Frank Apisa wrote:
But the two state solution has the potential for making things worse.
I really don't get how. How is that worse than the status quo where the Palestinians are stateless and lack sovereignty?
One of the big factors motivating the anger of Arabs in this mess…is the sense of embarrassment at being out-done by the Jews at every turn.
But how would Palestinian statehood be more embarrassing than what they have now?
Fact is, Jews are acheivers…big time. They get things done.
They’ve effectively taken an area that has been under-used and ill-used for centuries (mostly by Arabs)…and made it a thriving, prosperous community.
The Arabs are, I’m afraid, hopelessly outclassed by the Jews…and they resent it in spades.
I have a lot of respect for Jews as an industrious people and for Israel but the mantra that they turned desert into a first world country largely neglects that they did so with huge infusions of cash and resources from Europe and the US.
It's often used as a knock on Arabs, to show clear racial superiority basing the development difference on dispositional differences between them, but this argument ignores the vast situational differences.
But at least now, in the fragmentation and without a state of their own, they have ready made excuses to ease the pain. Give them a state…and the excuses vanish. And I am almost positive they will still trail the Jews by light years.
But the primary motivation for their anger and violence also vanishes. Most of them don't hate Israel for being successful, they hate Israel for interfering in their lives, restricting their movement, and killing their relatives.
There will always be resentment but I think you overstate the importance of it in this conflict. They just aren't fighting because of envy even if that might be an exacerbating factor.
The two state solution has the potential for being fuel onto fire.
There's only one real danger I see that can be described this way. Moderate Arabs have been calling for a solution that is very very close to acceptable for both sides for years now.
The moderate Palestinian party, and all the moderate Arab states have already accepted the principle of an Israeli state and have even gone so far as to accept 1967 borders and compromise on other key issues.
The entire Arab world proposed normalized relations with Israel for 1967 borders, some kind of fair settlement for the "right of return" (they didn't use this specific language, indicating for the first time that they might accept other forms of compensation instead of relocation back to Israel) and a shared Jerusalem as the capital of both cities.
The danger I see is a split between these moderates and some key Arab extremists (namely Hamas and Hezbollah) where they will accuse the moderates of ceding too much or making peace with the enemy.
But that would basically just put them where they are, enemies of Israel.
As for the “Millions of Arabs hate the idea of Israel but have come to accept it and make peace with Israel”"okay, think that if you will.
Well their leaders have accepted it, I think you may have a valid point that their street hasn't but the majority of the Arab world is only cheering for Palestinians, and aren't attacking Israel themselves.
They have better lives and more to lose, they have statehood and sovereignty. I just don't think they'd become violent to see Palestine achieve statehood, but yes maybe the majority doesn't agree with the existence of Israel either.
I just don't think that Palestinian sovereignty would make it worse. Legitimate sovereignty combined with a rebuilding program that some of the process' participants (namely the US and Europe) have indicated willingness for can really change the facts on the ground and give Palestinians enough to live for to severely reduce those willing to give up all to attack Israel symbolically.
My money is on: Peace ain’t gonna happen!
As long as enough Israeli's don't want peace I don't see it happening. But I do think it is currently within their power to achieve peace if they are willing to make their "painful concessions" and show some restraint while it develops.
They did. All together. Even the guys like Syria. In 2002.
In order for peace to occur, the state of Israel has to go! It cannot exist in that area. The Arabs will never acquiesce to that! Never!
Most people have no trouble accepting it when a Jew says, “We will never be driven from that land!” Far as I am concerned, we all better get use to the idea that when Arabs say, “We will never allow Israel to exist here!”…the are just as determined.
Some certainly are, but even the most extreme Palestinian factions have recognized, at times, their strategic weakness and negotiated.
For example, Hamas launched their rockets trying to extract a lifting of the embargo from Israel. They foolishly tried to get this concession by fire.
All indications point that they would have renewed the ceasefire for a lifting of the crippling economic blockade. This is because they value being in power more than the war against Israel and they've demonstrated this willingness to be bought and negotiated with.
And that ignores the other side of the coin, that Fatah has not been attacking Israel for years and has a moderate leader who wants a two-state solution.
Things have been changing. This conflict is just not the same as it was 10 years ago. Within the last 10 years we've seen:
1) The first time an Israeli Prime Minister called for a two-state solution.
2) The first time an American president called for a two-state solution.
3) The leaders of every Arab country call for a two-state solution.
And all we are stuck on is Jerusalem, "right of return", final borders and timing.
My vote is that the world has got to take the land away from both of them.
This area is tinder to a world-wide conflagration!
As Setanta noted, there was a time where peace in northern Ireland seemed far fetched and the hatred too deep. It's preached often enough that these people hate each other that it's hard to believe it could be any other way but I believe it's possible. And most of all, I believe that Palestinian statehood is a step forward, not a step backwards.