Pres. Obama and his administration have delivered the message on a two-state solution loud and clear. Prime Minister Netanyahu just might have gotten the message. I say maybe, because what Eli Lake is now reporting offers just as many questions as to outcome as we had before. The Israeli hardliner may be willing to give to reality, but offers as many sticking points to make you wonder if these “strict Israeli conditions” will scuttle any hope before we get started.
Here’s the rub… actually that should be rubs:
The conditions he is expected to put forward include:
• 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.
Wonder how many entities are included on the list of those “powers hostile to Israel”? Is Hamas one of them and if so this means we’re not going anywhere quickly, maybe not at all?
In the conversation with Mustafa Barghouti earlier this week, it was mentioned that the continued nod to the P.A. isn’t exactly helping the conversation, because they’re basically hobbled (or maybe Netanyahu can’t bring himself to say Hamas?). So one has to question whether this condition is also set up to cause complications.
As for “unfettered access to Paleninians airspace,” it seems to me Netanyahu, for all his reported bending, is actually intending to offer a state on training wheels, subject to the rules set forth by Israel. Who in the world would accept this? What “nation”? It’s preposterous.
It just won’t work this way, especially since we have no idea what Netanyahu is prepared to do on settlements. Matthew Yglesias also mentions the “controversy du jour regarding settlements” which is far too flip for the reality. It’s a major issue, because you can’t have Palestine and settlements (or outposts).
So, color me curious to hear the details on Sunday. But seriously, it’s not exactly impressive that Netanyahu might agree to something that has been accepted as the end game for Israelis and Palestinians for over a decade.
Comments are closed.