November 14, 2007
Annapolis and the Gideon problem
There is something about the last throes of an American presidency that seems to persuade occupants of the White House that it would be a good idea to try and solve the Middle East problem. Jimmy Carter tried it, so did Bill Clinton. In Britain, Tony Blair fell prey to the same temptation and is now a part-time peace envoy (when not giving speeches for exorbitant sums in China.)
The latest lame-duck president to try his hand at the peacemaking game is George W. Bush. To be fair, his efforts are considerably more half-hearted than those of Clinton or Carter. In fact, until very recently there was some doubt about whether the Annapolis summit would even take place. Now we seem to have a confirmed date - November 26th. But expectations are justifiably low. The only senior person in the Bush administration who seems remotely fired up is Condi Rice. In a speech this week she declared that "Failure is not an option" - always a phrase to make the heart sink.
An interesting analysis of what is going on comes from Gideon Lichfield, the Economist’s Jerusalem correspondent, on his blog - Fugitive Peace. He argues that the Palestinians led by Mahmoud Abbas have already "caved in completely". They were insisting that Annapolis could not take place unless there was some prior committment to tackle all the tough "final status" issues - settlements, the 1967 borders, Jerusalem, the right of return. Instead, what they are likely to get is a re-committment to the dog-eared old "road map" to peace.
This will entail a demand that the Palestinian Authority crack down on violence and re-build their administration (again). In return, the Israelis will freeze settlement activity. If all that works, there will be a plan to press on and try and achieve a final settlement by the end of the Bush presidency. But experience suggests that neither side will deliver on their initital promises - and we will be right back where we started from. One thing that both sides will agree on is their joint committment to the dead-end policy of isolating Hamas and sealing off Gaza.
Its all so depressing, that I will digress onto the subject of Gideon Lichfield. For some years he was a colleague of mine at The Economist. But having two Gideons on the staff proved to be more than the great brains at that paper could cope with. Gideon and I were constantly confused and used regularly to recieve notes and communications intended for each other. Some of the e-mails intended for him were really quite interesting. Eventually Lichfield tried to re-gain control of the situation by sending out a memorandum on "The Gideon problem" - underlining the fact that we are actually two different people. But it was to no avail. Eventually it was decided that the only way finally to resolve the problem was for one of us to leave the paper - which is why I am now at the FT.
Annapolis is a big mistake of Olmert, which will just serve to raise expectations amongst the Palestinians, when in fact they are not ready for statehood. Actually, there is no logic to establishing in the West Bank a second (or third counting Gaza) Palestinian state, alongside the Hashemite Kingdom of East Palestine. A West Bank state would not be economically viable — here is not Singapore.
Posted by: RCS | November 14th, 2007 at 4:17 pm | Report this commentDear Mr Rachman,
Posted by: Oscar D | November 14th, 2007 at 6:21 pm | Report this commentHaving realised that you were at the Economist I am now worried. Is not the Economist instinctively in favour of just about any US war, including the latest Iraq war? Please tell me you opposed this stance and that that was the real the reason you left the paper.
Annapolis is a big mistake of Olmert’s, which will just serve to raise expectations among Palestinians, when in fact they are not ready for statehood. Furthermore, it is illogical to establish in the West Bank a second (or third counting Gaza) Palestinian state, in addition to the existing Hashemite Kingdom of East Palestine. A West Bank state would not be economically viable — this is no Singapore.
(Corrected my previous post; too tired when I wrote that.)
Posted by: RCS | November 14th, 2007 at 7:59 pm | Report this commentI wonder if this presidential syndrome is the result of the pesky reality that the US’s stance towards Israel–full support–is the single most contradictory policy its ever taken. It’s the rule of Israeli exceptionalism in US foreign policy: the spectacle of an anti-imperial, fiercely pro-democratic country wholeheartedly backing and bankrolling the active suppression of an entire people’s self-determination. As an American, backing Palestinian politicide goes against what I believe my country is about, and for any president with a scintilla of American values (this may not include W) it should go against the spirit of the constitution they pledged to defend. Clearing up this deep contradiction in US foreign policy would be a great accomplishment for any US president.
