Interesting post as usual, Eric. But the chances of Israel's neighbors giving any land to help solve the problem is likely zero. I think they're actually happier with the problem unsolved.
The Hydra-headedness of the Palestinians is what has so far foiled all efforts to work things out. Arafat has always been just one of a number of powers that be--even with his Palestinian Authority and little police force--and I'm convinced that he simply cannot deliver a ceasefire, a peace, or any kind of deal even if he wants to. Many think that he really is in full control, but cleverly dissembles that he is not while secretly fomenting the continued violence; but that seems unlikely now. We can reliably count on political factionalism, chaos and anarchy among the Palestinians, and how do you negotiate, or settle, with that?
It is an attractive theory that the Palestinians should have a state, but no way could it be anything other than a demilitarized one, maybe a UN protectorate, for a very long time. Arab neighbors would meddle in that state, no question, if it had a military capability in close proximity to Israel. Forming a demilitarized democratic state for the Palestinians, with a neutral enclave for Jerusalem (so nobody can claim they won it), and giving the new state a river of financial aid from the First World (and using some of the $$$ now given to Egypt and Israel), just might work. But because of the Palestinian Hydra, the bullets and bombs fly daily, keeping the heads there too hot on both sides to work out such a complex solution.
Your suggestion that the US simply walk on the situation seems to be getting more and more popular here in the States. But I think we have to keep actively working on the Palestinian problem, tough as it is, to avert an all-out war between the Arab world and Israel. That's not one the US would be able to just watch from afar.
John |
