Due to the western world's bent that favors Israel, the crisis for which Israel has responsibility has been detoured to a conflict between Israelis and Palestinians in which the Palestinians are depicted as having major responsibility.
Crisis and not conflict
Wikipedia defines it well: "Conflict is actual or perceived opposition of needs, values and interests." Conflict between Israelis and Palestinians there is; for sure, but the opposing forces in this conflict are magnitudes unequal and their "conflict' proceeds from provocations. Defining the situation as a conflict is misleading.
The never ending "Peace Process' falters because peace resolves conflict and what needs to be done is to end crises. Ending these crises is contained in externalities; in law, imposition, and justice and not in resolving conflict. This is not just semantics. Israel's illegal seizure of territory, its documented oppression of Palestinians, and the refugee situation are crises and not conflicts. Skewing the debate from crises to conflict has added a multitude of issues that confuse the process, concealed the most paramount issues that need to be addressed and deflected the approach for resolving the crises.
Example:
The post World War II occupation of Germany created a crisis for the Germans but did not stir the Germans into a conflict with the occupying powers because the occupying powers permitted the Germans to continue with their lives and did not indicate intention to retain territory.
Resolving a crisis requires a different process than resolving a conflict. Plans of action, rather than negotiations, resolve crises, and we have negotiations.
Negotiations and the two-state solution
Israel wants the Palestinians to negotiate their surrender, which they will not do.
The Palestinians want Israel to negotiate retreat, which they will not do.
What is there to negotiate?
The Palestinians have nothing to offer except to give up rights and territory. They can promise to stop terrorism - that's easy -- they consider it resistance and they won't stop resistance.
Despite the usual statement from its Prime Minister of each moment: "We are prepared to make extraordinary and painful compromises," Israel has never offered any compromise, and for a good reason - the state has nothing to compromise except to modify Resolution 181, which partitioned Palestine. Establishing oneself on another's territory and oppressing them cannot be compromised. It can only be terminated.
Reports have the U.S. asking Arab states to consider "opening Israeli trade offices in their capitals and allowing Israeli planes to fly over their territories" in return for an Israeli settlement freeze. Note that Israel has claimed that settlement expansion is a humanitarian consideration. Now we have it as a compromise -- a bargaining chip. What do the Arab governments policies have to do with Israel's illegal settlements? Doesn't this use Palestinian victimization to obtain benefits for Israel? Soon, we'll have Israel promising not to destroy olive trees in exchange for barrels of oil.
Two states living side-by-side in peace is admirable. Who doesn't want that? Well, neither side seems to want the admirable.
Unfortunately, no Israeli Prime Minister is prepared to enter history as the leader who stopped Israel's drive in extending its territory, and swung the pendulum the other way. Israel's government perceives a Palestinian state as a haven for militants who will always desire return of lands and a potential ally of unfriendly states who will use Palestine as a base for attack. And then there are the water rights, fishing rights, air rights, and armament rights. Israel won't concede to anything it has and knows it can easily take. Why change a good thing? Even if Israel agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian nation it will do everything, including armed intervention, to undermine the effectiveness of that state.
From a Palestinian perspective, they will eventually have nothing unless they change their situation from powerless to dignity and strength. They certainly don't want a state that can be undermined or attacked due to a neighbor's whim. Negotiating without power leads to losing direction, being forced to negotiate away, and not permanently settling the issues. It also has an appearance of a promise without enforcement and a future that clings to "peace in our time is assured." Seems we heard that before.
