You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Israel-Palestine-Jordan
Why Imposing a Solution Is Not a Solution
2010-05-19
by Khaled Abu Toameh

Some Palestinians, Israelis and Americans are demanding that President Barack Obama impose a "solution" in the Middle East should the latest round of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian fail.

But a forced solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict would only aggravate tensions between Israel and the Palestinians and harm US interests in the region.

Those who support the idea are hoping that the Obama Administration would force Israel to withdraw to the pre-1967 lines, including east Jerusalem, to pave the way for the creation of an independent and viable Palestinian state in these territories.

Under the current circumstances, however, this scenario is completely unrealistic. A majority of Israelis is staunchly opposed to ceding control over the entire territories and redividing Jerusalem. Further, Israeli Arabs feel comfortable living in Israel: public opinion polls have shown that a majority of them do not want to move to a Palestinian state.

The mere talk about imposing a solution is already damaging any chance that the "proximity talks" could lead to agreement.

If the Palestinians are convinced that the Obama Administration is planning, at the end of the day, to impose a solution, why should they bother to show any flexibility? As far as they are concerned, it might even be better to deliberately foil the peace talks with the hope that Washington would force Israel to make far-reaching concessions.

As for the Israelis, the present government coalition is not in a position to make far-reaching concessions to the Palestinians. Imposing a solution on Binyamin Netanyahu would undoubtedly lead to the collapse of his coalition. There is no guarantee that if the Netanyahu government collapses, Israelis will vote for a more moderate candidate, such as Tzipi Livni. On the contrary, Obama's pressure would most likely alienate many Israelis and drive them toward even more right-wing parties and candidates.

At best, the Israelis are ready to give up large parts of the West Bank -- after already having pulled out from the Gaza Strip. Those who think that Jerusalem can be physically redivided are living under an illusion. Jerusalem can only be shared, not divided.

Even the Palestinian Authority leadership appears to have come to terms with the fact that Israel is not going to give the Palestinians 100% of the land. That is why an increasing number of Palestinian officials are now talking about "border adjustments" or "land swap" with Israel.

The West Bank and Gaza Strip are not holy lands and there is no reason why any Palestinian should be afraid to make compromises there. If Israel wishes to retain control over 15% of the West Bank in a final peace agreement, then it could always compensate the Palestinians with a similar -- or even bigger -- amount of land from Israel proper.

Ironically, the talk about a US-imposed solution comes at a time when both Israelis and Palestinians seem to acknowledge the fact that each side needs to make concessions to achieve a breakthrough.

Even if the two sides fail to reach agreement during the "proximity talks" that are about to be launched under the auspices of the Obama Administration, the option of a forced solution, should not be a possibility in the future.

The Obama Administration also needs to take into consideration that forcing Israel to pull back to the pre-1967 lines at a time when the Palestinian Authority is still weak and lacking credibility among its people would be a very dangerous move.

The last time Mahmoud Abbas was given land, it was in 2005, when Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip. Abbas later ran away from the Gaza Strip, handing it over to Hamas.

The same scenario is likely to repeat itself in the West Bank since Abbas and Salaam Fayyad don't seem to be in full control. Even worse, the two men are regarded by many Palestinians as "puppets" in the hands of the Israelis and Americans - a perception that plays into the hands of Hamas and its supporters in Damascus and Tehran.

The only way to achieve peace in the Middle East is through mutual agreement between Israelis and Arabs.
Posted by:Steve White

#3  anon1

Actually I am for throwing money (and do looooooots of propaganda about their suffering) at the victims of Islam.
Posted by: JFM   2010-05-19 11:13  

#2  good call JFM it's time we cut all foreign aid
time to spend our taxes on... US.

Radical thought, yeah? No taxation without representation? when was i last represented in the Palestinian territories? or indonesia? or anywhere else our governments care to throw our hard earned taxes?
Posted by: anon1   2010-05-19 10:15  

#1  The only way to achieve peace in the Middle East is cutting all internataional aid to the Palestinians plus ask for refunding of what has been diverted into terrorism and making well clear that every missille fired means a million dollars (Eisenhower dollars) fine and that in case Israel retaliates tehre would be no aid for rebuilding infrastructure.

That would mean that Palestinians would have to work for feeding themselves, that at the end of the day they would be far too tired to plot mischief and taht they could no longer continue to make war for free (ie spending our money on weapons). Plus it would place the burden of supporting them on Arab states. With all of its complaints of poooooor Palestinians not being aided by the Arab states the fact is that the fabled Arab street only loves them when it doesn't have to pay for them.
Posted by: JFM   2010-05-19 06:33  

00:00