Three little words
Many people have been concerned that PM Bibi Netanyahu did not say those three little words to Pres. Obama that he wanted to hear, "I love you," no sorry I mean, "two state solution." Actually it comes to the same thing, giving in to all of Obama's demands would require Bibi to effectively give up Israel's sovereignty.
The reality of the current situation means that Obama's position that Israel accept the "two state solution" is unrealistic and naieve. It may be that Obama, in a hurry to show that he is engaged in the Middle East, having commited himself to a "two state solution" following the policies of the previous Bush Adminstration, has painted himself into a corner. The problem is that once he has stated this, and presumably believes in it, he cannot easily drop the mantra and adopt new policies. It is Bibi's responsibility as the new PM of Israel to point out the fallacy of this simplistic response to a complex situation. Although Netanyahu may be blamed for the lack of progress in the "peace process," eventually the futility of trying to negotiate a solution with Abbas of the PA will become apparent.
There are two main reasons why a two state solution as currently envisaged is impossible: 1. The Arabs so far have insisted on the "right of return" or the Palestinian "refugees", but in fact the only true refugees are those who left their country, not their descendents, and so the number of so-called Palestinian refugees is vastly exaggerated at ca. 4.3 million, whereas only ca. 750,000 left the area of Palestine as a result of the fighting in 1948 and few of them are still alive. Apparently Obama is working on persuading the Arabs to accept that the "refugees" cannot return to Israel, but must be either accepted in their country of residence, as they have been made citizens in Jordan, or will return only to a future putative Palestinian State (and this ignore the transfer of ca. 650,000 Jews from Arab lands to Israel), but so far this is only wishful thinking. 2. According to the "Road Map" that both the PA and Israel signed, the first step is for the PA to renounce terrorism and violence as a means to accomplish their goals. This is a very reasonable requirement, how can you negotiate peace with a enemy that continues to use terrorism to attack you. But, since the PA has not honored its obligation to do this, why should Israel take any other step or make concessions towards the PA. At stake are the settlements and specifically the natural expansion of settlements and Jerusalem due to population growth. The PA, supported by the EU and US want Israel to freeze all new settlement growth. Note that this is not the suspension of the establishment of new settlements that the current and all recent Israeli governments have honored, but merely the freezing of growth. The question arises, why should Israel make this concession when it is not required to unless and until the PA stops all terrorist activity against it. It makes no sense, is this the way to arrive at peace?
Apart from these basic problems, currently there is no unified PA government to negotiate with, and other issues involving Iran and it's proxies loom larger and more significant than the actually petty and trivial attempt to get Israel to freeze settlement growth without any reciprocity.
The reality of the current situation means that Obama's position that Israel accept the "two state solution" is unrealistic and naieve. It may be that Obama, in a hurry to show that he is engaged in the Middle East, having commited himself to a "two state solution" following the policies of the previous Bush Adminstration, has painted himself into a corner. The problem is that once he has stated this, and presumably believes in it, he cannot easily drop the mantra and adopt new policies. It is Bibi's responsibility as the new PM of Israel to point out the fallacy of this simplistic response to a complex situation. Although Netanyahu may be blamed for the lack of progress in the "peace process," eventually the futility of trying to negotiate a solution with Abbas of the PA will become apparent.
There are two main reasons why a two state solution as currently envisaged is impossible: 1. The Arabs so far have insisted on the "right of return" or the Palestinian "refugees", but in fact the only true refugees are those who left their country, not their descendents, and so the number of so-called Palestinian refugees is vastly exaggerated at ca. 4.3 million, whereas only ca. 750,000 left the area of Palestine as a result of the fighting in 1948 and few of them are still alive. Apparently Obama is working on persuading the Arabs to accept that the "refugees" cannot return to Israel, but must be either accepted in their country of residence, as they have been made citizens in Jordan, or will return only to a future putative Palestinian State (and this ignore the transfer of ca. 650,000 Jews from Arab lands to Israel), but so far this is only wishful thinking. 2. According to the "Road Map" that both the PA and Israel signed, the first step is for the PA to renounce terrorism and violence as a means to accomplish their goals. This is a very reasonable requirement, how can you negotiate peace with a enemy that continues to use terrorism to attack you. But, since the PA has not honored its obligation to do this, why should Israel take any other step or make concessions towards the PA. At stake are the settlements and specifically the natural expansion of settlements and Jerusalem due to population growth. The PA, supported by the EU and US want Israel to freeze all new settlement growth. Note that this is not the suspension of the establishment of new settlements that the current and all recent Israeli governments have honored, but merely the freezing of growth. The question arises, why should Israel make this concession when it is not required to unless and until the PA stops all terrorist activity against it. It makes no sense, is this the way to arrive at peace?
Apart from these basic problems, currently there is no unified PA government to negotiate with, and other issues involving Iran and it's proxies loom larger and more significant than the actually petty and trivial attempt to get Israel to freeze settlement growth without any reciprocity.
posted by Jack Cohen at 11:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home