Window for Peace

Published in El Pais
(Spain) on 3 September 2010
by (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Joseph Locatelli. Edited by Sam Carter.
Once again, after nearly a century, Israelis and Palestinians are negotiating an end to the conflict over sovereignty of the same land. Since the Madrid Conference in 1991, all American presidents tried, each in his own way, to sit both parties down until they achieved peace, and none were able to crown efforts with success.

In the last months of his second term, Bill Clinton came the closest, but his attempts were spoiled by the second Intifada. At the end of his presidency, the Labour government in Israel acknowledged Clinton's progress, which included the establishment of a Palestinian state, an essential legacy for those who wanted to achieve peace.

One year before leaving the White House, Bush's Annapolis summit failed. However, his vision of two states living together in proximity, peace and security contributed to a general acceptance of the right to Palestinian statehood from more conservative public sources, including Israel.

Now, this is the hour of Obama, whose ideas about the peace process are the core of an overall strategy for the region that includes withdrawal from Iraq, containment of Iran's nuclear threat and the unraveling of Taliban rebellion between Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Al-Qaeda maintains its winter quarters.

The challenge is probably excessive, although Obama has placed it at the top of his priorities. One can already count on a boycott by extremists on either side and the skepticism of the majority after so many failures. There are difficulties of all kinds: the acts of terrorism against settlers; the blockade of Gaza; the continuation of the settlements; the division of the Palestinian camps and Israeli political fragmentation, among many others. It is important not to forget Obama’s difficulties with conservative public opinion, such as being resented for Bush's failures, not to mention the neoconservatives, who are more disposed to rouse a clash of civilizations before allowing a Democratic president to achieve success.

Low visibility from the Europeans at the inaugural conference is also regrettable. There were only two major partners present from Bush's preemptive war: Tony Blair, now a representative for the EU through the change in rebate rules after twenty years, and Aznar, with his taunts against Obama, whom he accuses of favoritism towards Islamic countries, in tune with the extreme Right in America.

Despite these difficulties, necessity has opened a new window for peace. Interventions on the first day, including those of Netanyahu and Abbas, plus the work plan presented by expert and successful negotiator George Mitchell, permit one to hope that this time it will not end quickly and bloodily, like every other time.


Israelíes y palestinos negocian por enésima vez la salida al conflicto que les viene enfrentando casi desde hace un siglo por la soberanía de la misma tierra. Desde la Conferencia de Madrid, en 1991, todos los presidentes norteamericanos han intentado, cada uno a su manera, sentar a las dos partes hasta alcanzar la paz, sin que ninguno haya llegado a coronar sus esfuerzos con el éxito. Quien más cerca estuvo fue Bill Clinton, en los últimos meses de su mandato, pero sus intentos fueron desbaratados por la segunda Intifada.

De los avances realizados al final de su presidencia con un Gobierno laborista en Israel salen los llamados parámetros de Clinton, que incluyen la constitución de un Estado palestino y constituyen un legado imprescindible para quien quiera alcanzar la paz. Aunque Bush fracasó con su cumbre de Annapolis, un año antes de abandonar la Casa Blanca, hay que reconocer que su visión de los dos Estados conviviendo en paz y seguridad uno al lado del otro ha contribuido a que la opinión pública más conservadora, incluida la de Israel, asuma finalmente algo que no siempre se venía aceptando como es el derecho de los palestinos a un Estado propio.

Esta es la hora de Obama, cuya idea sobre el proceso de paz es el eje de una amplia estrategia de conjunto para la región que incluye la retirada de Irak, la contención del Irán nuclear y el desenmarañamiento de la rebelión talibán entre Afganistán y Pakistán, donde Al Qaeda mantiene sus cuarteles de invierno.
El desafío es probablemente excesivo, aunque Obama lo haya situado en lo más alto de sus preferencias. Cuenta ya con el boicot de los extremistas de uno y otro lado y con el escepticismo de la mayoría tras tantos fracasos. También con dificultades de toda índole: los actos de terrorismo contra los colonos, el bloqueo de Gaza, la continuación de los asentamientos, la división del campo palestino o la fragmentación política israelí, entre muchos otros. Sin olvidar las dificultades de Obama con su opinión pública conservadora, resentida por los fracasos de Bush y sus neocons y dispuesta a atizar el choque de civilizaciones antes que entregar un éxito a un presidente demócrata.
Es también lamentable la escasa visibilidad de los europeos en la conferencia inaugural. Solo han contado dos de los mayores socios de Bush en su guerra preventiva: Tony Blair, convertido en representante de la UE por desistimiento de los Veintisiete; y Aznar, con sus pullas contra Obama, al que acusa de favoritismo con los países islámicos, en sintonía con la extrema derecha norteamericana.
A pesar de esas dificultades, la necesidad ha abierto de nuevo una ventana para la paz. Las intervenciones del primer día, incluidas las de Netanyahu y de Abbas, y el plan de trabajo presentado por el experto y exitoso negociador que es George Mitchell, permiten esperar que esta vez no vuelva a cerrarse sangrienta y bruscamente como ha venido sucediendo en todas las ocasiones anteriores.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Ireland: Donald Trump Could Be Swallowed Up by an Epstein Conspiracy He Helped Create

Taiwan: Tariff Showdown Doesn’t Shake Confidence

Russia: The 3rd-Party Idea as a Growing Trend*

Canada: Negotiating a Business Deal without Trust

Japan: The Role of a Diplomatic Attitude To Maintain the International Order

Topics

Spain: Another Threat from Trump

Canada: Negotiating a Business Deal without Trust

Taiwan: Tariff Showdown Doesn’t Shake Confidence

Australia: Donald Trump Made MAGA a Promise on the Epstein Files. They Are Holding Him to It

Australia: What’s Behind Donald Trump’s Latest Crypto Adventure?

Ireland: Donald Trump Could Be Swallowed Up by an Epstein Conspiracy He Helped Create

China: Blind Faith in US ‘Security Commitments’ Is Short-Sighted

Thailand: Donald Trump Buys Time with Weapons for Kyiv

Related Articles

Spain: Spain’s Defense against Trump’s Tariffs

Spain: Shooting Yourself in the Foot

Spain: King Trump: ‘America Is Back’

Spain: Trump Changes Sides

Spain: Narcissists Trump and Musk: 2 Sides of the Same Coin?

1 COMMENT

  1. I have drawn attention f Mr Simon Peres about the anomaly in Israel’s creation. It being a profane state in that its founding father is on record having rejected God’s affirmation at the founding ceremony, its validation is in question. Zionists have apparently parted ways with God, forgetting that this happens to be the fault line of all Jewish misfortunes in past four thousands history. The Koran reminds Jews that if a mere whiff of the fire of hell touches them, they would cry out: “Woe unto us, we, indeed is the wrong-doers.” As in the past, the threat hovering over Israel might come in a way least expected by the Knesset. Peace for the Jews is intertwined with a devout faith in God. And there appears no sign of God lifting the exile before the coming of the Messiah. So, for who are the Zionists, building settlements?