Olmert proposes an Israeli withdrawal from what he defines as “more than 90 percent of the West Bank,” but maintains the settlement blocs under Israeli sovereignty. Israel will give the Palestinians territory in the Negev, adjacent to the Gaza Strip.
Mahmoud Abbas wants Israel to recognize the right of the refugees to return to their homes, in accord with the resolution of the Security Council. Implementation of the right of return will be by agreement between the sides.
Olmert offers the Palestinian refugees a return only to the territory of the Palestinian state which will be established in the future, and not within the borders of the State of Israel.
Mahmoud Abbas wants a safe passage, entirely under Palestinian control, between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Olmert has the West Bank joined to the Gaza Strip by bridges or tunnels. The ground will remain in Israeli sovereignty.
Mahmoud Abbas wants East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state. The Temple Mount/Al-Haram al-Sharif will be under full Palestinian control.
Olmert concedes neighborhoods on the edge of East Jerusalem to Palestinian sovereignty. He recommends joint control of the Temple Mount/Al-Haram al-Sharif with international participation.
Can the aggrieved Palestinians ask for less? Don’t justice and reason support their negotiated positions? Will the prosperous Israelis, who are satisfied with the status quo and have the power to acquire more, be willing to concede anything? If the Israel military can kill Palestinians with impunity and without protest, why would its government take any negotiations seriously? Negotiations will continue endlessly until the world’s peoples recognize the cataclysm that awaits them and take action. We have already witnessed severe destruction in several Middle East wars and the consequences to the Israeli, Palestinian, Lebanese and other Middle East peoples. The violence has reinforced world terrorism. Now, we have the destruction of Iraq, a nation that was no proven threat to the United States, but was considered to be Israel’s most serious antagonist. U.S. government neoconservatives, many of whom have shown excessive loyalty to Israel, were instrumental in promoting the U.S. invasion of Iraq. In effect, the U.S. fought, and is still fighting, Israel’s battle.
Extrapolating from these atrocities, what is a predictable scenario in the near future? We have, as one outcome of the Iraq occupation, the accusations that Iran and Syria, two other serious antagonists to Israel, are threats to world peace – similar to Hussein’s Iraq – and both of them, without any firm evidence and much evidence to the contrary, are accused of busily assisting Iraqi insurgents. Iran, the latest number one antagonist, is viewed as the next nation to be liberated and decimated. With that done, what will be the fate of those allied with Hezbollah and Hamas? Annihilation? Will the battles end then? There will still be Syria, Sudan and other nations viewed as too antagonist to Israel. Millions killed, horrific terrorism, economic catastrophes, tens of millions of refugees and possible uncontrollable worldwide epidemics. And for each death, new grievances, new converts to battle and new antagonists to one another. Present day Iraq is witness to that story. If the battle does not end soon, it will be a battle for eternity.
In a November 2003 European Union poll, 59 percent of Europeans selected Israel as the greatest threat to world peace, in the top position, ahead of Iran and North Korea. So, what’s the problem? Can’t the United Nations force Israel to recognize the rights of the Palestinians and satisfy Mahmoud Abbas’ negotiation proposals? Apparently not, because there is another problem: the forces which manipulate the information concerning the situation, guide the discussions of the situation, control the decisions to ameliorate the situation and have the military muscle to counter any attack on their roles in the situation are the forces that prevent a logical approach or a just solution to the conflict. A logical approach and just solution to a deadly conflict don’t favor the policies of Israel and the United States. Their road to peace leads to a world shattered into pieces.
Dan LiebermanSeptember 26, 2007
danlan2000@att.net Dan Lieberman has been active in alternative politics for many years. He is the editor of Alternative Insight , a monthly web based newsletter.
Dan has many published articles on the Middle East conflicts.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
