The Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be resolved without the direct and active involvement of the United States, using both inducements and coercive diplomacy to bring about a peaceful solution. If the conflict remains unresolved over the next couple of years it will most likely precipitate a massive violent conflagration to the detriment of the Israelis and Palestinians, and will also severely damage the U.S.' security, economic interests and its credibility in the region. For these reasons, what the next president of the U.S. does within a few months after his inauguration will determine the future prospect of a solution, and the extent to which the candidates adhere to their campaign rhetoric will have a clear and immediate effect on how the Israelis and Palestinians react to any new American initiative to resolve the conflict.
Mitt Romney's position toward the conflict raises serious questions, not only about his timidity but also about his shortsightedness in connection with a complex conflict that has been simmering for decades and will, without a doubt, explode if a resolution is not found soon. In a number of bewildering statements, Romney blamed Palestinian "culture" as the cause of their current predicaments and faulted them for having "no interest whatsoever in establishing peace." With these comments, Romney is, in fact, sending the Israelis a clear message that they should maintain the occupation, further expand the settlements and keep the blockade on Gaza, while inferring that the U.S. will not bother to interfere. Conversely, Romney's message to the Palestinians is that they have missed many opportunities in the past to achieve peace, their yearning for statehood is a pipe dream and they should expect little, if any, assistance from a Romney administration.
In the wake of the Arab Spring, however, as the Palestinians watch young men and women in several Arab states fighting and dying for their freedoms, their own relative passivity at the present will not last forever. Romney's preference of "[kicking] the ball down the field," (that is, letting events take their own course) is dangerously misguided and ultimately detrimental to the cause of peace.
Indeed, should Romney become President and move to translate his campaign rhetoric into policy, he will seriously endanger Israel's very existence, which he presumably wishes to protect, and will compromise its future as an independent, democratic Jewish state while contributing to its isolation from the international community. At the same time, he will encourage the Palestinians to rise up out of desperation and hopelessness to end the occupation at whatever cost, akin to the rise of Arab youth against their own governments who are prepared to die for their freedom.
President Obama himself has contributed to the current impasse in part by insisting early in 2009 that the peace negotiations should start by first freezing the settlements, which was a nonstarter for the Netanyahu government, and by failing to visit Israel when he travelled three times overseas, visiting four Arab/Muslim states. The president went to Turkey in April of 2009, in June of the same year he visited Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and in November 2010 he traveled to Indonesia. For most Israelis, skipping Israel three times was nothing short of a slap in the face, especially in light of the fact that the president made a solution to the conflict a top priority by appointing former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell as a Special Envoy to the region only two days after his inauguration. To demonstrate his seriousness about the urgent need for a solution, the next president must visit Israel and the Palestinian Authority and make it abundantly clear where the U.S. stands.
Nonetheless, President Obama -- throughout his presidency and recently reiterated in his speech at the U.N. General Assembly -- has insisted that the only solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict rests on creating two independent states, a Jewish and a Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace while growing and prospering together as neighbors. Any other message coming from the White House, regardless of party affiliation, will fundamentally be injurious to both the Israelis and the Palestinians. The notion from some American politicians who have said that the U.S. should not have a greater desire for peace than the parties to the conflict is shortsighted. The U.S. has serious stakes in the region and responsibility toward its allies. The lack of peace will continue to undermine the U.S.' interest, erode its influence and jeopardize its role in shaping the outcome of the multiple upheavals sweeping the region in the wake of the Arab Spring.
To advance the prospect for peace between Israel and Palestine, the next president must take a number of critical steps. First, within a few months after the election, the president should visit Israel and Palestine and directly address the Israeli people as well as the Palestinians, strongly suggesting that only peace will serve their greater interests. He must look into the eyes of the Israeli and Palestinian public and emphasize that the U.S. is committed to a two-state solution and will remain consistent and resilient until such a resolution is achieved. The president should also accentuate that the U.S. will use all means available at its disposal to advance the two-state solution and stress that further delay would only harden the many facts on the ground, especially the expansion of settlements, becoming irreversible and rendering any future peace agreement virtually impossible.
