By Ted Belman
Who better than Dennis Ross to explain the diplomatic process as it pertains to the ME.
Ross explains in his Foreign Policy interview just below that “We’re not on the brink of any kind of breakthrough.” and he explains that therefore diplomacy focuses preventing the climate from worsening and possibly improving it.
There’s no such thing as a status quo, particularly in this part of the world. It’s never static. What you can’t afford is to have a stalemate when those who reject the very idea of a two-state solution are able to exploit it to increasingly undermine the prospect of it. I think the premise of your question is right — we’re not on the brink of a breakthrough. And yet it’s important to try to find ways to overcome the stalemate.
Abu Mazen represents the constituency that prefers non-violence and moderation.
If those who believe in nonviolence and coexistence can point to the fact that Israeli control is being reduced and that their way is ultimately going to be the one that produces a state, then there’s a payoff.
Thus there is pressure on Israel to encourage belief that a deal is possible so that the Palestinians won’t turn to the UN,which would solve nothing, and don’t turn to violence and the Hamas way.
Evidently Israel accepts the need to provide “gestures” and she even refrains from large scale building except for the odd bone that they give the hawks to appease them and keep theM quite more or less.
It was explained to me today by insiders that the the Israeli public and the current government really wants to cut a deal and have peace. But they assured me that Israel won’t compromise on Security. I countered that there was a sizable Israeli public and growing steadily, that they prefer to pursue peace through strength and to keep the land. Why give it up?
They countered that Israel constantly assuages the wrath of the Manin stream Media, the Europen Union and the US. She fears that it could get out of hand and that the US won’t necessarily protect them with a veto. Let’s say Israel provokes them by following some of the policies our commenters espouse, and as a result a resolution is put before the UNSC declaring that sanctions or military force should be used because in their opinion Israel’s actions threaten peace.
Just as Ross says,
There isn’t a Republican or Democratic approach to Israel; there’s an American approach to Israel. I think that’s been consistent,
there is also an Israeli approach, rather than a Labour/Kadima approach v a Likud approach, which has been consistent since the ’67 victory namely, land for peace. This will not change no matter who is in power.
Without a game changer event, this will not change.
When the ruler says to the Jew, teach my camel to talk or I’ll kill you, the Jew says give me a year to do it and the ruler agrees. Another Jew asks how can you agree to that and the Jew says lots of things can happen. Either the ruler dies within the year or I teach him to talk or the camel dies. In the meantime, I bought a year.
And maybe the Palestinians will take over Jorda and invite all Palestinians to move there.