Posted by: Neil | November 14th, 2007 at 8:35 pm | Report this commentWell…
you could choose the ‘Osborne’ solution to the Gideon Problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_Osborne
Posted by: Chris | November 14th, 2007 at 10:56 pm | Report this commentor just hand out Gideon bibles to everyone, but don’t forget to bowlderise the bits about ’smiting’.
Posted by: Caspar Henderson | November 15th, 2007 at 12:41 am | Report this comment“But I don’t see that the Palestinians have any leverage here. They said there’d be no Annapolis without Israeli commitments to final-status issues; they caved. If they say there’ll be no Annapolis without a proper Israeli commitment to the road map, who’s going to take them seriously?”
Very good analysis. I am hoping this is how the other Arab countries see it also. I will be surprsed if there is significant attendance from other Arab states. If Jordan and Egypt go, it is still a big “yawn”…they have peace treaties with Israel. This is a photo op for Bush and Condi…no more… and insurance for Olmert to hang on unless he is convicted in a future criminal trial(s)…If this keeps Olmert going for a year so that we can all avoid/delay the return of Netanyahu to political power …so be it…let Condi, Bush Abu Mazen(Abbas) have their photo -op. However, the rest of the Arab states should not support it by attendance. This conference was only called to take advantage of the fierce intra -Palestinian conflict. The idea for Annapolis was born in cynicism and exploitation. Abrams must be patting himself on his back.
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | November 15th, 2007 at 12:57 am | Report this commentPersonally, I am very pleased that the “Gideon problem” led to GR ending up here. I wish we could have more “problems” of this sort and if there are any more Gideons out there who are of a similar quality, I hope they turn up here too….
I assume as a member of the foreign policy community, you will be attending to report on the conference. Annapolis sounds a bit of a dump. Maybe you should campaign for it to be held in somewhere like Mauritius, or Bahamas at least.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 15th, 2007 at 10:20 am | Report this commentDear RCS,
I agree with you.
The better solution would be a comprehensive reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians (with a S African style Truth and Reconciliation commission) and setting up a truly viable, democratic, multi-ethnic state.
This is a much better solution than replacing one racist apartheid entity with two.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 15th, 2007 at 10:27 am | Report this commentThe one-state solution fostered and well-defined by a minority of Israëli and Palestinian diplomats has always seemed to be the only fit solution. For me, the 1967 borders have never comprised a viable Palestinian economy and are bound to engender heightened hatred amongst future generations. Less than that would be utterly immoral, as the settlements have been fully outside a legal or justified mandate.
A Jewish nation is today a fact and a non-negotiable. A Jewish-dominated state, however, remains an open question in the minds of many who think beyond headlines.
In my post-War lifetime, the Jewish ethos seemed best defined in a handful of generations of inspired and respected thinkers and leaders who played valued roles in prominent institutions in France, Britain, and the US. My bookcases today represent their contributions. They were our multilateral and global architects. They advanced our legal frameworks for inclusion and liberty at every level of our societies. Their works were most often quietly and soundly acknowledged, and have rarely been amplified at the ballot boxes.
Israël was a moral necessity and rightly was recognised as an exception. Its geopolitical realities, sadly, were as weak or weaker than any on this fenced planet. Nonetheless, they represent compromise and, in the net, Israël is a contribution to our world.
1967 comprises events that defied the best and the worst of reasons for all sides. In the end, it was a diplomatic failure, not unlike some we appear to be witnessing at the moment nearby and elsewhere. The results were the fueling of wrong-minded egos on one side and added pain and exclusion on the other. Arrogance replaced dignity; criminality and terrorism replaced anger and desperation.
Since then, ill-informed and history-light US leaders have stirred the pot and asserted unwise prerogative in determining the region’s future. To single out just a few, Jimmy Carter has called forth quotations from the Book of Amos as justification for right-wing Jewish claims while arguing for better treatment of Palestinians–a rude condescension. Then Bill Clinton hurled a morally empty admonishment to Yasser Arafat that “this is the best deal you will ever get” when looking at a Swiss-cheese map where the high holes represented the best water supplies with the Star of David posted on them. Today, it is the less-than-impressive and questionably competent Condoleeza Rice who behaves like she is tyring to organise an unruly class of 8-year-olds for a Christmas pageant. “Never mind who plays Mary! Get ready!” Her democrat predecessor set a new low in personal integrity in denying that she had ever heard discussion of her family’s Jewish roots while playing a role little different than that of Rice today.
