(Dis)Agreements
There was a full ten months' freeze on construction in the West Bank during which time the Palestinian Authority refused to come to the bargaining table with Israel until a month prior to the lapse of the freeze. That time wasted was not wasted for no good reason. This was a purposeful and useful initiative. For the Palestinian Authority to demonstrate to the world that it was prepared to bargain in good faith. Good faith included a pre-condition that had not formerly been present in previous talks; the insistence on a halt to all settler construction.And then, of course, the time elapsed and the ten-month freeze was concluded and plans to re-commence construction resumed. Predictably, the talks were then off again. The Palestinian Authority, condemning Israel for its perfidy, withdrew once again. Previously, it was assumed by both parties - and spoken of as a practical and useful proposal - that in the final stretches of any feasible agreement for peace there could result a swap of land to recompense on each side.
That appears to have been a too-uncomfortably-successful formula for reaching a peace agreement, and had to be re-thought. What the world sees at the present time is the new formula; one that places new restrictions and sacrifices on Israel, while demanding little but stubborn defiance from the Palestinian Authority. There is quiet talk about the potential for a bi-national state, and that would of course mean the dissolution of the State of Israel.
It would, however, be a satisfactory conclusion to the intractable problem that has presented thus far in the history of settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, as far as the Arab world is concerned. For Israel still and always will present to the Arab world as a foreign and unwelcome entity as a Jewish nation in a geography peopled by Arabs and Muslims; its presence an unforgivable and divinely unpalatable insult to Islam.
Interestingly enough a recent poll disclosed that a majority of Palestinians look favourably upon the creation of a two-state solution - as a temporary measure. That from the creation of the two states existing side by side a gradual merge of the two stages into one Arab state of Palestine would emerge, whether through force or otherwise. The Palestinian Authority still imagines their right to a nation-state from the Dead Sea to the Mediterranean.
The Israel Project poll of Palestinians from a recent survey indicates 60% in favour of direct negotiations to achieve the "two states" of the Palestinian Authority and Israel. And two-thirds feel that "over time, Palestinians must work to get back all the land for a Palestinian state." Of the respondents, 23% agreed with the proposal that "Israel has a permanent right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people."
Which could be taken for an encouraging sign for the future if the number represented were greater. Particularly given that armed violence remains a high priority for 58% who prefer "armed struggle" rather than submit to "engagement with Israel", on a peaceful, neighbourly basis. That higher percentage dedicated to violence reflects Palestinian Gazan opinion.
So is the stage set for any kind of reliable and lasting peace agreements?
Israel's Cabinet is prepared to invest $23-million to develop the Western Wall, the holiest religious site in Judaism, for a project the PA insists is "illegal", to improve access to the (Wailing) Wall. The PA insists this part of Jerusalem represents their future capital, where the third holiest site in Islam exists represented by the Al-Aqsa mosque, historically built over the (second, reconstructed) ancient Temple of Solomon.
Is it even remotely possible that these two viewpoints and historical and modern realities can ever reach any mutually beneficial decision?
Labels: Israel, Middle East, Peace
posted by Pieface @ Tuesday, November 23, 2010
<< Home