At least not under a rightist gov't. I'm sure that even a rightist such as yourself can agree that peace requires a leftist Israel.
Hammer, et al,
First, let me say, that both sides are to blame, but for different reasons. And the US contributed to the failure to reach a compromise. But the two-state solution is not solely a decision the Israelis can veto.
The decision rests with the international community, just as the termination of the British Mandate and the recognition of Israel was in their power to stop; or allow to continue.
The problem is as complicated as the facets of a diamond:
So, yes! Certainly, on the Israeli side of the equation, the two-state solution has a number of obstacles. One major conflict rests with Israel - which is, in effect, trying to expand its borders beyond the accepted 1948 line; or even the 1967 lines.
No one really wants to organize the voice of the international community for fear that they will be labeled as anti-Semitic. No one wants to be at the center of a controversy that will make them appear that they are trying to persecute Israel and support the objections of the Arab Community; which has condemned Israel, sponsored international terrorism, and has an undisputed history of initiating regional conflicts over religious convictions.
So, in a way, I agree to the extent that neither side seems to promote agreement on the matter.
Most Respectfully,
R
First, let me say, that both sides are to blame, but for different reasons. And the US contributed to the failure to reach a compromise. But the two-state solution is not solely a decision the Israelis can veto.
The decision rests with the international community, just as the termination of the British Mandate and the recognition of Israel was in their power to stop; or allow to continue.
The problem is as complicated as the facets of a diamond:
- Leadership in the International Community: To be the honest broker for peace. (Especially the Quartet: European Union, United Nations, United States, and Russia.)
- American Leadership, heavily leveraged on the side of Israel.
- The ever growing magnitude of Israeli settlers and the accompanying infrastructure in the Occupied Territories.
- The distrust between the Israelis and the Palestinian community.
- The history of aggressive anti-Israeli militarism and deadly behaviors of the Palestinians.
- The lack of a common, authoritative voice in the name of the Palestinians.
- The lack of a clear mandate by the people of the Occupied Territories.
- The lack of initiative by the Palestinians to build their own infrastructure, industrial base, and commerce to make a foundation for a country. And the indigenous support for the various hostile activities considered by most nations as terrorists in nature.
- The lack of support by the adjacent countries to make the Occupied Territories prosperous.
- And more ...
(COMMENT)
So, yes! Certainly, on the Israeli side of the equation, the two-state solution has a number of obstacles. One major conflict rests with Israel - which is, in effect, trying to expand its borders beyond the accepted 1948 line; or even the 1967 lines.
No one really wants to organize the voice of the international community for fear that they will be labeled as anti-Semitic. No one wants to be at the center of a controversy that will make them appear that they are trying to persecute Israel and support the objections of the Arab Community; which has condemned Israel, sponsored international terrorism, and has an undisputed history of initiating regional conflicts over religious convictions.
So, in a way, I agree to the extent that neither side seems to promote agreement on the matter.
Most Respectfully,
R
Similar threads
