The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPhilip Giraldi Archive
Obama Bites the Bullet, Maybe
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The Israeli and Arab media are chewing over what are reported to be key points from Barack Obama’s speech that will be given in Cairo next month. No matter that the speech almost certainly has not been written yet, but it just might be true that Obama has already made some major decisions on a way forward towards a two state Israel-Palestine solution. That the details of such a plan are being leaked at this time, if they are accurate, suggests that an attempt to sell the points in advance of the speech might be part of Obama’s plan. If the whole or even most of the story is true, it is a clear indication that Obama is very very serious about forcing a two state solution to end the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The key concessions are that the Palestinians will reportedly have to abandon their right of return to former homes in Israel proper in return for “compensation” (probably paid for by the US) to resettle on the West Bank or in Gaza. The Israelis will have to give up most of their West Bank settlements and allow the Palestinians to establish their own capital in East Jerusalem.

Holy sites in the center of historic Jerusalem would be administered by the United Nations with free access from both states. The new Palestinian state would be effectively demilitarized, with a police force but no army. It would control its own borders, which might not include its airspace, but the issue of how to connect Gaza with the West Bank is not addressed. Israel would also benefit from the revived Saudi peace plan, which would bring recognition and normalized relations with all the the Arab states except Syria. Syria would be a separate issue, with Damascus and Tel Aviv negotiating their own settlement over the Golan Heights.

The Israeli reaction to the set of proposals as measured in their media has been pretty negative, particularly over the issue of dividing Jerusalem. The Palestinians for their part do not want to relinquish control of Muslim holy sites. One would also note that demilitarized states don’t always remain that way, witness the Rhineland post World War I. Also, dismantling the settlements might be easy to agree to and hard to carry out.

(Republished from The American Conservative by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Israel/Palestine 
Hide 3 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. MattSwartz says: • Website

    Also, dismantling the settlements might be easy to agree to and hard to carry out.

    I wonder if the whole agreement won’t fall into that category.

    Will this be a case of both sides agreeing to something vague now in hopes of jockeying for position later?

    It’s in Israel’s interest to lock in something now, before their demographic situation gets worse and while the US President is perceived to be pro-Palestinian. It’s in the Palestinian’s interest to get some concessions from Israel on paper now, too, so they’ll have more leverage if (when?) the more powerful side doesn’t follow through, which will be used to justify their not following through either.

  2. Tom says:

    “probably paid for by the US”

    What a crock

  3. “it is a clear indication that Obama is very very serious about forcing a two state solution to end the Israel-Palestine conflict.”

    But will it “end” anything? I seriously doubt it. This is not something non-interventionists should cheer. We just need to get out of it and mind our own business. Any attempt on our part to force a “solution” just draws us more into the whole mess. Why can’t America just leave well enough alone.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Philip Giraldi Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?
A Modern Guernica Enabled by Washington
Pressuring Candidates Even Before They Are Nominated
But is it even a friend?
The gagged whistleblower goes on the record.
Today’s CIA serves contractors and bureaucrats—not the nation.