A unique opportunity for peace now exists -- if only Israel would stop settlements.
No one in the Mideast believes the former contention. Virtually the entire world believes the latter. Both are false. The sides are as far apart as ever.
Netanyahu has reluctantly accepted a further settlement freeze, a two-state-solution, spoken of painful concessions and shifted his rhetoric from settlements and Palestinian statehood, to security and recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. One can see in this the telltale signs of a premier on the verge of major policy change, similar to Sharon before the Gaza disengagement, or simply diplomatic palaver to deflect pressure.
Let's assume Netanyahu is sincere. A freeze was in place for 10 months and no progress was achieved. Indeed, the Palestinians only showed signs of interest in renewed talks when it was about to expire. Is there any reason to believe that they will not once again squander the time gained and then press for further concessions?
Let's assume Abu Mazen is sincere and wishes to proceed. Whom does he speak for? His term of office expired long ago and the Palestinian Authority (PA), rapidly losing legitimacy, may be replaced by Hamas. Moreover, its ability to conclude a deal with Israel and actually implement it, is questionable at best -- and this is in the West Bank where it is ostensibly in control.
Gaza, under Hamas, has become a de-facto Palestinian state. In power for nearly five years, despite repeated attempts to bring Hamas back into the fold, there is simply no prospect of a reunited Palestinian entity for many years to come.
Consequently, some advocate a deal solely on the West Bank, or one which would formally include Gaza too, but only be implemented there following future reunification. Given the Palestinian national movement's emphasis on unity, it is unlikely that the PA could make a separate deal, though the graduated option may prove realistic.
Israel's preeminent demand has been for an "end to conflict", i.e. to be able to live in security, without further demands, once an agreement has been reached. Hamas, however, will do everything it can to derail an agreement, including attacks on Israel and attempts to delegitimize and topple the PA. We know what will happen: the Arabs and international community will demand that Israel make further concessions, as will Hamas, as the price for its acquiescence, or future reunification with the PA. If Gaza is not part of the agreement, the conflict will not end.
Obama ambitiously seeks an agreement within a year, although nearly two years of efforts failed to even get talks going. To this end, talks would initially focus on the supposedly easier issue of territory which, if resolved, would inherently resolve the settlement issue. In reality, territory is one of the difficult issues.
Under the 2000 "Clinton parameters", Arafat rejected an offer of 98-99% of the West Bank. In 2007 Abu Mazen, the purported pragmatist, rejected Olmert's offer of 100% (including a 3.5% land swap). Did these dramatic rejections reflect a fundamental refusal to accept anything less than 100% of Palestinian territorial claims, or the fact that their demands on other issues, such as Jerusalem and refugees, had not been fully satisfied. Is there reason to believe that anything has changed?
For Israel, territory, with its ramifications for Palestinian independence and settlements, is a vital negotiating card. Once Israel agrees to the borders of Palestine, it will no longer have leverage regarding Jerusalem and the refugees, the ultimate issues. Israel should certainly agree to the additional 60-day suspension Obama requested and for reasons of its own future, cease most construction outside of the settlement blocs it will retain. It should not, however, fully cede this concession, certainly not formally, except as part of a comprehensive final agreement.
Rightly or not, the US is perceived in the Arab world today as weak, preoccupied with its domestic problems, lacking in the determination and resources necessary to address the major issues facing the region, such as Iran and Iraq, let alone the intractable peace process. Major progress is unlikely as long as this perception persists.
Rather than an imminent two-state-solution, the reality is that a de-facto three-state solution is evolving (Israel, West Bank and Gaza). The ongoing focus on settlements obscures the truth, that until the PA becomes a functioning, united entity, a final breakthrough is not feasible.
Alex Fattal: Giving Thanks for the People Helping Me in Our Campaign to Free the Hikers
Marty Kaplan: I Take Israel Personally
ur 9th fan!
One state is the only solution. You are talking about a piece of land smaller than my living room. How are you going to partition it effectively.
Why is a former Israeli national security advisor making suggestions for Palestinians, does he reallyl care about Palesitnian self-determination?
"The UN, Human Rights Watch and many other international bodies and NGOs consider Israel to be the occupying power of the Gaza Strip as Israel controls Gaza's airspace and territorial waters, and does not allow the movement or goods in or out of Gaza by air or sea."
So lets assume if the people of the world (specially Muslim) didn't like the Bush administration, would it have justified conducting a foreign sponsored coup without the danger of going to any international court or being sanctioned by any world body? Coz that's exactly what happened....
As far as there being no, quote, "no prospect of a reunited Palestinian entity" well ur just alluring to the "divide and conquer" doctrine that was utilized by the US and \$rae\ after the election. Something Israel is very proud of...
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804?currentPage=3
It's not all doom and gloom though. I remember reading an article here, about how a two state solution is better for \$rae\is rather than Palestinians and how they should accept it and actually start working towards it in earnest. The author stated that because if they didn't, they were fast approaching the inevitable: A One state solution... The stuff Z\0n\$t nightmares are made of.
There was only a stated freeze while building work on the ground was clearly going on. This is a documented fact
"Let's assume Abu Mazen is sincere and wishes to proceed. Whom does he speak for? His term of office expired long ago and the Palestinian Authority (PA), rapidly losing legitimacy, may be replaced by Hamas. Moreover, its ability to conclude a deal with Israel and actually implement it, is questionable at best -- and this is in the West Bank where it is ostensibly in control."
Abu Mazen (Abbas) speaks for Israeli interests of course. He was after all brought out of retirement by Israel after he threatened he'd do so. Probably wanted to have the deal sweetened a bit more. His US sponsored (pro-Israel) thug police is the closest semblance of control they have in West Bank. That of course satisfies Israel.
Continued above.....
Wrong. The Clinton parameters speak of 'mid-nineties' including land swaps.
"In 2007 Abu Mazen, the purported pragmatist, rejected Olmert's offer of 100%"
Also wrong. Definite maps have not been forwarded, but reports were of 93%.
In both cases, these 'offers' did not include the vast tracts of land considered to be 'Jerusalem' by Israel.
There are two options: continue to demand 100% of what they want and essentially allow for the status quo to continue (while continuing a 60-year old futile PR campaign) or compromise and allow for Palestinian state to be founded. No, I am not arguing that the Palestinians should just accept what Israel wants them to accept. Negiotiate and compromise-- such is the only realistic means for an agreement. Palestinians can get a lot of what they want-- it might not be everything-- but it could be a legitimate beginning of a state. Neither Israel nor Palestinians want the status quo-- I just hope cooler heads will prevail on BOTH SIDES (not just one) to allow for something to come to fruition.
Seems to me you just did. And for the record: 'I want all your land, you don't want to give me any of your land, so I'll just take half of it' is not compromise.
A two-state solution with a Palestinian state on an area amounting to 100% of the West Bank and Gaza, with 1:1 land swaps and East Jerusalem as its capital, is the consensus solution of the conflict, and is supported by just about everybody, including moderate Israelis.
So the Palestinians get the land you say should be Israel and Israel gets the land you say should be Palestine
Then would you still think it was fair?
If not, then its obviously not a fair partition
So if the 3-state reality is here to stay for the forseeable future, what can Israel and the PA do to reduce tensions, increase understanding, and build the foundation for a future era of better relations and more trade, if not actual peace and understanding?