A new State of Palestine? Get used to it, Binyamin.

by gerrypopplestone | May 15, 2009 at 09:10 am
216 views | 34 Recommendations | 7 comments

There are signs that everything is about to change in the way the US tackles Israeli intransigence and the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestine conflict.  First of all, when the US vice-president, Joe Biden, met the US Jewish lobby (AIPAC) in Washington at its recent convention, he made it clear:  "You're not going to like my saying this", and went on explicitly to forbid the building of more settlements, and to say that Israel should dismantle existing outposts and allow Palestinians freedom of movement...and access to economic opportunity, according to this week's Economist.

That is good news for starters.


Then there is next week's carefully timed meeting between Netanyahu and Obama.  When a smooth opportunist, Netanyahu, meets a skilled negotiator, Obama, something has to give.  All the signs are this will not be a situation where both sides express their difference respectfully,then walk away.  So does Netanyahu have something up his sleeve?  He probably will want to come up with something big to divert attention away from this conflict.  Talk about Iran is an obvious.  But he might gush over the 57-nation plan that Jordan's King Abdullah is working on, as a way of stalling for a bit.


So far, all his expressed opinions are not hopeful.  He has publicly refused to accept the two-state solution, putting forward some notion of economic development as an alternative. He gives the impression of wanting to topple Hamas by his unrelenting squeezing of Gaza.  He has so far refused to concede the return of the Golan Heights to the Syrians (even though other alternatives have already been discussed and acknowledged as workable).  And there is more depressing news from him.  He wants Israel to be acknowledged as a specifically Jewish state and he still refuses to freeze the growth of Jewish settlements that cuts up the West Bank.


Be very afraid, Binyamin: 


But this time,  the US could well squeeze Israel until the pips squeak!  All the soft talk of previous presidents has got nowhere. This time, any clever semantics will get blown out of the water.  And leaving things to the corrupt Palestinians and recalicitrant Israelis to sort out? No Deal. President Clinton's judgement of Netanyahu previously:  "That Son of a Bitch doesn't want a deal". Things will not stay like that this time around.  Already Obama's officials are laying out the basics - not that there is anything new in them - nor need there be.


This time, pussyfooting around is no longer a choice.  Ok, it will take time, but Obama will be around for plenty of years yet.


This time it is likely that money will be more closely related to proven actions.  Of course there are lots of difficulties.  The Palestinians are all consumed by hatred:  their supposed attempts to kiss and make up have been a joke. We've all read the books:  Getting To Yes, and Getting Past No.  Conflict resolution works once both sides decide to go for it.  In my own experiences to stale-mates between opponents (obviously on much smaller stages), it is amazing how intransigence can fall away when both sides show that real commitment to getting somewhere. 



We Brits know it's never easy.  But we've got history on our side now, with the extraordinary contradictions of the Irish conflict and how the issues slowly got ironed out. I can still remember the endless mumbo-jumbo of both sides and their dreadful stubborn-ness.  Yet they changed and we got the Good Friday Agreement!  And slowly, both sides have put energy into making it work.


Everything is possible.  This time around, at least two things have changed - the audacious President Barak Obama is in the White House. Audacity is exactly what is needed, to challenge conventional, rutted thinking.  Obama exudes audacity by the bucket load! And Obama the Audacious already has lots of friends in this world.


What about us?


What, indeed, about us?  There is no point in leaving it to Obama and the politicians if we merely continue to bicker about what the other side did or are still doing to make things worse.  That merely entrenches us in an unwillingness to change or to see afresh the potential for resolving this conflict and transforming it finally into a two-state solution that we will support.  If we hold on to our bickering, we are still part of the problem. 


One of the most important positives in life (in my humble opinion) is to recognise opportunities, as they come floating through our consciousness, for what they are - opportunities to change the world by playing our little part. When things start to change, we can espouse those changes and encouraging others to see the positives in the changes.  Let us be bold and daring - planning for change and doing whatever we can in effecting it.



recommend This comment thread is now closed
1
gerrypopplestone

Many thanks, Jarrett.  What strikes me forcefully is that we all have choices.  We can support and nurture any efforts to get peace.  Or we can block peace by holding on to outmoded 'positions' against the other side, thereby allowing peace efforts to fester instead.

1
gerrypopplestone

I'm an inveterate optimist!  But also, people opinions are spread like a normal distribution curve - most people a bit confused somewhere in the middle, but willing to go with the flow when things change for the better.  Let us remember how huge a change that is when it occurs!  It means that people at one extreme (eg Hamas) of the distribution curve, are now far more isolated in their entrenched positions and isolated.  That brings about pressure for change.  Let us also remember that Hamas have never actually agreed to the destruction of Israel.  It was posed as part of their charter but they never actually signed up to it.

0
Jarrett Martineau

Great post. Thanks for this, Gerry.

0
158

Good post.

I agree the best solution is two states living in peace. But now there are three states, two living in peace and the third, Hamas, at war with those two.

I do not defend Israel but Hamas is the problem. They can not defeat Israel but by firing rockets at cvilians and having a charter that calls for Israel's destruction. But they can condemn Palestinians to two more generations of misery by provoking a neighbor 100 times stronger than they are.

 

0
Paschen

Good post Gerry, I like it and lets hope it will happen.

0
158

I agree.  As gerry said unless both sides want peace it will not happen
My point  was as long as Hamas declares it will destroy Israel and fires rockets at civilians israel will not withdraw further,  Lok what happened when they withdrew from Gaza.
That said, Israel muist be willing to allow a viable state.

Neither side is now willing to compromise.

0
158

I don't think we can do much, ie, Europe, North America. Aid to Israel is less than 2% of their budget, so little leverage. Obama is limited in using pressure because Jews and many Christians support Israel, and they vote.

I think by next year Hamas and the PA will totally split, each claiming to be the Palestine government.Netanyahu will compromise with the West Bank, increase, trade, cross border workers, withdraw some settlements, give PA a suburb of Jerusalem for a capitol.

Hamas will rule Gaza and continue to be isolated, thus a three state solution.Within 5 years an internal, bloody overthrow of Hamas, then a two state solution.

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

What is NowPublic?

NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.

Find out more

Crowd Power

Anonymous
First Flagged at 9:46 AM, May 15, 2009 by Anonymous (not verified)
These members have powered this story:

Related Stories

Recommendations (34)

Most recently recommended by:
 

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from