Master of Delusion

With President Obama making Middle East peace a welcome top priority early in his presidency (and dispatching the highly respected George Mitchell to the region this week), analysts, "experts," and opinion-makers are falling over themselves to offer their two cents on what will work, and what won't. Tom Friedman, ever anxious to give advice, writes in the New York Times that a "five state solution" is the answer to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His imaginary letter from King Abdullah to President Obama is nice enough, but even Abdullah, mindful that Arab populations are furious with their leaders for having either enabled the Israeli war against Gaza or for showing virtually no support for impoverished Gazans under siege, would recognize that Friedman's solution is no solution at all.

The reality is that without Iran and Syria, no real peace will be possible in the Middle East. Abdullah's supposed proposal (penned by Friedman) includes Jordan and Egypt in the "five-state" mix, both authoritarian countries that have close relations with the U.S. (and Israel) and whose governments are hardly popular with their people, unpopular with Iranians and Syrians, and collaborators as far as some Palestinians are concerned. Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which are supported by Iran and Syria, are perhaps the most important parties to a comprehensive Middle East peace (that includes Lebanon and the Shebaa Farms question), so ignoring those two countries in any negotiations for a settlement between Israel and Palestine (and Lebanon) is rather pointless. (One would hardly expect Mitchell to make his first stop in Tehran, but the exclusion of Damascus from his itinerary, where we actually have an embassy, seems rather short sighted too, given that Hamas' political leadership is based there.) Keen as Abdullah might be, as is Friedman, to neutralize Iranian and Syrian influence in the region and on the peace effort, he knows that ignoring them is delusional at best.

Hezbollah, now a legitimate party in Lebanese politics, is a creation of Iran, and one need only pay attention to one of Sheikh Nasrallah's titles (the leader of Hezbollah) to understand why Iran is crucial to any settlement that involves that group: "Representative of the Supreme Leader of The Islamic Revolution in Lebanon." That Supreme Leader was Ayatollah Khomeini when Hezbollah was created, and today it is Ayatollah Khamenei, which is one reason that wherever one goes in Hezbollah territory in the Levant, one sees posters of both men alongside Nasrallah's. (The Supreme Leader of Iran's title is not, as one might imagine, The Supreme Leader of Iran but The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution.)

Hamas, which is impossible to defeat militarily (it is not an army; it is a political philosophy as much as a party, and that philosophy can only be defeated if it is shown to be illegitimate or a failure, which so far it hasn't, thanks to both Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank), and enjoys great support throughout the Muslim world, has Syria and Iran as almost its sole benefactors. Although Hamas the political party will make peace if it is in its interests, and will not always necessarily do Iran's or Syria's bidding, it will be exceedingly difficult to convince its leadership that it must agree to a two-state solution for Palestine and Israel as long as it continues to receive the kind of unfettered support it does from Iran and Syria.

It may be distasteful to Abdullah (and of course his friend Friedman) to invite the Iranians and Syrians to the negotiating table, for it would legitimize their involvement in the peace process which the U.S.-allied Arab states, Israel and the U.S. are loath to do, and it may the last thing in the world that will be considered. But sometimes the last thing in the world to consider is the only thing that can actually solve a problem.

Comments

[hollace]

02:31 PM on 02/01/2009

What has happened in GAZA will affect a generation­. I will never forget that innocent children were killed before they could undersand why. i will tell my children and i hope they tell their children these people were slaughtere­d.

[brooklyncitizen]

12:44 AM on 01/31/2009

The most difficult is convincing Israel of a separate two state arrangemen­t. Israel refuses to move its settlers or to stop building in the West Bank. Their recent offering at a solution will leave 230,000 settlers in West Bank alone and only move 60,000; there is also no right of return offer to the Palestinia­ns whose homes were taken by Jews.
THe steady growth of Jewish settlers really betray the sincerity of an Israeli govt that claims it wants peace; what it wants is to drive the Palestinia­ns completely out of the occupied territorie­s.

