WhatsappThe concept of creating “two states for two peoples” was seen as the best solution by the British rulers in the 1940s. The British planned the India-Pakistan Partition in 1947 to solve the Hindu-Muslim conflict.
Globalsecurity.org describes the history of the India-Pakistan partition of 1947.
“Mohammad Ali Jinnah, a Western-educated Muslim lawyer, persuaded the participants at the annual Muslim League session in Lahore in 1940 to adopt what later came to be known as the Pakistan Resolution, demanding the division of India into two separate sovereign states, one Muslim, the other Hindu.. On June 3, 1947, Mountbatten, the viceroy (1947) and governor-general (1947-48), announced plans for partition of the British Indian Empire into the nations of India and Pakistan, which itself was divided into east and west wings on either side of India. The June 3, 1947 Partition Plan was prepared by Mountbatten in consultation with the British Government. It was based on a fundamental principle that transfer of power should take place according to the wishes of the people.”
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/indo-pak-partition.htm
“The principle of partition was specified in the plan : The all Muslim majority areas were to constitute part of Pakistan and similarly the Hindu majority areas were to go to India…(2)” “…What followed was “ethnic cleansing” – a term that was to gain currency later in the 20th century…Partition unleashed untold misery and loss of lives and property as millions of Hindu and Muslim refugees fled either Pakistan or India…Partition resulted in the forced movement of 20 million people (Hindus and Sikhs to India and Muslims to Pakistan). Most estimates of the numbers of people who crossed the boundaries between India and Pakistan in 1947 range between 10 and 12 million.”https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/indo-pak-partition1.htm
Because of the implementstion of the “two-State solution” in India-Pakistan, the Taliban could soon seize nuclear weapons.
On July 19, 2022 the Gateway Pundit reported “It’s been almost a year now since Joe Biden and the US Military surrendered to the Taliban terrorists. Joe Biden, General Milley and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin are still in power. As part of the surrender, Joe Biden armed the Taliban with nearly $80 billion in US weapons…
Rather than destroying the equipment before leaving the country, Joe Biden decided to leave the nearly $85 billion worth of US military equipment to the Taliban…
…Today the Taliban has one of the best-equipped militaries on the planet. And now the Taliban from Afghanistan and Pakistan have joined together to take control of Pakistan. This comes at a time when Pakistan is facing “macroeconomic instability…”
Nuclear-armed Pakistan is about to become the next Sri Lanka.
Sam Faddis reported on Substack: Now, however, the entire struggle is taking an increasingly dangerous direction because the economic stability of the nation-state of Pakistan is seriously threatened. Advertisement – story continues below Kids Learn Mom’s Real Story After She Passes Away Kids Learn Mom’s Real Story After She Passes Away Worldlifestyle Pakistan is heavily dependent on both Russian and Ukrainian wheat. Both of those supplies have now been interrupted. Serious hunger is now a genuine threat. The rise in oil prices has also hit Pakistan hard. Between 2020 and 2021 the cost of oil imports to Pakistan rose by 85%. As of the end of June 2022, Pakistan’s trade deficit stood at $50 billion. That was an over 50% increase over the year before. The government in Islamabad was forced to issue an order forbidding the import of over 800 luxury items to keep the deficit from going even higher. Inflation in June rose to 20%. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has cut off subsidies. The prices of both oil and gas have skyrocketed. The value of the Pakistani rupee has collapsed. Pakistan’s foreign exchange reserves have been cut in half. Advertisement – story continues below Can You Tell Which Logo is the Right One? Can You Tell Which Logo is the Right One? Worldlifestyle The World Bank is warning that Pakistan could soon face “macroeconomic instability.” Societal collapse would soon follow such an event. Pakistan has limped along for decades with an anemic economy, widespread corruption, and domestic instability. It does not have the reserves – financial or otherwise – to withstand significant economic stressors. Oil refineries are on the verge of closing down because of a lack of oil imports. Power outages of 10-12 hours are now routine. Put simply, Pakistan has run out of money. The chairman of the Federal Board of Revenue has described the nation as “bankrupt.” The world has just seen Sri Lanka collapse under the weight of the economic forces sweeping the globe. There is nothing unique about that event. What happened in that island nation will soon occur all around the world as economies implode under the pressure of rampant inflation and collapsing supplies of critical materials like food and fuel…”
Because of the implementstion of the “two-State solution” in India-Pakistan, the Taliban could soon seize nuclear weapons. Would the “two-State solution” enable Hamas to smuggle nuclear weapons in Judea and Samaria?