Perhaps the only serious contributions from the US have come from James Baker and Warren Christopher.
Yet, the current generation of Jews in the US have adopted a shallow and intransigient stance on Israël. Lifelong Jewish friends in America–secular and religious–now begin dinner discussions with hard-line positions, and then back down if there are at least two well-argued challenges founded on fairness and the hope that critical debate will advance towards a solution. Amongst my circle of European Jewish friends, I note opposite tendancies, confirming for me the unhealthy power of the media in today’s US.
Then there is Europe. Generally silent and embarrassed to even be at the cocktail reception, we see it today asserting a new self-righteousness in the persons of Tony Blair and Nicholas Sarkozy. In the case of the latter, his true colours were evident when he welcomed Ehoud Olmert into the Elysée Palace (22 October) in the same hours during which his wife was announcing the couple’s sensational divorce. To ensure that no reporters turned up for the diplomatic event, he only invited Haaretz to cover a speech which is at odds with longstanding EU Israëli policy. So much for the broken heart Cécilia was supposed to have left behind. The FT, like most media, covered only the marriage story, even though it was a state visit.
I would also add, with caution but without hesitancy, that on this issue of Israël, one can identify a manifestation of feminised justice. Women, as a “generalise” group, do not think the same as men when it comes to moral rights and wrongs. On one hand, their maternal instincts are quick to unmask and break down prejudice; on the other, their sense of right and wrong tends to be more black and white than men. They are less interested and less inclined to deal in moral compromises.
It is a generalisation, I admit, but I do not think it is unjustified or irrelevent. At best, perhaps it livens up the debate. I will note that the concept of feminisation as a factor in America’s changing world outlook is well described in a book by Harvard’s Charles S Maier, “Among Empires: Amerrican Ascendency and its Predecessors”.
So, returning to my first “absurd proposition”–a one-state solution, I suggest it is indeed possible with the boldest of leadership and clearest of vision. Firstly, Israël and the Jewish community must abandon their Apocalyptic fear of being vanquished from the planet. This is irrational and a contradiction of the enlightened legacy of Jewish thinking. If there is a basis to exceptionalism, it may be that a Jewish state would never ever be on par with any other; it would likely shine brighter if it were not for its stubborn insistence upon its right to exist at the expense of other’s rights.
I recall a wonderful sermon I heard as a child at a time when my parent’s marriage was not in the best of shape. A woman visits a priest and speaks of her husbands many sins in lurid detail. She details just how far she is willing to go to make him pay. The priest responds, “Madame. Do you want to go into heaven on the sings of righteousness, or do you want to save your marriage?” Israël may not be married to Palestine, but they are roommates for life. It may be time they eat at the same table at least once a week.
Is it not possible to envisage an Israël with the comparative advantages of Israëli global economic management/leadership, Western-educated society, and intellectual energy combined with Palestine’s historic diaspora of the Muslim world’s premier Administrative class and still rich culture, despite several decades of suppression? Would not an Israël founded on economic liberalism and a truly dynamic, open society not be poised to thrive in history’s most cherished corner of the planet? Would it not offer promises greater than those that seem precarious now in Dubai? And would not the entire region benefit through the integration of Israël? Would Israël not offer the potential to be both enterprising and an inspired human framework for the 21st century?
As Sheikh Mohammed of Dubai told a pan-Arab conference a year ago, “Change or be changed.” Israël and years of US-European-Arab-Iranian Israëli policy are, indeed, facing such a decision point.
So far, one could note that I’ve put the onus of responsibility on Jews, women and media-friendly presidents. During the past two years, I have immersed myself in a self-study of Islam. I am not motivated by a spiritual quest, but a need for sound understanding. I know the Muslim world reasonably well and count numerous Muslims amongst my close friends. My readings and discussions, including with a handful of Muslim public officials and business leaders, is that the opportunity to advance updated teachings of this rich faith is ripe. I sense an enlightend movement is taking form and this will be a welcome contribution to the current morass of hardened moralisms, racisms and suspicions that haunt reasoned discussion. It is time for Islam to find 21st-century leadership. Hundreds of millions of adherents would welcome it, as would the ROW.
