A Road Out?
Brent Scowcroft writes in today's Washington Post an outline for a plan for a comprehensive settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. On paper it would appear to be a reasonable plan. There are a number of compromises that would make everyone involved less than happy (Usually a good sign that the compromise is workable).
The outlines of a comprehensive settlement have been apparent since President Bill Clinton's efforts collapsed in 2000. The major elements would include:
· A Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, with minor rectifications agreed upon between Palestine and Israel.
· Palestinians giving up the right of return and Israel reciprocating by removing its settlements in the West Bank, again with rectifications as mutually agreed. Those displaced on both sides would receive compensation from the international community.
· King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia unambiguously reconfirming his 2002 pledge that the Arab world is prepared to enter into full normal relations with Israel upon its withdrawal from the lands occupied in 1967.
· Egypt and Saudi Arabia working with the Palestinian Authority to put together a government along the lines of the 18-point agreement reached between Hamas and Fatah prisoners in Israeli jails in June. This government would negotiate for the Authority.
· Deployment, as part of a cease-fire, of a robust international force in southern Lebanon.
· Deployment of another international force to facilitate and supervise traffic to and from Gaza and the West Bank.
· Designation of Jerusalem as the shared capital of Israel and Palestine, with appropriate international guarantees of freedom of movement and civic life in the city.
These elements are well-known to people who live in the region and to those outside who have labored over the decades seeking to shape a lasting peace. What seems breathtakingly complicated, however, is how one mobilizes the necessary political will, in the region and beyond, to transform these principles into an agreement on a lasting accord.
The current crisis in Lebanon provides a historic opportunity to achieve what has seemed impossible. That said, it is too much to expect those most directly implicated — Israeli and Palestinian leaders — to lead the way. That responsibility falls to others, principally the United States, which alone can mobilize the international community and Israel and the Arab states for the task that has defeated so many previous efforts.
Scowcroft goes on to argue that the so-called Quartet should be the driving force behind the whole thing. The problem is, of course, that this has all been on the table before and the terrorists have refused the deals and just gone on doing what they do best - kill people and chances for peace. Maybe the answer this time is to do it differently. To go after Hezbollah so hard that they have to negotiate for real this time.
And maybe that's what Bush's strategy is this time.
By awlkekjwqhr2, Sunday, 30 July , 2006 @ 11:03 am
Peace plan after peace plan after peace plan. The problem with all of them is that the Palsestinians do not want peace with Israel, they want Israel to cease to exist. It doesn’t matter how “fair” the plan is or how much Israel gives up there can’t be peace unless boths side want to live in peace with each other. Israel has time and time again demonstrated its willingness to achieve peace. Until the Palestinians do the same, there is no point in negotiating anything.
By Tom, Sunday, 30 July , 2006 @ 1:14 pm
Hamas & Hezbollah have one reason & one reason only - the distruction of Israel, and if every Jew dies in the process, they couldn’t care less.
By Blackhawk, Sunday, 30 July , 2006 @ 1:38 pm
Actually I think they would like every Jew killed in the process. What they couldn’t care less about is how many muslims die in the process.