Second, the president must carry with him a general framework for an Israeli-Palestinian peace based on prior agreements negotiated between the two sides, especially those achieved in 2000 (at Camp David between Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak) and in 2007-2008 between Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas. In both sets of these comprehensive negotiations, the two sides have been able to resolve the vast majority of the conflicting issues. In the 2007-2008 talks, then-Israeli Prime Minister Olmert stated both sides had come "very close, more than ever in the past, to complete a principle agreement that would have led to the end of the conflict." These prior agreements should be placed on the table anew and modified in order to create a clear basis for negotiating a peace agreement with the U.S.' direct participation.
Third, to increase the framework's effectiveness, a new internationally recognized special envoy of the caliber of President Clinton should be appointed with a clear presidential mandate to work relentlessly to advance the negotiating process while keeping a top level American official in the region to press on with the negotiations during the occasional absence of the special envoy. To avoid deadlocks, the rules of engagement should be based on an incremental agreement on various conflicting issues, ideally starting with borders. The Palestinians should abandon their precondition to freeze the settlements before they enter the negotiating process. An agreement on borders will in and of itself resolve 70 to 80 percent of the final status of the settlements and define the parameters of the Palestinian state. Such an agreement will also facilitate the negotiations of other conflicting issues, including the status of Palestinian refugees, Jerusalem, and Israel's national security. Finally, the negotiations should not be open-ended; a timeline must be established, albeit with some flexibility, to prevent either party from playing for time.
Fourth, it is imperative that the U.S. reaches out to other leading Arab and Muslim states such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, to exert pressure on the Palestinian Authority to make necessary concessions. Egypt must also be approached about beginning the process of influencing Hamas to change its open enmity towards and hardline policy against Israel. In particular, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood-led government should persuade Hamas to renounce violence as a tool by which to reach its political objective of establishing an independent Palestinian state and remove from its charter the clause that calls for Israel's destruction. These Arab states, especially Egypt, have serious stakes in finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Indeed, any new conflagration between Israel and the Palestinians will impact directly and indirectly not only on their interests, but could also draw them into the conflict which they want to avoid at all costs given their own internal political combustion and uncertainty.
Fifth, once the Israelis and Palestinians engage in negotiations, the U.S. should press both to immediately begin the process of changing their public narratives about each other by mutually ending acrimonious statements and expressions of hatred and distrust. To that end both governments should encourage universities, nonpartisan think tanks and media outlets to deliberate publicly about the psychological dimensions of the conflicting issue and begin a process of changing mindsets about some of the inevitabilities of reaching an agreement.
Even when the leaders reach an agreement behind closed doors, they cannot simply come out with pronouncements of concessions that were made by either side without first preparing the public. For example, an agreement on Palestinians refugees will of necessity entail the return of only a small fraction of refugees to Israel proper under family reunification, when in fact the vast majority of Palestinians still believe in the right of return. Additionally, there can be no two-state solution without Jerusalem becoming the capital of Israel and Palestine, albeit the city will remain united, which will be difficult for the Israeli public to accept. For these reasons, changing public perception about each conflicting issue is central to ratifying any peace accord.
Sixth, in reaching out to the Arab and Muslim world, the president should help reignite the Arab Peace Initiative (API) which still represents the most comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The revival of the API remains critically important as even top Israeli officials, including the former head of the Israeli Mossad, Meir Dagan, have stated that the plan is central to resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. As the whole region undergoes revolutionary change in the wake of the Arab Spring, restarting the API will have special importance in reaching a comprehensive peace and long-term stability. The creation of a "sovereign, independent Palestinian state," which the API calls for, will greatly contribute to stabilizing the region. Indeed, various Arab and Muslim countries will begin to normalize relations with Israel and foster a lasting peace that will ultimately improve the lives of millions of ordinary citizens throughout the region.
The Arab-Israeli conflict has been overshadowed in recent months by international concerns over Iran's nuclear program, the bloody civil war which continues to rage in Syria and the unending insurgencies and terrorism that continues to plague many nations. Meanwhile, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is quietly simmering underneath the surface and is becoming ever more perilous. Israel continues to expand existing settlements and legalize others while the Palestinians remain hopelessly factionalized and aimless, unable to present a unified front to be taken seriously, and thus, leaving the festering conflict in the hands of radicals on both sides.