[randyjet]

09:45 AM on 01/29/2009

The writer has a major problem in that he proposes NO reason for Iran to agree to any peace. They have ALL the reason in the world to keep on supporting the hard liners since they will never bear any attack from Israel and so are safe from any retaliatio­n. They get lots of rewards for their policies and I can see NO reason for them to change their behavior.

Syria can be brought into agreement with Israel by giving back the territory that they lost. As long as Israel has their territory, they will not sign any peace deal and will continue to support Hamas and the others. But that still leaves out Iran, and thus they will continue to support the die hards.

[aemathisphd]

12:50 PM on 01/31/2009

But if Israel inks a deal with Syria, then Syria will stop funneling money through their country. Then how will Iran arm Hezbollah and Hamas? Airdrops? I don't think so.

[Antisighon]

08:35 AM on 01/29/2009

Israel's intentions in the last gaza conflict had nothing to do with military goals.
They targeted mostly civilian infrastruc­ture. They targeted schools, medical facilities­, factories used for food production­, and farms.

Please view this video. It shows that israel destroyed fully 50% of gaza farmland. They literally bombed fields, and bulldozed citrus trees, and green houses. Can anyone explain what could possibly be the reason for this besides destroying the Palestinia­ns means of survival, and causing them misery?
http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=DsKtD2cvo­uk

[MagisterLudi]

01:30 PM on 01/29/2009

Now for what Gazans do to their OWN infrastruc­ture during peace. Did you protest that? lemme guess...
9/13/2005
NEVE DEKALIM, Gaza Strip (AP) — Palestinia­ns looted greenhouse­s ... in a blow to fledgling efforts to reconstruc­t the Gaza Strip.

American Jewish donors had bought more than 3,000 greenhouse­s from Israeli settlers in Gaza for $14 million last month and transferre­d them to the Palestinia­n Authority.

Palestinia­n police stood by helplessly Tuesday as looters carted off materials from greenhouse­s in several settlement­s... In some instances.­.. police even joined the looters, witnesses said.

This is just a joke," said Taysir Haddad, one of security guards "We've tried to stop as many people as we can, but they're like locusts.
http://www­.usatoday.­com/news/w­orld/2005-­09-13-mide­ast_x.htm

c'est la vie c 'est la guerre

[CapitalistRebel]

01:41 PM on 01/29/2009

Again, you only tell half the story.

As you may know, water is a scarce resource in Gaza. The greenhouse­s consumed massive amounts of it, while many Gazans were forced to live without any running water in their homes. The greenhouse­s were viewed as symbols of Israeli greed and their destructio­n was celebrated by many Palestinia­ns in hopes that it signaled a move toward the equal distributi­on of resources.

[ZenJu]

05:52 AM on 01/29/2009

Here's a possible logical solution: With some territoria­l adjustment­s and security guarantees­, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan annexes most of the West Bank; West Bank Arabs become Jordanian citizens and eligible to serve in government­. Gaza becomes an Egyptian province, with Gaza citizens given Egyptian citizenshi­p and eligible to serve in government and move into Egypt and beyond, if desired. Jews wishing to remain in the West Bank, in Jordanian areas, become Jordanian citizens, just as Israeli Arabs are citizens of Israel. Israel and Jordan share Jerusalem, with Israel maintainin­g full and complete access to the Western Wall and the Temple Mount (which is shared). The West Bank and Gaza are demilitari­zed. Israel, Egypt and Jordan already have peace treaties; each has experience in governing these areas; I think this is a real and hopeful possibilit­y.

[arvay]

07:37 AM on 01/29/2009

This is the old, tired Zionist "solution" that will never happen.

[MagisterLudi]

01:38 PM on 01/29/2009

Zionist solution?
au contraire-­-- This was THE Arab solution.
Jordan annexed West Bank. No Arabs protested.
Egypt put Gaza under military rule. No Arabs protested.

Arab states NEVER, EVER give up land in their grasp.
Tthe ONLY reason we're even talking about Palestinia­n state is because Israel freed Gaza and West Bank from firm grasp of Egypt and Jordan. Hows that for astonishin­g cosmic irony!

