But we do know for sure that as long as Cheney and Bush are in power, nothing will change and the situation in the Middle East will become even more explosive and dangerous,
One can hope that the new U.S. Administration in 2009 will recognize its opportunity to move forcefully and quickly to craft ways out of the endless Israel/Palestine morass. Indeed, this may be history's final opportunity to craft a viable two-state solution. For the U.S. to abdicate its role in helping bring peace to that agonized region would be shameful and self-defeating.
From now and until the November election, each of the three presidential contenders should be grilled by the press and public about their plans for ameliorating the situation in the Middle East. No doubt, they would fudge and spin their answers, but just forcing them to talk about Israel and Palestine, and how a solution is tied tightly to America's well-being, might yield benefits down the line.
SOME FOUNDATIONAL ASSESSMENTS
Here are some possible starting points that the new president might want to consider about the Middle East dilemma:
1. Working a way to a just and peaceful solution in the Middle East is of supercharged importance not only to the survival of Israelis and Palestinians, but also is in the vital national interests of the United States.
So much of the fervor, passion and anger directed at the U.S., Israel and the West by Hamas and many other distressed Palestinians and other Arabs in the Greater Middle East would start to dissipate if the Palestinians were to achieve a viable, geographically-contiguous state of their own. To continue to let the current situation stagnate and fester is to ask for more trouble, big trouble. Doing nothing meaningful in the Middle East has been the Bush Administration's policy for nearly eight years, and that's what must be changed, quickly, by whoever becomes President.
2. Under Bush, the U.S. supposedly was big on helping democracy bloom in the region. But when a democratic election didn't go the way the Bush Administration wanted, when Hamas won the approval of the majority of Palestinian voters in its parliament and both the U.S. and Israel said it would not recognize that popular electoral result, the hypocrisy of the American position was plain for all to see.
Hamas is not going to go away. Israeli governments cannot wish it away and cannot blow it away with missiles and bombs. Hamas is strong among its people because it stands up against Israel and America. Hamas therefore will have to be included in any diplomatic discussions leading to a negotiated solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict. No doubt, this will happen after Fatah and Hamas make their own separate peace with each other, if such is even possible, so as to negotiate as a united Palestinian government.
There have been hints that Obama and Clinton are not philosophically opposed to meeting with those deemed America's "enemies" -- such as Iran, Syria, North Korea, et al. -- as long as preparations for such meetings would seem to indicate fruitful avenues for discussion. Is it too much to hope that the new American president might be consistent and follow the same approach with Hamas?
NEITHER HAMAS NOR ISRAEL WILL DISAPPEAR
3. Israel is not going to go away. Even if most Arabs in the region believe that the establishment of Israel in 1948 on land taken from Palestinian residents was grossly illegal, the practical reality is that the Israeli state is there to stay. No amount of international pressure or bullets or suicide bombers is going to alter that reality, though the permanent borders are still up for discussion. Therefore, all Palestinian/Arab entities will have to deal with Israel at the negotiating table. (Hamas has been the most adamant political organization to oppose Israel's right to exist, but on occasion has hinted that if Israel made the right concessions, it could possibly bend even on that hardline position.)
4. Both sides have to realize that each has historical justifications on its side, and that in their behavior both sides are both right and wrong. In short, the question of who is the more aggrieved victim, while important, is not going to get either side anywhere, certainly not to a just peace. It's long since time to put that history to the side, so to speak, and just get it done. This doesn't mean Palestinians and Israelis will, or even should, like each other, or ignore their suspicions of the other's motives or their own painful histories. It just means getting the peace made and getting the difficult details worked out as best as one can.
5. The hope for a potential peace treaty depends on both sides' leaders (as well as those in the U.S.) being willing to make huge, politically risky decisions. Everyone knows this.
GETTING FROM HERE TO THERE
A. Israel will have to end its Occupation and return to its pre-1967 borders. It will have to abandon its settlements in the West Bank/Gaza so that the requisite geographically-contiguous state of Palestine can be made viable. Maintaining the Occupation of Palestinian lands is bleeding Israel of treasure and, more importantly, of its moral sense of itself.
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international relations, has taught at universities in California and Washington, worked for two decades as a writer-editor at the San Francisco Chronicle, and currently serves as co-editor of The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org).
it would put together a coalition force like it did when Iraq invaded Kuwait. This force should then be used to force the Israeli invaders back to the International boundaries originally given to it by the United Nations. If Israel then continues to violate International Laws or United National resolutions, the Palestine land which was taken to create Israel will be reclaimed by Palestine, the same as the land given to Nazi Germany was reclaimed by Czechoslovakia. In all cases the Palestine People will retain their right of return.
100% Citizen of the United States of America
by
Anton Grambihler (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 283 comments)
on Thursday, March 13, 2008 at 8:19:56 AM
I agree that a coaltion of that size would be appropriate bu
I agree that a coaltion of that size would be appropriate but is (1) it achievable and (2) absolutely necessary.
I think the fact is that if the US would back off, an occupation for ce for implementing the change should include more honest brokers--of which truly honest brokers are hard to find. I imagine if an unusual coalition of European states, Arab states, African states and Asian or Latin American states would be enough.
The USA has its hands too much on the Israeli side in recent decades. It would take 5 years of more even-handed politics by a new USA administration for the USA to be seen as a more honest broker. Perhaps, even Russia (or China), would be a better player at this junction in history. The USA with its wars Afghanistan and Iraq must likely be severely constricted or over by then
by
ALONE (129 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 279 comments)
on Thursday, March 13, 2008 at 11:42:30 AM
2 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
