer to the Palestine problem, November 29, 1947 when it adopted General Assembly  Resolution 181 recommending the partition of Palestine into two states -- one Jewish and one Arab, with Jerusalem to hold international status.  The Arab world rejected that solution and went to war against Israel, May 15, 1948 to abort a Jewish state.

Israel prevailed over the invading Arab armies and eventually truces were agreed to between Israel and Egypt, Jordan and Syria.  The first round in the Arab-Israel conflict was over by January 1949.  It is worth noting however, that the truces notwithstandin,g the Arabs  not maintained belligerent rights against Israel.  Egypt's President Gamal Abdul Nasser, for example,  cited belligerency against Israel to justify his ban on Israeli traffic through the Suez Canal.

The documents in the 1948 volume, Part 2, of Foreign Relations of the United States are a treasure trove of material, much of it labeled "Top Secret" at the time, dealing with U.S. diplomacy on the first round of the Arab-Israel conflict.

Of particular interest, in view of Biden's ongoing insistence for "'a two state solution" is a telegram, dated January 3, 1949, from Acting Secretary of State Robert A. Lovett to Wells Stabler, U.S. consul in Amman.  This "Top Secret" communication indicated  more than once that Washington favored the incorporation of the West Bank in Jordan (then known as Transjordan).   This telegram -- which has not drawn much, if any, attention these 72 years -- concluded by authorizing Stabler "to state that US believes logical outcome negotiations between T[rans]J[ordan] and Israelis would be incorporation greater part Arab Palestine in TJ."  Lovett ended the telegram with this observation to Stabler, who was about 30 years old at the time:  "You will know best how to do this without giving impression US supporting TJ against Arab League and without involving US in Arab politics."

Certainly at the Department of State, by the beginning of 1949, a "two state solution" was not considered "the only answer," unless the  two states were Israel and Jordan.   The truth is that there was no recognized State of Palestine in 1949.  Palestine was not a national entity and, therefore, could not have been a belligerent in the Arab-israel conflict.   Egypt created the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1964 as an anti-Israel ploy.  Note, further, that Egypt held the Gaza Strip from 1948 to 1967.  It did not cede the strip, during those years, for purpose of establishing a country, or part thereof, called Palestine. Indeed, Egypt used Gaza as launching pad for the fedayeen irregulars who, from time to time, infiltrated into the southern part of Palestine for purpose of mayhem and murder.  It was the Egypt- sponsored fedayeen raids that prompted Israel to agree to collaborate with Great Britain and France in the October 1956 round in the Middle East conflict.

Throughout the many decades of the conflict between Israel and her neighboring countries -- Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon (Iraq is also a belligerent against Israel, but not contiguous with her, the thrust of international diplomacy seemed to expect, as Abba Eban put it, that the victor on the battlefield must sue for peace.  Consider, in this connection the facile formula: land for peace. This formula called upon Israel to give up land in exchange for peace.  The asymmetry of this formula becomes obvious with this question:  Don;t the Arab belligerents also get peace? The invidious formula, however, reflected millennia of anti-Semitism holding that the Jew is expect to please to be permitted to live.  The anti-Semitic tradition that marked the relationship between Jew and non-Jew, of course, underscores comments acknowledging that Israel has a right to exist; that Israel has a right to defend itself?  

Does anyone every deliver such remarks in reference to other nation-states?   Is there ever heard the statement:  Great Britain has a right to exist, or France has a right to defend herself.  Thart is to say, is right of existence or right of self-defense ever a matter of majority vote.   Should the UN declare:  Israel no longer has a right to exist, does that mean Israelis should board refugee ships and planes with the last leaving Israeli turning out the light.

Let me now explain why Biden reflects two millennia of anti-Semitism when, as has been reported, he suggested to Israel's prime minister that time will soon be up on Israel's response to rocket attack from Hamas. 

As an American citizen, I of course have the First Amendment right to lecture Biden. Besides, I am three years older than he and perhaps have some familiarity with the Middle East conflict he lacks, notwithstanding his nearly half century holding elective office.

Have we heard Biden comment that the strategy of Hamas to use civilians has human shield is unconscionable?  Does Biden blame Hamas for civilian deaths resulting from the Hamas practice of embedding rocket-launching sites close to civilians?  Has Biden stated that Hamas is responsible for all civilian casualties incurred consequent to measures taken by Israel in self-defense?

Biden effectively tells Israel, you really have no right to self-defense, because the time for you to respond to Hamas attack will be determined by those of us who remain afflicted with the virus of anti-Semitism, and hold that the Jew must get permission from the non-Jew to  live; the Jew will live, that is to say, on our terms,   And, Biden effectively has told Netanyahu, you are not to be permitted to destroy the capability of attack of an organization committed to your annihilation.

Consider the horror of Kristallnacht.  That nationwide pogrom in Germany, killing Jews, burning synagogues, destroying Jewish businesses lasted a day or two,  Consider the termination of Kristallnacht as  kind of a cease-fire. Did the Kristallnact "cease-fire" lead to resolution by the Nazis of the "root causes" of the Jewish problem? How did Hitler get to his "root causes" in dealing with his anti-Semitism?   Genocide was the Nazi way of getting to the root causes of "the Jewish problem."   

For Hamas, the root cause of its problem with Israel is...the existence of Israel.

Hamas is committed to the annihilation of the Jewish state.  Buried in its lead story May 22, The New York Times informed readers:  "Hamas does not recognize Israeli so it is  not considered a potential partner for peace." What better proof that The New York Times cannot tell its readers how rabid, indeed Nazi-like, is the Hamas program for Israel -- soft-pedaling it aim for Israel which is rather more violent that mere non-recognition.   But it is not enough that the Times should whitewash the genocidal mindset of the Hamas charter.    Many paragraphs earlier, the Times wondered if Israel violated international law by counter-attacking against Hamas.  What doe this say if not: how dare Israel defend herself against her attackers?

Had the world stood up to Hitler, arguably he would not have dared go to war, much less embark on a policy of genocide.  

If Donald Trump were president, Hamas would not have dared fire 4000 rockets at Israel civilians.  And had Hamas, in its anti-Semitic zeal, moved against Israel, the Trump administration would not have told Israel, "Your time for self-defense is running out."  Donald Trump would not have told Benjamin Netanyahu, "I'm sorry, but I'm being pressured by The Squad and our allies to force you to let Hamas live to fight you another day, because, you must understand, they will not accept your defeat of Hamas."

If Hamas were to attack another country -- Turkey, for example, President  Erdogan would not be pressured to accept an unconditional ceasefire.  He would simply move against Hamas till it was wiped out,

The truth is inescapable:   The Hamas goal to destroy Israel is no problem for Biden.   Indeed, the Squad's shrill demand that he protect Hamas is no problem for Biden.  And that is because the United States has a president who has yet to be inoculated against the virus of anti-Semitism.  How can a president who says Israel has the right of self-defense, but then ties her hands so that she put an end to assault  from   enemy sworn to her destruction, not be tainted with anti-Semitism.

And by the way, if there is such a strangling blockade of Gaza, how does Hamas build up its rocket arsenal?