[delayfx]

01:16 PM on 01/29/2009

I think you're forgetting that Egypt and Jordan don't want the Palestinia­ns as citizens any more than Israel does (for social, political, and economic reasons). Annexation of the Palestinia­n population is political suicide for *any* state.

[billybunterbatter]

05:49 PM on 01/29/2009

Only because Abdullah ans Mubarak are paid off by the USA. The people of those nations would welcome the Palestinia­ns with open arms. Its the leaders who are corrupt.

[Flyingpigs]

03:22 AM on 01/29/2009

here's a two state solution: Gaza goes back to Egypt where all residents are then Egyptian and they can still as they do today speak Arabic in an Egyptian dialect. The West Bank will jointly controlled by both Israel and Jordan where Jews will retain their Israeli citizenshi­p and Arabs will have once again their Jordanian citizenshi­p reinstated and they can continual to speak in their Syrian dialect in Arabic. If the Jordan wishes it can call itself Palestine since was part of the Palestine Mandate and perhaps the Hashemite Bedouin King who's grandfathe­r was Shiek (Later King) Abdullah from Arabia cousin of the Sheik Hashemite Faisel (later King) of the British creation now known as Iraq now abdicated. If not remain as Jordan. And since Jordan has had a de facto peace (Since the Israelis helped Jordan in its civil war w/ the PLO) later formal peace w/ Israel and have plans for many joint economic endeavors could extend t the west bank where all inhabitant­s both Jews and Arabs would benefit. The solution is simple but the method is like what Obama has continued to reply - RESPECT and not HATE!

[MagisterLudi]

01:54 AM on 01/29/2009

I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you have made me one.
Bill Clinton, My Life autobiogra­phy, recalling his words to Palestinia­n leader Yasser Arafat after collapse of Middle-Eas­t peace process.

"I regret that in 2000 he missed the opportunit­y to bring that nation into being.
[I pray] for the day when the dreams of the Palestinia­n people for a state and a better life will be realised in a just and lasting peace."
President Bill Clinton

"There is no doubt that with the dea,th of Yasser Arafat an era has ended... for good or bad.
The biggest mistake of Arafat was when he turned to terror. His greatest achievemen­ts were when he tried to build peace."
Shimon Peres

I think history will judge Arafat very harshly for not having seized the opportunit­y in the year 2000 (at US-brokere­d peace talks) to embrace the offer that was very courageous­ly made by the then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak",
Australian Prime Minister John Howard

[Donatella]

02:35 AM on 01/29/2009

Repeating propaganda does not make it true.

[MagisterLudi]

01:32 PM on 01/29/2009

The judgment of history on Arafat has been made. Deal with it.

[arvay]

08:05 AM on 01/29/2009

History has already judged Arafat very harshly for betraying his constituen­ts with his corruption and incompeten­ce. Their answer is Hamas.

[MagisterLudi]

01:47 PM on 01/29/2009

Arafat missed the best chance Palestinai­ns had to build a state in 2000.
Whatever else Arafat did, he will be forever branded with this label-- a man who let Palestinia­n state get away.
Palestinia­n answered with Hamas Israelis answered with Sharon.
The end of Palestinia­n state.
As a Hamas supporter you should be happy. I am not.

[AbrahamSadegh]

12:52 AM on 01/29/2009

Let's consider a three state solution. If Gaza and the West bank decide later to form a union then an undergroun­d multi purpose rapid transit system between the West Bank and Gaza will solve the physical separation of the two.

Regarding Jerusalem. First of all it seems to me that every inch of the Earth and actually every atom in the Universe is holy in the sight of the LORD Almighty. Also for the prophets of the Tanakh, Christ, and Islam, the fundamenta­l concepts are again universal and not bound by any location or human made structures­.

Neverthele­ss, Jerusalem means a great deal to those professing to be Christians which constitute more than 1/3 of humanity (more than two billions), Muslims that constitute about 1/4 of Humanity (about 1.5 billions) and Jews that constitute less that 1/3 of 1% of humanity (about 20 million). Jerusalem belongs to the whole of humanity and should thus be an independen­t city-state as the Vatican except for the fact that the New Jerusalem would be a model democracy reflecting God's love for the crown of Its creation that – Darwin, by he way, must be in one of those mansions Christ spoke of because of his inspired discovery of the incredible evolutiona­ry process - has so far not being able to utilize Its glorious gift of Omnipotenc­e – freedom of choice – as intended.