For either President Obama or Mitt Romney, finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should remain a top priority. The status quo is explosive and it can only lead to a new violent and death-defying confrontation that will leave no victors behind but will result in horrifying destruction and will irreparably deepen the already existing divide between the two sides.
The United States has both the interest and the responsibility to put an end to the Israeli-Palestinian self-consuming conflict in a region where the stakes for all concerned cannot be overestimated.
Follow Alon Ben-Meir on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AlonBenMeir
Steve Clemons: Could Mitt Romney Pull a Truman and Recognize State of Palestine?
Expect a new Middle East one day.
Stephen Lendman
On September 17, the New York Post quoted Henry Kissinger saying:
"In 10 years, there will be no more Israel. I repeat: In 10 years, there will be no more Israel."
He didn't mean Israel will self-destruct or collapse. His view mirrors the combined assessment of 16 US intelligence agencies. Months earlier, its report headlined "Preparing For A Post Israel Middle East." It wasn't released publicly so no link.
It concluded that Washington's national interest is at odds with Israel. The so-called special relationship is counterproductive. What benefits Israel geopolitically often harms America.
It's time to stop letting the tail wag the dog. America loses more than it gains. Serious reassessment is long overdue.
In their book titled "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy," John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt argue that Israel is "increasingly a strategic liability....It is time for the United States to treat Israel not as a special case but as a normal state, and to deal with it much as it deals with any other country."
Doing so "means no longer pretending that Israel and America's interests are identical, or acting as if Israel deserves steadfast US support no matter what it does."
James Petras said "(t)he US-Israeli relationship is the first in modern history in which the imperial country covers up a deliberate major military assault by a supposed ally."
Were a civil war to break out between the Israeli Government and it's illegally settled citizens outside of the State of Israel, the other Regional Powers would have the right and duty under the UN Charter Chapt XI to intervene, as they did in 1948.
It is Israel who must negotiate, as the Palestinians only demand their rights under the Laws and UN Charter. In order to circumvent the consequences of it's past belligerence, Israel must seek a negotiated settlement. Alas the Jewish State keeps on putting meaningless obstacles in the way as it continues it's illegal settlements, continues to ignore UNSC resolutions.
The Palestinians have twice now, in front of the world at the UN, offered Israel all the Palestinian territory Israel illegally acquired by war by 1949 (territory Israel has never legally annexed). It return, Israel has simply ignored this incredibly generous offer and demanded more and more.
The "San Remo Conference decisions,1922" do not mention the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.
The "League of Nations decisions, 1922" do not mention the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.
The "United Nations Charter, Article 80, 1945" does not mention the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.
UNSC Resolution 242 recognises a situation that exists. It does not attempt to justify a Jewish state in Palestine. That resolution calls for the "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;"
You really need to think hard about why there is an ongoing conflict when the consensus opinions of the overwhelming majority (even as of 1948) of the population of Palestine were consistently overruled in favour of establishing a state that overwhelming majority rejected, and whose establishment had not been outlined in any of the "decisions" that you name.
Then you need to stop repetitively posting the same nonsense talking points extracted from "mythicalfantasies.com"
None of the documents you have cited are relevant.
The San Remo 1920 / League of Nations 1922 ... Expired May 14th 1948, midnight Palestine time, BEFORE Israeli Independence could become effective (May 15th 1948) , " as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" ... when the State of Israel became and was recognized as the homeland state of the Jewish People. (Before acceptance as a UN Member)
United Nations Charter, Article 80 There were no individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81. The "existing international instrument" was the LoN Mandate which fell under the UN Charter Chapt XI ... The LoN Mandate states "Article 7 The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine. "
United Nations Security Council resolution, 242, 1967 .. was to end hostilities between existing "states", it had nothing to do with Palestinian Statehood, nor did it change any borders or require any borders to be negotiated. The word negotiate does not appear anywhere and it does not mention or require anything of the Palestinians.
UNSC res 242's purpose is reiterated in the Egypt / Israeli Peace Treaty. Israel was required to withdraw from all of Egypt's sovereign territory BEFORE peaceful relations resumed.
