Is the proposed "State of Palestine" part of a 2-state solution?

With the Palestinian Authority now going ahead with its attempt to seek recognition of a "Palestinian State" from the UN, most of the world is assuming that this is merely another attempt to come to the 2-state solution. However, the following recent statements clearly show that this is NOT the case. Instead, this move is yet another step in the Arabs' attempt to eliminate the Jewish State of Israel:

a)   Nabil Shaath, interviewed on Lebanese TV 11 July. Two states means a Jewish people over there and a Palestinian people here. We will never accept this...‏

-      [The new French UN peace initiative has] reshaped the issue of the “Jewish state” into a formula that is also unacceptable to us – two states for two peoples.

-      They can describe Israel itself as a state for two peoples, but we will be a state for one people.

-      The story of “two states for two peoples” means that there will be a Jewish people over there and a Palestinian people here. We will never accept this – not as part of the French initiative and not as part of the American initiative.

-      We will not sacrifice the 1.5 million Palestinians with Israeli citizenship who live within the 1948 borders, and we will never agree to a clause preventing the Palestinian refugees from returning to their country. We will not accept this, whether the initiative is French, American, or Czechoslovakian.

-      The recognition of a [Palestinian] state is basically a bilateral action, which receives the blessing of the UN. This act, however, will make many things possible in the future. Eventually, we will be able to sign bilateral agreements with states and this will enable us to exert pressure on Israel. At the end of the day, we want to exert pressure on Israel in order to force it to recognize us and to leave our country. This is our long-term goal. (translation - MEMRI)

b)   Hamas in Gaza: 'Palestine means Palestine in its entirety, and Israel cannot exist in our midst'  - Fri. 29 Jul. 2011 @ 13.06 -

-      Hamas foreign minister Al-Zahar reiterates Hamas' rejection of two-state solution and commitment to gaining 'Palestine in its entirety' by force. He also declared that Hamas would view any Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, or a compromise agreement with the Palestinian Authority, as only a 'first stage' towards the destruction of Israel in its entirety. He asserted that this was the key difference between Hamas and their secular rivals, Fatah.

-      In a recently conducted a television interview he once more set out Hamas' rejection of Israel's right to exist. According to Memri, Al-Zahar used the interview, from 21 July, to argue that 'Palestine in its entirety is Islamic waqf land, which cannot be relinquished':

'At this moment in time, we say to you, first of all: We want Palestine in its entirety - so there will not be any misunderstandings. If our generation is unable to achieve this, the next one will, and we are raising our children on this. Palestine means Palestine in its entirety, and Israel cannot exist in our midst.'

The 10th Anniversary of 9/11

On September 11, 2001, we were still living in California. The Fall quarter had not yet started at Cal State San Bernardino, so I had no classes that day. I got up in the morning and switched on the radio to the local NPR station, KVCR, as was my habit. Immediately, I realized that it was NOT the usual Morning Edition. I turned on the TV to see the shocking pictures of the twin towers burning and then, a little later, collapsing. I felt numb the whole day, even though I've never even been in New York and didn't have any friends living there. This was clearly a terrorist attack on the entire country, and, in reality, on modern civilization.

It wasn't long before it became very clear who had carried out the attack. More perplexing, to Americans at least, was "Why?" Americans are good-hearted people, and so they naturally have been trying to figure out what horrible thing they must have done to deserve such a terrible attack. This tendency to blame themselves has only grown as we prepare to mark the 10th anniversary of these attacks.

But what if the premise is wrong? Perhaps it wasn't a reaction to ANYTHING America had done at all. Or, perhaps it was a reaction to something GOOD that America stood for.

The first stop in searching for the reasons should be the writings of Al-Qaida and other radical Islamicist organizations. If you do this, the reasons become clear almost immediately.

Their entire philosophy and mode of operation is based on their interpretation of Islam (which, unfortunately, is quite orthodox and mainstream). Here are some of the key points:

According to them, Islam is the only true religion (something several other religions, though not all, also claim to be), and it is to be carried to all the world. Non-believers must first be told of the religion and given the opportunity to accept it. But, if they do not, believers are instructed to impose Islam by force (this is quite UNLIKE other religions). Islamic law, known as sharia, is to be imposed on everyone. At least two other religions (Judaism and Christianity) are tolerated, to some extent, under sharia law, but their adherents are to be strictly limited in many ways, including special clothing, lower places of worship, special taxes, and other clear symbols of their second-class status.

Most of America's most cherished ideals are basically anathema to sharia law, including nearly all freedoms: freedom of religion, freedom of speech (especially freedom to criticize religions and their prophets, including Mohammed), equality of men and women, etc. etc. In other words, by their own views, the radical Islamicists attack America precisely because of its ideals.

This means that there are really only two possible responses. The first is to capitulate to Islam and give up on American ideals and freedoms. Freedom of speech must be limited, especially speech critical of Islam or not sufficiently respectful of its Prophet. Other religions can, and perhaps even MUST, be criticized, but Islam must NEVER be criticized (no "Islamophobia" allowed!).

The second possible response is to defend America's values. This would require courage, long-term commitment, clarity about the enemy, and a willingness to fight, even when it means war.

So far, I'm sorry to say, America seems to be gradually but steadily choosing the first option more than the second. If this continues, the terrorists of 9/11 will have won.