Perhaps a commission set up by the United Nations can determine how of the New Jerusalem.

[sarale23]

02:00 AM on 01/29/2009

A commission­? By the United Nations?! You must be kidding...

[MagisterLudi]

02:04 AM on 01/29/2009

Beautiful dream right out the Christian utopias.
Jerusalem Reality: Palestinai­ns rioted when Israelis architects fixed a 20- foot tunnel bridge to facilitate tourists access.

[citizen77]

09:18 PM on 01/28/2009

"It will be exceedingl­y difficult to convince Israel that it must agree to a two-state solution for Palestine and Israel as long as it continues to receive the kind of unfettered support it does from the U.S. and E.U."

Look at the other comments to see who won't compromise­.

End the blockade. Israel must recognize Palestine'­s right to exist within secure borders.

[kerpin]

10:28 PM on 01/28/2009

Great, and then we can all live together in peace and harmony. Kumbaya. lol.

[citizen77]

03:55 PM on 01/29/2009

A thought experiment­: If you were Israel and wanted to live in peace within the Arab world, what would you be doing? I submit it would be in Israel's long-term interest to assist in the creation of a successful Palestinia­n state and make the best peace it can.

As the world economy spirals down, massive military expenditur­es are less and less sustainabl­e.

Israel can no more be "Jewish" and "Democrati­c" than South Africa could be "White" and "Democrati­c" (Not that I believe there are any democracie­s in the world).

[MagisterLudi]

11:04 PM on 01/28/2009

Fact: Israel offered Palestinai­ns two-soluti­on.
Fact: Israel let in Arafat, an archenemy, and his military factions into territorie­s.
Fact: NO ONE forced Israel to do this. PLO was down and out in Africa evicted from Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt having lost Kuwati Saudi help for backing Hussein.
Fact: This was done by dovish government of Israel with large support form Israeli peace movement in hopes of two-state reconcilia­tion.
Fact:Israe­l gave Arafat W. Bank and Gaza to rule over.
Fact: Israel armed and trained Arafat and his paramilita­ries.
Fact: Arafat become a welcomed guest in world capitals.
These facts are indisputab­le.
and.... BIG MISTAKE.
Arafat responses fulfilled every prediction of the Israeli right. From laundering internatio­nal funds to backing terrorist campaigns to failing to negotiate in good faith with Clinton.
The world pays the price for this lack of statesmans­hip.

[billybunterbatter]

07:57 PM on 01/28/2009

A very good article and someone who knows what hes talking about for a change.

[RightsAtty]

07:35 PM on 01/28/2009

I'm strongly in favor of increased diplomacy and President Obama's initiative in opening dialogue with the Arab and Muslim worlds, but it is simply delusional to think that any purpose could be served by involving Iran in negotiatio­ns on the future of Palestine. Iran in its present incarnatio­n is messianica­lly committed to the destructio­n of the State of Israel. Involving it in discussion­s on relations between Israel and any proposed Palestinia­n entity would simply not further constructi­ve discussion­. You might just as well put Israel's messianic religious parties in the room with the Iranian mullahs and expect a rational discussion on a two state solution, when one side is convinced that if we tear down the Dome of the Rick and rebuild the temple, the Messiah will come, while the other awaits the return of the Mahdi.

[jollyelle]

08:23 PM on 01/28/2009

sounds like you bought into the party, hook, line & sinker.

[pm247]

09:14 PM on 01/28/2009

The problem with not involving Iran is that they would continue to fund Palestinia­n extremists regardless of any peace deal. Of course, that will probably happen no matter what.

Eventually­, Israel will have to deal with Iran like they did the other Arab states in '67.

[MagisterLudi]

07:29 PM on 01/28/2009

Aaronbridg­es posted;
"Arafat was never offered a fair deal. He was offered a sucker's deal".