Certainly, few can mount worthy defenses of where we are today. Certainly, vision will not be printed in Annapolis over cables that are linked into AIPAC servers. Certainly, we can do better if we tear up road maps and throw away the hardened bits of Swiss cheese.
Posted by: WCM | November 15th, 2007 at 11:03 am | Report this commentDear Pacifist
A Truth and Reconciliation commission is impractical, since the suicide-bombers are not with us, and so cannot express their contrition.
A multi-ethnic solution is impossible, given the level of mistrust between the communities: It failed in Yugoslavia, it failed in the Indian subcontinent, it failed in Iraq. Please save us your ivory tower solutions.
No. I freely surrender the West Bankers to the Hashemite Kingdom of East Palestine, and the Gazans to the Arab Republic of Misarrak. I think even the Syrian Alawi Republic would not object.
Posted by: RCS | November 15th, 2007 at 11:08 am | Report this commentCORRECTION
Instead of “Please save us…” should read: “Please spare us…”
Posted by: RCS | November 15th, 2007 at 11:26 am | Report this commentDear RCS,
We are not going to solve the Arab-Israeli problem here. However, your post was useful because it demonstrated that Israelis are quite happy at the status quo (i.e., they have grabbed all the land and the water they like and imprisoned the Palestinians in massive concentration camps cum prisons) and all such conferences are entirely a waste of time (except they provide more airmiles for the likes of Mr. Rachman!).
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 15th, 2007 at 11:39 am | Report this commentDear Pacifist
I don’t see how that follows from my post. I gather what you term the ’status quo’ is any solution in which Israel remains a Jewish nation-state.
Posted by: RCS | November 15th, 2007 at 12:19 pm | Report this commentThe way the conference is shaping it will be another embarrassment for the Bush administration. I wonder if they ever hold a’lessons learned’ review after these affairs .
Posted by: cjjoy | November 15th, 2007 at 12:33 pm | Report this commentDear RCS,
By Status Quo, I mean that you have grabbed all the good land and water and imprisoned the Palestinians. Your proposed change to the status quo is not a substantive one. You simply propose to give the prison’s key to some trustee quisling like the half-British king of the “Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan” (another colonial scar hacked on the map of the middle east). Failing that, you are happy to continue the present atrocities against the Palestinians directly.
Over to you Mr. Moderator: Time to panic
Posted by: Pacifist | November 15th, 2007 at 1:15 pm | Report this commentP
Dear Pacifist
I can’t understand your reasoning. What I am proposing is a return with ammendments to the pre-1967 situation, which the international community so cherishes. If and when the West Bank is re-united with East Palestine, it will not remain a “prison” (size advantages will take effect). Let me remind you that the population of “Jordan” is 70% of West Bank origin and that the territory of “Jordan” constitutes 2/3 of the original League of Nations mandate for Palestine. If indeed the king is a “quisling”, then lobby for a democratic change.
Posted by: RCS | November 15th, 2007 at 1:59 pm | Report this commentSorry, gentlemen, but RCS and Pacifist have well illustrated why this topic is among the most tiresome.
Posted by: WCM | November 15th, 2007 at 3:34 pm | Report this commentI would have suggested this: grow your hair and change your name to Samson.
4 hours ago 3 qassams fell near Sderot, qassam rockets land in Israel almost on a daily basis, this cannot be ignored. Who is going to stop them? The difficulty with trying to fabricate peace between Israel and the Palestinians is that there are always large groups of people such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, portions of Fatah such as Al Aqsa that won’t abide by an agreement. Israel is a state and with functional institutions so it can assume political responsibility for peace, but the PA has no way to enforce an agreement in Gaza or on groups that are unwilling to accept it.
For any peace to be meaningful, military assistance / terrorist support for Palestinian radicals from Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt will also have to end, so this peace will require a wider agreement that involves at least the Syrians, Saudi-Arabs and Egyptians; one that makes them actively stop those supporting the terrorist resistance and makes them stop fanning the flames.
Some day in this time of relative peace a qassam is going to succeed and kill people in Sderot, and then the IDF will make ‘peace’ instead. Israeli security has to be guaranteed by an organisation other than the IDF capable of maintaining order in Gaza and the West Bank. Without such an army or police force there will be no peace.
Peace with the Arabs will mean peace with the Palestinians as well. It’ll have to be a complex package deal, something which needs great and willing minds on all sides. Yeah…… the topic is terribly exhausting, unfortunately it doesn’t exhaust the key players.
