Guest
09-24-2009, 10:53 PM
During his speech to the United Nations President Obama made the following statement: “The time has come -- the time has come to re-launch negotiations without preconditions that address the permanent status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians, borders, refugees, and Jerusalem. And the goal is clear: Two states living side by side in peace and security -- a Jewish state of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people. (Applause.)”
His openings statement states that he wants to re-launch negotiations without preconditions. Yet the rest of the statement implies several preconditions:
1. A viable, independent state of Palestine.
2. A contiguous Palestinian state.
3. Withdrawal of Israel to the pre-1967 borders.
I am not a Middle East expert, but I do see real problems for Israel and Palestine with this preordained out.
• For example of condition one, the Oslo agreements barred the PLO from issuing its own currency and contracts and exchange are based upon the Israeli New shekel. Will Palestine now be allowed to issue its own currency or will it be required to remain with the Israeli Shekel? If Palestine retains the shekel, will it be allowed to borrow internationally with loans based upon the shekel or enter into contracts? Are defenses integrated or will we see two different Armies. Who will be responsible for the defense of the West Bank and Jerusalem?
• Condition two, that Palestine be a contiguous state poses real problems. To start with it is generally accepted that Palestine includes the Gaza strip. Beyond that it gets tough. In general, Israel occupies and is in the process of settling the west bank of the Jordan River. The nation of Jordan, one of our allies in the war on terror, claims the east bank. While the PLO is located on the east bank, it is there as refugee camps claimed as being Jordanian territory by the nation of Jordan. Then, what are the boundaries of Palestine east of the Jordan River? What will be the status of Jerusalem – which parts will be part of Israel, which part of Palestine and which part of Jordan?
• The greater part of the problem with Palestine becoming a contiguous state is that it cannot be done without Israel being cut in half and no longer being a contiguous state. Why should Israel accept that?
• Condition three requires that Israel return to its pre 1967 borders, giving up large settlements on the west bank, including not only people’s homes, but businesses and industries that employee both Israeli and Palestinians. Do we really want to crush the economy of the region, particularly that of the Palestinians. It also requires that Israel return control of the Golan Heights to Syria. These are extremely strategically important pieces of land. Syria used to rain artillery shells on Israel, prior to the 1967 war. The story of their capture is a riveting one and I recommend it. The important thing to realize is that Israel has not used the heights to attack Syria for more than forty years.
I may be wrong, but I believe that these are not two party talks, with the US acting as the ‘neutral’ arbiter, but must be expanded to include Jordan, Egypt and Syria. The easy solution is to turn Gaza over to Egypt and the settlement camps on the east bank over to Jordan. This cannot happen since Egypt wants nothing to do with the extremists in Gaza and Jordan feels the same about the camps on the east bank.
I do not pretend to know the solution, but believe we should not enter into negotiation with a preconceived output. As Voltaire once observed, “the perfect is the enemy of the good.”
His openings statement states that he wants to re-launch negotiations without preconditions. Yet the rest of the statement implies several preconditions:
1. A viable, independent state of Palestine.
2. A contiguous Palestinian state.
3. Withdrawal of Israel to the pre-1967 borders.
I am not a Middle East expert, but I do see real problems for Israel and Palestine with this preordained out.
• For example of condition one, the Oslo agreements barred the PLO from issuing its own currency and contracts and exchange are based upon the Israeli New shekel. Will Palestine now be allowed to issue its own currency or will it be required to remain with the Israeli Shekel? If Palestine retains the shekel, will it be allowed to borrow internationally with loans based upon the shekel or enter into contracts? Are defenses integrated or will we see two different Armies. Who will be responsible for the defense of the West Bank and Jerusalem?
• Condition two, that Palestine be a contiguous state poses real problems. To start with it is generally accepted that Palestine includes the Gaza strip. Beyond that it gets tough. In general, Israel occupies and is in the process of settling the west bank of the Jordan River. The nation of Jordan, one of our allies in the war on terror, claims the east bank. While the PLO is located on the east bank, it is there as refugee camps claimed as being Jordanian territory by the nation of Jordan. Then, what are the boundaries of Palestine east of the Jordan River? What will be the status of Jerusalem – which parts will be part of Israel, which part of Palestine and which part of Jordan?
• The greater part of the problem with Palestine becoming a contiguous state is that it cannot be done without Israel being cut in half and no longer being a contiguous state. Why should Israel accept that?
• Condition three requires that Israel return to its pre 1967 borders, giving up large settlements on the west bank, including not only people’s homes, but businesses and industries that employee both Israeli and Palestinians. Do we really want to crush the economy of the region, particularly that of the Palestinians. It also requires that Israel return control of the Golan Heights to Syria. These are extremely strategically important pieces of land. Syria used to rain artillery shells on Israel, prior to the 1967 war. The story of their capture is a riveting one and I recommend it. The important thing to realize is that Israel has not used the heights to attack Syria for more than forty years.
I may be wrong, but I believe that these are not two party talks, with the US acting as the ‘neutral’ arbiter, but must be expanded to include Jordan, Egypt and Syria. The easy solution is to turn Gaza over to Egypt and the settlement camps on the east bank over to Jordan. This cannot happen since Egypt wants nothing to do with the extremists in Gaza and Jordan feels the same about the camps on the east bank.
I do not pretend to know the solution, but believe we should not enter into negotiation with a preconceived output. As Voltaire once observed, “the perfect is the enemy of the good.”