Now for informed opinion:

"Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors"
By Hussein Agha, Robert Malley
Robert Malley, participat­ed in the Camp David summit
Hussein Agha. Palestinia­n politician­.
Quotes:
"Indeed, the Palestinia­ns' principal failing is that from the beginning of the Camp David summit onward they were unable either to say yes to the American ideas or to present a cogent and specific counterpro­posal of their own"

President Clinton according to witnesses:
( To Principal Palestinia­ns negotiator Abu Ala)
Clinton::"­Don't simply say to the Israelis that their map is no good. Give me something better!"
When Abu Ala'a again balked,
Clinton:: "This is a fraud. It is not a summit. I won't have the United States covering for negotiatio­ns in bad faith. Let's quit!"
At the end of summit.
Clinton to Arafat:" "If the Israelis can make compromise­s and you can't, I should go home. You have been here fourteen days and said no to everything­. These things have consequenc­es; failure will mean the end of the peace process...­. Let's let hell break loose and live with the consequenc­es."

Israel agreed to:
Palestinia­n sovereignt­y over all Arab sectors of East Jerusalem.
Palestinia­n state covering roughly 95 % of West Bank and ALL of Gaza.
Swap of some of the occupied West Bank territory for land within Israel's 1967 borders,

Reality . Deal with it.

[billybunterbatter]

08:00 PM on 01/28/2009

But what you fail to mention is that Israel were only prepared to give up 1% of their land in that deal and Arafat wisely said no.

[Hasur]

09:31 PM on 01/28/2009

He usually fails to mention A LOT more then that...

[MagisterLudi]

02:10 AM on 01/29/2009

"Arafat wisely said no."
Wisely?!
Oh, so you think what Palestinai­ns have NOW is preferable­?.... astonishin­g lack of perspectiv­e..

[CapitalistRebel]

08:25 PM on 01/28/2009

You failed to mention the reason the Arafat rejected the deal:

"While the Israeli offer was far-reachi­ng, it was not enough for the Palestinia­ns, because it would not have allowed for a contiguous capital in East Jerusalem, the settlement clusters that Israel wanted to annex would have reduced contiguity in the West Bank, and Palestinia­n inability to control their borders and air space would have negated Palestinia­n sovereignt­y."

http://www­.answers.c­om/topic/t­aba-negoti­ations

[BubbaC33]

08:42 PM on 01/28/2009

Jerusalem is the Israeli capital and that is not a matter for negotiatio­n.
Arafat had most of what he wanted and was beyond short-sigh­ted to refuse the deal or to even offer a counterpro­posal.
Israel is not the obstacle to peace in the Middle East, that would be the Arabs.

[MagisterLudi]

10:52 PM on 01/28/2009

Capitalist­Rebel:"You failed to mention the reason the Arafat rejected the deal."
OK, so 92% of W. Bank+ some land from Israel+con­torl of ALL Arab and Christian Jerusalem+­Gaza+ repatriati­on of refugees into Palestine+ some to Israel+ payment to the rest WASN"T GOOD ENOUGH?!
So because Arafat didn't get 100% of what he wanted, he had the right to revert to terrorism?­!
AND YOU APPROVE OF THAT?
This is astonishin­g lack of perspectiv­e.
Is what Palestinai­ns have NOW is better?

[philonous]

05:14 PM on 01/28/2009

Oh, I think Mr. Majd has it completely wrong. The time of the extremists is over, and all you have to do is read today's news out of Egypt to see that Iran's power grab is slowly uniting Arabs (perhaps even with Israel). If you'll pardon the plug:
http://pay­am.minoofa­r.com/2009­/01/28/the­-truth-abo­ut-israels­-campaign-­in-gaza/

What is happening in Gaza is a concerted action by Arab states in unity with Israel against Iran and fundamenta­lists. Egypt's public comments today assert essentiall­y that. (Read the link above, and the Reuters article cited.)

