The Middle East Quartet Meet:Countdown to September
Alternatives must be put on the table in order to prevent the Palestinians from appealing to the UN General Assembly
There are only two months until mid-September and the occasion when the Palestinians intend to go before the UN General Assembly to get its blessing for their independent state. While some observers of the Middle East conflict see this as the only chance to finally break the deadlock that the Israelis and Palestinians have been stuck in for such a long time, others believe the risk of such a serious unilateral step leading to new Israeli-Palestinian violence to be too high.
Alternatives must be put on the table in order to prevent the Palestinians from doing this. It is clear how urgent this matter is when even the Middle East Quartet, once declared dead and consisting of the U.S., U.N., E.U. and Russia, has once again briefly come out of its coma. However, it does not have much to offer because “1967,” the faux pas word that was spoken by U.S. President Barack Obama in May, and that horrified Israel, actually appeared in the Quartet’s statement a long time ago. The Quartet’s support of Obama’s speech would be nothing more than a symbolic act. However, the perception that Obama or the Quartet are now demanding that Israel give up all the territory it occupied in the West Bank in 1967 is false; it is still just about the extent and conditions of land swaps.
It is also about Jerusalem and the Palestinians’ right of return. In Obama’s speech in May, he also ranked the latter under problems to be negotiated. In Jerusalem, this elicited at least as much concern as the reference to 1967. However, in a 2004 letter to Ariel Sharon — then Prime Minister of Israel — U.S. President George W. Bush had not only stated that it was "unrealistic" to expect Israel to retreat to the 1949 armistice lines, but also that Palestinian refugees would be expected to settle in a Palestinian state and not in Israel.
Even that is reasonable. Furthermore, U.S. clarity on this issue is so important to Israel and its government that they should perhaps move towards appropriate cooperation in the settlement freeze issue. This could still result in negotiations. However, the prospects are not very high. With all due respect to human rights activists, their actions are not promoting solutions; but neither is Israel’s already notorious overreaction.
There are only two months until mid-September and the occasion when the Palestinians intend to go before the UN General Assembly to get its blessing for their independent state. While some observers of the Middle East conflict see this as the only chance to finally break the deadlock that the Israelis and Palestinians have been stuck in for such a long time, others believe the risk of such a serious unilateral step leading to new Israeli-Palestinian violence to be too high.
Alternatives must be put on the table in order to prevent the Palestinians from doing this. It is clear how urgent this matter is when even the Middle East Quartet, once declared dead and consisting of the U.S., U.N., E.U. and Russia, has once again briefly come out of its coma. However, it does not have much to offer because “1967,” the faux pas word that was spoken by U.S. President Barack Obama in May, and that horrified Israel, actually appeared in the Quartet’s statement a long time ago. The Quartet’s support of Obama’s speech would be nothing more than a symbolic act. However, the perception that Obama or the Quartet are now demanding that Israel give up all the territory it occupied in the West Bank in 1967 is false; it is still just about the extent and conditions of land swaps.
It is also about Jerusalem and the Palestinians’ right of return. In Obama’s speech in May, he also ranked the latter under problems to be negotiated. In Jerusalem, this elicited at least as much concern as the reference to 1967. However, in a 2004 letter to Ariel Sharon — then Prime Minister of Israel — U.S. President George W. Bush had not only stated that it was "unrealistic" to expect Israel to retreat to the 1949 armistice lines, but also that Palestinian refugees would be expected to settle in a Palestinian state and not in Israel.
Even that is reasonable. Furthermore, U.S. clarity on this issue is so important to Israel and its government that they should perhaps move towards appropriate cooperation in the settlement freeze issue. This could still result in negotiations. However, the prospects are not very high. With all due respect to human rights activists, their actions are not promoting solutions; but neither is Israel’s already notorious overreaction.
Previous article![]( "The Right Word: Bust-Up over the Debt Ceiling")
