And it immediately fell to earth.
As this diary may do because I've never done one and totally scared to hit that review button and find I have created a mess. But he who hesitates is lost. So here we go.
Netanyahu's conditions for Palestine and peace talks, to be laid out in his
speech tomorrow, were published in a diary here a day ago but with a
different view point.
I thought I would try to offer what I think is a realistic and objective look at where the US and Israel are to give us a better understanding of what it's going to take to get a resolution.
And especially as events taking place in Iran now will be keeping the "to do or not to do Iran" debate going in Israel and among US hawks and others.
So onward.
Netanyahu's conditions for Palestine were:
*Any Palestinian state must be demilitarized, without an air
force, full-fledged army or heavy weapons.
* Palestinians may not sign treaties with powers hostile to Israel.
* A Palestinian state must allow Israeli civilian and military aircraft
unfettered access to Palestinian airspace, allow Israel to retain control of the airwaves and to station Israeli troops on a future state’s eastern and southern borders.
* Palestinians must accept Israel as a Jewish state, a nod to the hawkish
side of Mr. Netanyahu’s governing coalition that has raised concerns that
the Palestinian Authority, which nominally governs the West Bank, does not
recognize Israel as a Jewish state".
Obviously this is a non starter list for Palestine and the reception to
Netanyahu's conditions so far by the US according to Haaretz as of 13/6 was:
"The proposals to be outlined in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech on Sunday will not be enough to satisfy the Obama administration, a senior U.S. official was quoted as saying on Friday.
The official said Netanyahu told U.S. envoy George Mitchell this week what
he planned to say in the speech and that it was "not adequate" to satisfy
Washington, who is pushing for an immediate resumption of talks on
Palestinian statehood."
I think Stratfor Intelligence gives an accurate description of what is afoot with USA-Israel. How Obama has changed the US-Israel and I-P and ME game and how he intends to get to his final goal of peace in the following excerpts:...(I took the liberty of adding the "steps" to show case Obama's considerable tactical skills in approaching this issue.
First: ..the Setup
"Obama has positioned the settlement issue in such a way that it would be difficult for him to back down. He has repeated it several times, including in his speech to the Islamic world. It is an issue on which he is simply following the formal positions of prior administrations. It is an issue on which prior Israeli governments made commitments. What Obama has done is restated formal U.S. policy, on which there are prior Israeli agreements, and demanded Israel compliance".
Second ..the Stakes
"Therefore, Obama has decided to create a crisis with Israel. He has chosen a subject on which Republican and Democratic administrations have had the same formal position. Obama struck at an issue where he had precedent on his side, and where Israel's immediate safety is not at stake. He also picked an issue on which he would have substantial support in the United States, and he has done this to have a symbolic showdown with Israel. The more Netanyahu resists, the more Obama gets what he wants".
Third....Obama shows he will play fair
"He has also picked a subject that does not affect Israeli national security in any immediate sense".
Fourth....the clarifying of the settlement issue
"In order to institute the two-state solution, Obama must establish the principle that the West Bank is Palestinian territory by right and not Israeli territory on which the Israelis might make concessions. The settlements issue is fundamental to establishing this principle".
Fifth....US writes the US rules.
"In the course of all of this, Obama is opening doors in the Islamic world a little wider by demonstrating that the United States is prepared to force Israel to make concessions. By subtext, he wants to drive home the idea that Israel does not control U.S. policy but that, in fact, Israel and the United States are two separate countries with different and sometimes conflicting views. Obama wouldn't mind an open battle on the settlements one bit".
Sixth....all that remains
"Given that, the question is where Obama is going with this. From Obama's point of view, he wins no matter what Netanyahu decides to do. If Netanyahu gives in, then he has established the principle that the United States can demand concessions from a Likud-controlled government in Israel and get them. There will be more demands. Thus,the question is what Netanyahu is going to do.
Obama did not start this confrontation to wind up there (back where he started). He calculated carefully when he raised this issue and knew perfectly well that Netanyahu couldn't make concessions on it, so he had to have known that he was going to come to this point."
*This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to www.stratfor.com.
Copyright 2009 Stratfor
Read the entire piece at http://www.stratfor.com/
I don't think Obama is going to back down or Israel come around any time soon so it's most likely going to be a long hot summer before a agreement is reached by all parties. There are going to be events, blown out of proportion or legitimate, that affect the US-Israel-Palestine back and forth. No doubt there will be some hardballs thrown by all parties but
that's to be expected.
Support Obama on this. He is going to have to advance steadfastly and be unpopular to some to gain a peace for I-P. I am a cynic daring to believe now because I think we have the right man at the right time in the White House. And how fitting it would be if a true American mongrel of two races, with understandings of more than one religion, with a footprint made from having to stand in several different worlds himself turns out to be the one..who really does change us and at least part of the world.