|
Thursday Sep 10, 2009
The Other View: Obama's peace plan?
Posted by Ziad Abu Zayyad
Comments: 19
    
Some details of America's new plan for peace in the Middle East were recently unveiled in the media; Al-Jazeera quoted Palestinian parliamentarian Hassan Khresheh as saying the to-be-proposed plan consists of ten points and aims to achieve a Palestinian state by the summer of 2011. The plan, which has not yet been officially approved by the White House, is to be to be declared at the end of September, according to the report. However, if the plan resembles what has gone before (which it apparently does) it will encounter serious difficulties and wide Arab rejection. Under the plan, Palestinians will have no authority over any part of east Jerusalem, Israel will retain control of some neighborhoods, and Arabs - in other words Jordanians - will be put in charge of other areas in the holy city. This completely does away with the primary and most basic Palestinian demand. According to the plan, international forces are to control several parts of the Jordan valley and the West Bank. This means the promised Palestinian state will be surrounded, by the Israel Air Forces from the air and by international forces on land. While this violates the basic condition any democratic state must satisfy, namely independence, it isn't the biggest obstacle presented by the plan. The plan requires all Palestinian movements to become purely political parties. This is a serious obstacle as no Palestinian movement will dare take responsibility for ceding Jerusalem to Israel or surrendering the rights of millions of Palestinian refugees. They cannot possibly agree to a plan which does not meet their minimum demands. The worst two points, though, are that under the plan the majority of Palestinian refugees are not to return to their homes (although some will be given permission to return to the lands between Ramallah and Nablus) and that Israel will have to release prisoners only three years after signing the agreement. On the other side, the plan assures that the large Israeli settlements, for which Israel continues to issue building permits, will be retained by Israel. Meanwhile, Israeli officials such as Silvan Shalom hold conferences assuring that the settlements are the heart of Israel. So Palestinians will have to manage themselves in ghettos between Israeli settlements on the West Bank land which is supposed to constitute the future Palestinian state. President Obama should revise his administration's plan and come out with something more balanced and convincing. International law states clearly that to be considered a state a body must have clear borders, an economy and a political system, and complete sovereignty over its territory. What this plan suggests seems to be Palestinian autonomy under Israeli supervision, so why call it a Palestinian state? Even though the United States seems to be unable to convince Israel to stop its settlement activities in the West Bank, I will discuss another plan, one that seems to be completely rejected by Israel. Doesn't that sound more like justice and equality?
1 |
JE USA,
Friday Sep 11, 2009
Ziad, I couldn't find the article you linked on al-jezeera English. Regardless, I wouldn't read too much into a "plan" being leaked by anyone outside of the White House. Without White House confirmation, I wouldn't count on any of the "10 points" you list. That said, if this were the White House plan, there would be very little chance of it's acceptance in the broader ME. Especially the idea of ceding East Jerusalem & the further balkanization of the West Bank. Add fuzzy borders & this would be a real disaster. It would lead to revolution and possibly, eventually, a one-state solution...
2 |
Ziad Abu Zayyad,
Friday Sep 11, 2009
JE...no one can be sure...the best thing to do is simply to wait to the White House and whether they would make a statement in the end of the month..but in a way or another i still feel that this is the maximum which President Obama's analysis are ready to think of...The problem s that the suggestion is not coming from ISraelis or Palestinians and this makes the American's work harder....I agree with you that a one state solution could be the end..
3 |
cares1996,
Friday Sep 11, 2009
Its almost wacky enough to have some semblence of reality,to ponder any world org. parting up anybody`s country is inconcievable,however it was done by dems after wwll hence Marshall plan.Could someone be naive enough to think they could do it before a battle? I gotta be honest,it wouldn`t surpise me at all,the absolute insanity being carried out lends itself to the possibility a plan to split Israel could be done over a burger and coke.Seriously stand back and look where priorities are,and to whom responsibilities are being delegated to.
4 |
MK boston,
Friday Sep 11, 2009
Dear Ziad, please don't waist your time talking about BAD plans for your future Palestinian state---if the GOOD plans never worked, and never will, what's the point? you are doomed to be repelled by others, because of your own terrorist faith with jews and your own people. Sorry, MK
5 |
Cember,
Saturday Sep 12, 2009
While I agree that no Palestinian movement would agree to the plan as mooted, no Israeli government can agree to give up a sovereign Jewish-majority state either. The one-state solution might have been possible in 1968 (it was offered by Israel, and refused). It's a dead issue now. Jews lived for too long as a minority to ever accept that status in Israel. There really is no JUST solution that will provide for everybody's minimum needs. The only possible hope is a border imposed by the stronger party, Israel, that minimizes injustice. In time, we all will learn to live with the result.
6 |
Petra, Bat Yam,
Saturday Sep 12, 2009
Ziad, Obama will come up with a substantive plan only if and when negotiations don't get stuck. It's likely that then his plan would look very much like the Olmert proposals Abbas rejected last year, which amounted to 100 percent of the pre-1967 Gaza-Westbank territory. I thought it was rather unsettling that Abbas didn't think that was good enough. Moreover, it's clear that a Palestinian state would have to be demilitarized, certainly for at least 1 or 2 decades; and there are other demilitarized states. Why are you so eager to let Hamas keep their militia or spend money on an army?