Posted by: Felix Drost, Amsterdam NL | November 15th, 2007 at 5:38 pm | Report this commentFelix….
The absence of peace is not caused by military support of Hamas by Iran but by the overwhelming Israeli military superiority (largely paid for by the duped American taxpayer) which makes it entirely uninterested in any kind of negotiation (including abiding by any of the 60 UN resolution against it.)
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 15th, 2007 at 5:51 pm | Report this commentThe only way to solve the problem would be a color blind, religion blind State comprising the territories of Israel/Palestine.
Palestineans living in Gaza and Cisjordan should recognize they are israeli and be proud of their country ISRAEL, a nation of 10 million people including 5,5 million jews and 4,5 million palestineans (muslims and christians) with an increasing number of mixed marriages.
Palestineans of Gaza and Cisjordan should leave that ridiculous conception of building a couple of “bantusan” states and accept the fact they are israelis (like the 1 million palestineans who already have rights, but not on equal terms as the jews, in the limits of the present isreali state)
Palestineans should fight for their RIGHTS as Israeli citizens, including the right to a common Social Security and the right to vote in the national Elections of their nation ISRAEL. South Africa shows us that it is possible, that a common ground can be founded…but first Palestineans have to forget their ridiculous “bantusan” states and be proud of all the things their jewish brother in the state of ISRAEL, their nation, have built.
A color blind, religion blind nation of 10 million people, with a clear separation of Church and State, with the principles of Montesquieu, with a common Social Security which can end with the private social nets wich proliferated in Judea, Samaria and Gaza as a consequence of the lack of a public social net.
Posted by: Enrique Costas Mira | November 15th, 2007 at 11:26 pm | Report this commentPhilip Stephens, FT, today: “We know the shape of any final settlement: security for Israel, a Palestinian state based on the 1949 armistice lines with borders adjusted by one-to-one land swaps, a shared capital in Jerusalem and an agreement on right of return that recognises Israel as a Jewish state.”
Mr Stephens provides again a clear and excellent analysis of the agreed formula. Nonetheless, when one reads the situation summed up so succinctly, what workable outcome can really be expected?
One Mr Stephen’s points really bothers me: why should a strategy that would further isolate Iran for interests seen to be more likely shared by Arabs and Israëlis be seen as even marginally worthy of discussion?
Iran needs to remind the world of its Jewish population and its place and liberties in their Islamic society. Nowhere on the Gulf peninsula is there a match for this community. Israël needs to acknowledge the freedom of transit that exists for Iranian Jews between Tehran and Israël. These two countries would arguably have more in common than most other regional alliances with Israël would offer in the long run.
It’s time for Ayatollah Khameini to pull the Persian carpet from under his president’s feet. (It might be helpful if the US media would back down from hammering on his Holocaust-denial remarks. They have popular weight, and with less attribution he might be much lighter.) It’s also time for the media to think of some new constructs for the region. The one quoted is among the least likely in our lifetimes, and will be irrelevent afterwards.
It’s also time for dispersed Palestinian elites to show their faces and take a position. Images of Gaza and Ramallah streets are not consistent with Geneva banks accounts and cadres of professionals running businesses and governments across the Middle East, except in Palestine. Look at any bank or accountancy in Riyadh, Dubai or Kuwait and see who really runs the day-to-day activities.
As for Tony Blair and Condoleeza Rice, who really cares what page they are on?
Just before the collapse of Camp David talks in 2000, a Kuwaiti (of note) told me that a certain prospectus’s assumption of Israëli-Palestinian peace would be realised. He further said that the “real powers” had grown tired of “this CNN conflict”. “It is time to move beyond this.” Weeks later we discussed other realities. His CNN characterisation has some merit, though.
Posted by: WCM | November 15th, 2007 at 11:45 pm | Report this commentThe blog’s cathartic effects are that one often thinks about whatever folly or naïveté they may have revealed in their public postings. Such it is this morning, although I’m not feeling any need to apologise, rectify or defend (yet). Anyway, I presume we all aspire to contribute/help develop small grains of wisdom to some lofty objectives of advancing the public pursuits of more civil societies. So, rather than try to polish a grain or two, I begin my day with a question:
What kind of world is being built for future generations in the flat earth that runs from Gaza to Aden?
