« Prev Page

Reviving the Roadmap

Newsweek Web Exclusive

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

SPONSORED BY

But in the end, neither Oslo nor the Roadmap nor a host of other papers and documents actually succeeded in bringing about peace between the two sides. What does that say about the whole exercise, including Annapolis?
All these exercises, though they have not materialized in reaching this end goal, have produced an ideological revolution both among the leadership of the Palestinians and the Israelis and also among the people, because now there has emerged a majority on both sides that believes the two-state solution is the best solution to this decades-long conflict. So Oslo and the Roadmap have produced ideological revolutions, which have reshaped the minds of the parties—both the leadership and the people.

At Annapolis, President Bush talked about getting the two sides to reach an agreement by the end of next year. Is that realistic?
It is possible, but not necessarily likely. In a way, you have three parties in the region. You have the peacemakers, who really want to resolve the issues and create a Palestinian state alongside Israel. There are many Arab states in the region who will support and work for this. Then you have the peace breakers, who will say, "It's not in our interests to have this state, because our goal is push Israel into the sea." And they will use every means available to undermine this process. And then you have what I call the "conflict entrepreneurs," who thrive on keeping the conflict alive. What they believe is that a resolution of the Palestinian conflict will take away a weapon of ideology from their arsenal.

These are countries like Syria?
I don't want to comment on which countries, but you find all three schools of thought represented throughout the region, both among nonstate actors and state actors.

What about the issue of Jewish settlements? The Roadmap called for a total freeze, but the settler population in the West Bank has grown by 20 percent since then.
I think unless there is a settlement freeze on the Israeli side and a clampdown on security on the Palestinian, there will be very little credibility to the process.

« Prev Page

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: kass52 @ 12/04/2007 3:28:10 PM

As long as the Palestians don't show Israel on their maps, as long as they teach hate to their children, as long as we remember that Israel previously offered 1967 borders (with further terror as a result), as long as mortars and rockets are fired from Gaza (after Israel's gracious withdrawl from Gaza) - no one will believe the Palestinians will provide the security needed for a lasting peace. No one. Israel must have secure borders which is not the 1967 border.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: thebullss @ 12/04/2007 3:43:22 AM

because Palestinians believe, by virtue of their rights and a few UN resolutions to the idea that Palestine must have its 1967 boarders in order to say we have a just peace.

That is the essence of the problem. The Israelis has taken so much from the Palestinians that they have not left anything for negotiation. Palestinians have nothing to negotiate with, as they say no bargaining chips. Then you might ask how this could be solved? As always most difficult problems have simple solutions;

That simple, Israel must go back to 1967 boarders, and that would solve most of the problems, everything this side of the boarder will stay in the Palestine, and everything on the other side will stay in Israel. Settlers will have a choice to live in the New Palestine country and live like the Arabs living in Israel, or go back to Israel. Except the older problem of the refugees, which goes back much further? That problem also should be look at in the simplest way, some ideas have already surfaced, compensation for those people and their family, in fact it should be a very generous compensation offer that they (refugees) can not refuse.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: thebullss @ 12/04/2007 2:37:15 AM

Annapolis, was grate start for promising the Palestinians their long over due land. In fact to date was the 60th anniversary of such decision by the UN, Sixty years of war and peace talk and a few UN resolutions to that effect which the U.S. would not bother to enforce unlike the resolutions that would like to enforce.

Palestinians have come to conclusion that Israel and its supporters just talk for the sake of talking and do not wish to end this conflict. Notice I said Palestinians and NOT Mahmoud Abbas. They (Palestinians) have been toyed with not only by Israelis and Americans, but also by their own leaders, by other Arab countries, each for their own political reasons, and also by Islamic Republic of Iran.
If sixty years ago the UN told the Palestinians and the Israelis to go and negotiate a peace based on two state solutions, and sixty years later they are still at the exact same place that they were, what make them to do this now?
Does the Palestinian have something this time around to offer for the negotiation to go forward that they did not have for the last 60 years? Probably not.
Does the Israelis have more incentive to offer the Palestinian their statehood? Definitely yes.
The problem is that the Palestinians do not have anything to offer at the peace negotiation or anything that they could negotiate with, or any bargaining chip, except to say what they want. For instance if Israel would not give the lands before 1967, and say, we can only give you 90% of them, could the Palestinian counter offer and say okay will give you??? this??? and you give us the whole 100% of the 1967 land. No, they can not, since they do not have any chips to negotiate with. And because Palestinian believe, by virtue of their rights and a few UN resolutions to the idea that Palestine must have its 1967 boarders in order to say we have a just peace.

That is the essence of the problem. The Israelis has taken so much from the Palestinians that they have not left anything for negotiation. Then you might ask how this could be solved? As always most difficult problems have simple solutions;

That simple go back to 1967 boarders would solve most of the problems, except the older problem of the refugees, which goes back much further. That problem also should be look at in the most simple way, some ideas have already surfaced, compensation for those people and their family, in fact it should be a very generous compensation offer that they(refugees) can not refuse.