7 |
Ziad Abu Zayyad,
Saturday Sep 12, 2009
MK it is not necessary that a plan which you consider good for the Palestinians must be good for them...a plan to reach peace must be made by the two sides in order to be good for both sides...We ain't terrorists and many Palestinians can be an example of seekers of peace..MK i do not call Israel terrorist although each israeli settler can be a great example of terrorism and racism...a few days ago two settlers started to fight with me and attacked me because they heard me talking in arabic..they simply started shouting at me as if i am a black slave in the time of slavery in south america
8 |
ziad abu zayyad,
Saturday Sep 12, 2009
because they noticed that am an arab...Israel today is preventing thousands of Palestinians from praying in Jerusalem...this does not look for me an action of a democratic state....anyways lets forget about this and try not to chaneg the discussion into a game of blame...instead lets think of something which will end this long struggle and satisfy everyone
9 |
Petra, Bat Yam,
Sunday Sep 13, 2009
Ugh, correction: I obviously meant that Obama will come up with substantive proposals of his own only if negotiations get stuck !!!
10 |
Cember,
Monday Sep 14, 2009
It is clear that no Palestinian political movement can ever give up the so-called "right of return." To do so would negate decades of Palestinian pain from "refugee" status imposed by their (and the Arab world's) refusal to accept anything less than that ROR.
It is equally clear that no Israeli government can surrender the idea of a Jewish-majority state. To do so would negate the pain and suffering of almost 2000 years of minority status which the establishment of Israel was meant to remedy.
These minimum requirements of each side are in exact contradiction. The fulfillment ... (cont)
11 |
Cember,
Monday Sep 14, 2009
(cont) ... of either minimum condition negates the possibility of the other.
That being the case, there is nothing "which will end this long struggle and satisfy everyone." There is no possibility of a negotiated settlement. Any solution must be imposed, either from the outside (which will undoubtably lead to renewed warfare), or by the militarily stronger side (Israel) of the conflict. I don't think either of these "solutions" is, or can be just. Unfortunately, when one strips away the impossible, whatever remains, regardless of how unpalatable, must contain the solution.
12 |
JE USA,
Monday Sep 14, 2009
Petra, From the beginning of his term, Obama has pointed to the idea of a coalition of countries and orgs. negotiating the treaties. This is probably the best way to do it, as any agreement between just Israel and Palestine is likely to break down and/or get mired in local politics and delay tactics. I agree that Obama's administration will come up with substative proposals but I don't think that his active participation hinges on the negotiations getting stuck. This issue affects the US in many ways... no US President can afford to be "hands-off".
13 |
MK BOSTON,
Tuesday Sep 15, 2009
Dear Ziad, sorry for commentary #4, I agree w/you that those setlers behave pariticulary wrong w/you (commentary #7). I don't know if they represent the majority of them, or they are the black ships of the community. They could argue also that in your people, there are bad apples. Here is my solution: 1st, setlers CANNOT MOVE THE 'FENCE' furthur. If they want and need to grow, they will be able TO GROW VERTICALLY only, meaning only higer buildings can be build, on the place of old ones, or in spaces INSIDE THE FENCE, meaning NO MORE GROW. This way no more setlers problem.
14 |
MK BOSTON,
Tuesday Sep 15, 2009
Dear Ziad, continuation from comment before... 2nd, anybody, colud live, on this new buildings. Arabs and Jews. 3rd, on the land (or towns) OUTSIDE THE FENCE, meaning Palestina, also new buildings can be builded for Arabs and Jews. I just imaging that both could live together, with the necessary regulations and government control over all and each of the people. Ziad, thanks for answering me so soon, MK BOSTON
15 |
Ziad Abu Zayyad,
Tuesday Sep 15, 2009
Mk Boston...you are welcomed...Just to make sure..are you suggesting a one state solution? If yes then i completely agree with you but with a condition that this state will include the whole land of Palestine including Israel so JEws and Arabs can live anywhere.
16 |
MK BOSTON,
Wednesday Sep 16, 2009
Dear Ziad, thanks again for all your great responses. For 3 states or 2 states or 1 BIG-state is the same solution---you can call it "GREAT CANAAN" or something like this having as members ISRAEL and WEST BANK and GAZA, or just call them ISRAEL, WST BANK (or whatever) and GAZA (or whatever) and you make rules over the 2 or 3 states relations, etc...I'm sure most of the people can live together and in peace, at list I hope. The majority on all sides should win for better. Good luck, MK BOSTON
17 |
JE USA,
Wednesday Sep 16, 2009
MK and Ziad, Can you imagine the economic, political & social powerhouse a single state or two states living in peace would create? BUT, without real negotiations & acknowlegements (by all sides) that the other sides' history & claims are valid AND the bigotry & hatred are put aside, it will fail. You could end up with a Yugoslavia-type situation where ethnic groups live side by side, still harboring deep-seated resentments & racist ideology... until it all blows up into a civil war. If the people really want peace, they will do the hard work to make it happen. Hopefully, soon.
18 |
Ziad Abu Zayyad,
Thursday Sep 17, 2009
Mk I agree and Je you mentioned the most important rules to make this solution work...i totally agree with both of you.
19 |
Clive Buirski,
Saturday Sep 19, 2009
Dear All, can you imagine how great it would be to experience real peace in the ME. Positive thought is always a good idea, but will the leaders of countries allow their egos to be set aside. It seems that ego is key, let alone power trips. When I was at boarding school, I got heaviily beaten with a cane for being late for class or bunking chapel. Ahmadinijad needs at least six cuts for threatening world peace and for pushing the envelope to more war. Where is the United Nations? So typical of the U.N. to mumble a few slobbering words. How about some action U.N.? Clive - Texas
|
 |
 
Combined feed for all JPost.com blogs
Top Rated Posts
Tags:Blogroll |
Post your own comment