With the singular exception of the (Swiss-like) Kingdom of Oman, each of the countries within that span is focused on building divided economies where those attached to historical territorial claims, defined in the aftermath of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the withdrawal of France and the UK colonial claims, now exercise an economic hegemony over growing (and usually larger) populations of “others”.
In this context, Israël and Dubaï are no different, except that the current windfalls of the Gulf states permit them to appear to be more generous and dynamic. Politically, Palestinians under Israëli governance likely do have more rights than Pakistanis under Dubati, Emirati, Bahraini or Saudi models.
As I’ve noted here before, it is a shock to step behind the curtains in many of these countries into the bidonvilles behind the construction sites or onto one of the thousands of workers’ flights.
My naïveté is in thinking any of the participants in Annapolis would give a damn about my expositions of the shareholder-value/Visa-card democracy system that they have become the marketing team for.
Posted by: WCM | November 16th, 2007 at 8:01 am | Report this commentHi WCM,
As you may know, many streets and highways in Iran are named after the “martyrs” many of whom dies in the war against Iraq and some were assassinated in the first few years of the revolution. The word “Shahid” means martyr and comes before the surname of the person who died, making up the name of the street.
There is a semi-joke making the rounds that when they asked Mr. Rafsanjani (regime’s number 2) about the proposed name for the major new highway being built between Tehran and the Caspian Sea, he replied Insha’allah (= God Willing), we shall name it “Shahid Ahmadinejad”!
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 16th, 2007 at 11:47 am | Report this commentHere is an interview by John Bolton publised in the Canadian Jewish News.
http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13494&Itemid=86
Despicable as Bolton is to most decent people, his views are the uncensored views of those who are in charge in Washington.
Here are some of the things he says:
“Striking a gloomy note on the eve of the forthcoming U.S.-sponsored Middle East regional peace conference in Annapolis, Md., Bolton voiced doubt whether “anything positive” will come out of it.”
and..
“In a sharp critique of U.S. policy, Bolton said that instead of focusing on a two-state solution to defuse the Arab-Israeli dispute, the Bush administration should ask Egypt and Jordan to assume respective responsibility for the Gaza Strip – which is presently controlled by Hamas – and the West Bank, which is occupied by Israel.”
Translation: Give the prison-keepers’ job to our own quisling thugs (Mubarak and King Abdullah of Jordan) so that we can say the brutality is Arab-on Arab and nothing to do with Israel or America.
QUote
His thinking on Musharraf needs no further commentary:
Quote
But he added that his [Musharraf’s] government, albeit autocratic, is preferable to an anti-American Islamic regime.
“Musharraf is not a Jeffersonian democrat, but we have some very important equities in Pakistan.”
Unquote
Clearly the only American alternative to Musharraf’s fist is the jackboot of some other general.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 16th, 2007 at 12:51 pm | Report this commentGR in yesterday’s note to Pacifist in the “smoking ” thread: “I’m skipping Annapolis because the timing is lousy for my column.”
It would seem you may be in on something which has not been shared with those whom are arriving in Maryland today. Bashar Assad is not a man who shows up for photo ops.
I trust the FT will see this conference worth covering even if you do not.
Posted by: WCM | November 25th, 2007 at 6:32 pm | Report this commentwell, they are all showing up. Of course it became difficult for the pro-west Arab states not to in the post 9/11 world once it was billed an “International Middle East Peace Conference” I assume this will take the Madrid Conference format with the various parties issuing statements, and some grand announcement from Blair and World Bank about significant financial investment to jumpstart a viable Palestinian economy…The Israelis apparently stated they would freeze building new settlements but did not address ending EXPANSION of current settlements…it remains difficult to take this seriously, as I do not believe Israel is prepared to fight militant settlers…it is much easier to put down Palestinian militant insurgents at this point than have their own intra Israeli conflict…unless Israel frees Marwan Barghouti, we are probably looking at an eventual Jordanian-Palestinian federation down the line rather than a “2 state solution” ending this conflict…unfortunately, Abu Mazen/Abbas may not want Marwan Barghouti released anymore than the Israelis…Palestinians have been very unlucky in their leaders…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | November 25th, 2007 at 10:01 pm | Report this comment