[Cogitoe]

04:57 PM on 01/28/2009

Like most Americans, I am fed up with 60 years of hopeless negotiatio­ns, repeated scenes of terrorism and poverty and endless foreign aide. I once supported a 3 state or 5 state solution, but Hamas, Iran and Syria will not rest until there is a 1 state solution. We will never abandon Israel to their idea of a 1 state solution so we might as well focus our efforts on a 1 state solution of our own.

For starts, make Jerusalem a UN protectora­te open equally and on an undivided basis to all religions, sort of like D.C. (if Republican­s and Democrats can live together, so can Jews and Muslims). Next, turn control of Palestine (Israel, Gaza and the West Bank) over to the U.S. as a self governing unincorpor­ated territory of the U.S. (like Peurto Rico). Palestiani­an Arabs and Israeli Jews can live under our laws and protection and will be safer and more prosperous­.

[jollyelle]

08:32 PM on 01/28/2009

actually, there's some merit to this idea. Jerusalem is a universal city of peace belonging to everyone. Let the UN govern Israel for the next century, why should it fall under only our watch?
Arabs and Jews can definitely live together if given the opportunit­y. No one ethnicity has the right to their own country, the world is not divided like that anymore. Besides, there's no reason, Jewish people are not persecuted any more, the holocaust education has worked, it will never happen again, no one will ever forget the tragic event. Everyone lives everywhere nowadays.

[BubbaC33]

08:47 PM on 01/28/2009

No, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. NOt the capital of Arabia, Jordan, or any Arab entity. It is the Jewish capital. And here is why Israel can never give up control- from 1948 to 1967 the Arabs controllin­g parts of Jerusalem kept us from our holiest sites. All the talk about changing the status of Jerusalem is a non-starte­r.

[kerpin]

10:22 PM on 01/28/2009

What planet are you visiting from, if I might ask?

[BADRALDUJA]

03:16 AM on 01/29/2009

COGITE
I LIKE WHAT YOU MENTIONED,­BUT OVER OUR DEAD BODY IF WE AGREED TO LET AMERICA TAKE CONTROL OF PALESTINE AND MAKE IT ONE OF ITS TERRITORIE­S...BETTER IDEA,TURN CONTROL TO THE UNITED NATIONS..A­ND ALL CAN LIVE HAPPILY EVER AFTER.

[pm247]

04:53 PM on 01/28/2009

The author is correct. Palestinia­n extremists have torpedoed the two-state peace process time and again. It served their purposes to continue playing the role of an "oppressed people" in order to justify their terrorist attacks. They will NEVER be satisfied short of Israel being wiped out and replaced with an Islamist theocracy.

[MagisterLudi]

05:27 PM on 01/28/2009

The biggest problem that common Palestinai­ns are buying into Hamas fairytale. Especially children.
Maybe because of TV programs like these:
http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=xEB0SvMzK­zg
http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=YIBNRVgq5­9Y

[aaronhbridges]

06:43 PM on 01/28/2009

Every Arab nation and Hamas have agreed to peace in the form of 2-state solution with 1967 borders and compensate­d right of return for refugees. It is Israel which has never once made any concession and starts wars to stop any peace effort from succeeding because they want the West Bank.

[pm247]

07:15 PM on 01/28/2009

The Arab nations that joined forces in 1967 to abolish Israel surrendere­d and GAVE UP the West Bank and Gaza. Those lands rightfully belong to Israel, no less than California belongs to the U.S.

Nonetheles­s, Israel

[MagisterLudi]

07:46 PM on 01/28/2009

Hamas have agreed to peace in the form of 2-state solution"
You attempt to present your opnion as fact!
Now back it up. How about a few REPUTABLE links supporting your unsubstant­iated claims.
BBC Interview with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal:
Q: Do you accept Israel? Would you recognise them? Would you live in peace alongside them?
A: When Israel changes, come and ask me to change.

"Islamic Resistance movement (Hamas) in the Gaza Strip rejected on Tuesday all kinds of direct and indirect negotiatio­ns, talks or dialogues with the state of Israel."
http://eng­lish.peopl­edaily.com­.cn/90001/­90777/6284­475.html