Surrendering Area C to the Palestinians will endanger Israel’s security. Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser explained in the JCPA “Israel has a very narrow width and a small population compared with that of its current and potential adversaries. It lacks strategic depth and its armed forces have to rely on reservists to be able to perform its mission, especially in time of war. Its most densely populated areas are very close to territories populated by people who have been exposed to ongoing hate indoctrination against it. The topography along the center of the country includes a mountain ridge that overlooks and dominates the coastal plain in the west and the very deep Jordan Valley in the east. The regimes and countries around Israel suffer from inherent instability
and some of them are failed states. Some of Israel’s enemies are determined to wipe it off the map. Moreover, some of these enemies, especially Iran, have vast resources and are able to acquire advanced weaponry either through arms purchases from leading arms producers or through local production. All of these components have to be taken into account while drawing Israel’s defensible borders.
“It is true, of course, that Israel has impressive military capabilities, but if they are not deployed in the right locations, their effectiveness may be significantly compromised. For example, Israel’s military deployment has to enable it to thwart attempts to bring in weapons (including rockets and drones) and trained terrorists or foreign military forces to the Palestinian-controlled areas of the West Bank from across the Jordan River.
“This mission cannot be accomplished without Israel being able to deploy its forces in areas close to the river and on the eastern slopes of the mountain ridge dominating the Jordan River valley for purposes of observation and intelligence gathering that are necessary for permanent early warning and to thwart such attempts before they cause any damage. This will allow Israel to distance its population centers and critical infrastructure from these possible threats. In addition to “boots on the ground,” Israel will require full control over the airspace above the entire territory of the West Bank as well as control of the electromagnetic spectrum to guarantee that it is able to deal effectively with any threat.
“This does not mean that this deployment can hermetically prevent any infiltration of the border, but it should guarantee that any attempt to cross into the territory from the east, even if it is part of multi-front hostile activities, is met by sufficient power in time to prevent any considerable damage to the security of Israel and its population, even if the early warning is not perfect. Moreover, Israeli military presence has a strategically important effect on deterrence and stabilization beyond the eastern border.
“There have been various suggestions and creative ideas raised to establish a border along the 1967 lines with some local changes and to replace Israel’s military presence in some of the critical areas with foreign forces or to rely on electronic detection devices alone. However, this cannot provide Israel with adequate defense. Israeli forces have to be present on the ground to take immediate action against imminent threats. Israel cannot rely on foreign forces, and detection devices can at best give some early warning or signal in real time that the border has been penetrated, but these devices cannot do much about it. The idea that Israeli intelligence collection assets will be deployed in strategically important locations but access to these locations will be through Palestinian-controlled areas, is simply not feasible.
“The same is true when it comes to preventing terror and other military threats from within the territory controlled by the Palestinians. If Israel deploys its forces more or less along the ’67 lines, it is not going to be able to protect its main cities and infrastructure and collect the information necessary for that purpose. Moreover, it is not going to be able to prevent significant deliveries of arms to the Palestinian-controlled territories or the local production of various weapons inside these territories.
“The argument that Israel’s armed forces are much stronger than the Palestinians and therefore it can afford to move to less defensible borders in the context of a peace agreement – and if this agreement is violated by the Palestinians Israel can recapture the territory – is baseless too. First of all, under such conditions, the Palestinians will be able to accumulate a considerable number of arms and military capabilities before they trigger hostilities, and once they do, recapturing the territory is going to be very costly in terms of casualties, not only to Israeli troops but also to the Israeli civilian population and critical infrastructure. Fighting a hybrid force that has both terror and conventional (and perhaps unconventional) capabilities that is fighting behind human shields is a huge challenge for every modern army. As long as many Palestinians continue to support the plan of fighting Israel in phases over time and regard the complete defeat of Zionism as their ultimate goal, any such moves that enable this are extremely irresponsible. The case of Gaza is an illuminating precedent, as are Afghanistan, Vietnam, Lebanon, Sinai, Somalia, and other arenas.”To sum up, the only border that may be regarded as defensible for the central region of the State of Israel is the Jordan Valley, with Israel maintaining military control of the eastern slopes of Judea and Samaria mountain ridge and of the main roads leading from west to east to enable free movement of Israel’s armed forces to the border area. This should go along with Israeli control of the airspace and the electromagnetic spectrum. The Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1967, General Earle Wheeler, clarified that to have defensible borders, Israel’s boundary must be along the commanding terrain overlooking the Jordan Valley.”https://jcpa.org/defensible-borders-for-israel-an-updated-response-to-advocates-and-skeptics/
Who would prevent Hamas from smuggling nuclear weapons into Judea and Samaria if Lapid withdraws?