1. Generally despises bullies.
2. Doesn't like to be blackmailed (Palestinian airplane hijackings and bombings).
3. Doesn't like people/states with a sense of entitlement (UNRWA).
4. Becomes sick of being told loudly what they "must" do (i.e. pressure Israel to cave to Palestinian demands).
5. Takes offense at arrogant people/states (Palestinians are more important than everyone else).
6. Doesn't like being corrupted from outside (Arab oil weapon).
7. Gets upset when terrorists sneak into their countries and murder people (Munich Massacre).
8. Etc, etc.
Eventually, the world, or some part, will slap the poo out of the offensive neighbor and tell them to sort themselves out, become good/peaceful neighbors or get out.
Hmmm, that will be difficult for you i think.....with all the continued settlements, violation of Resolutions etc....
P.S. What would be a good deal for Israel ? That the Palestinians give up most of the WB and live in Bantustans right ? Like the Barak offer at camp David ? Why doesn't Israel accept the Arab Peace Initiative for example ?
Sure... Abbas at the UN 2011 and again at the UN 2012, in front ot the world, offering Israel all the territories Israel had acquired by war by 1949 (over 50% of the Palestinians rightful territories)
It has been Israel who has been illegally acquiring Palestinian territory, illegally settling it and illegally annexing, slowly wiping the Palestinians off the map.
The Palestinians have nothing of Israel's. All they ask for are their rights under the Laws Israel obliged itself to uphold.
Abbas cannot give away something that doesn't have. Trying to make recognizing Israel (a basic requirement of peace) sound like a concession on the ground is spin, not truth.
There is no such as Palestinian territory until such time as they declare a state.
1. Generally despises bullies.
2. Doesn't like to be blackmailed (Israel's threats of nuclear war or the Samson Option).
3. Doesn't like people/states with a sense of entitlement.
4. Becomes sick of being told loudly what they "must" do.
5. Takes offense at arrogant people/states.
6. Doesn't like being corrupted from outside (AIPAC).
7. Gets upset when other states sneak into their countries and murder people.
8. Etc, etc.
Eventually, the world, or some part, will slap the poo out of the offensive neighbor and tell them to sort themselves out, become good/peaceful neighbors or get out.
The war with Iran will be a even greater disaster that Iraq for america.
The Israelis will ask the same question.
Unfortunately, I just described 80 percent of Israel-related article that appear on the Huffington Post, Guardian, etc.
Having said that, the lack of a unity Palestinian government is a major obstacle to broader talks even though Mr Netanyahu has said he would not deal with a unity government if one came together - but that's a problem to be dealt with in due time.
The international community, i.e. UN, US, EU, Russia, has been clear on this issue: When Hamas accepts Israel's RIGHT to exist; when it renounce violence and terror; and when it adheres to all agreements reached with Israel and signed by the parties, including the decommissioning of all its illicit weapons.
Surely, the poster would want to urge Hamas to comply with these simple and most appropriate demands for the sake of advancing peace, wouldn't he...??
WHAT?
Twaddle. The Palestinians ask for RoR under UNGA res 194 which was written 12 months BEFORE UNRWA was formed. UNGA res 194 included Jewish refugees BTW. The definition for refugees at the time, can be found here http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/418E7BC6931616B485256CAF00647CC7 It does not include lineal descendants
"Until Israel must stand on its own and make peace with its neighbors, it will NEVER EVEN TRY."
- This bull is what makes you non credible to viewers.
http://freebeacon.com/israelis-rally-to-support-america/
Do you even know what you're talking about any more?
A word or two about this "plan":
1) It was a dictate when it was presented in 2002 and it is today: take it or leave it.No discussions. No negotiations. No compromise.
2) The "plan" is, by definition, contrary to both international law, e.g. UN Security Council Resolution, 242, as well as to the Sept. 1995 Interim Agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
3) The "plan" was an element of the diplomatic terror the Muslim-Arab world has waged against the sovereign nation-state of the Jewish people, Israel.
This plan, especially in light of the fact that it was unanimously accepted by the Muslim-Arab world, has been for us, Jews, a lesson: Keep up your guards!!
(a) Complete withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the 4 June 1967 line and the territories still occupied in southern Lebanon; (b) Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194. (c) Accept the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital. In return the Arab states will do the following: (a) Consider the Arab–Israeli conflict over, sign a peace agreement with Israel, and achieve peace for all states in the region; (b) Establish normal relations with Israel within the framework of this comprehensive peace.[2]
Where is your "dictate" here ? Anywhere ?