Saturday, April 11, 2009


Marty Peretz of THE NEW REPUBLIC blogs about US President Obama's comments on the necessity for "compromise" in order to put an end to the deadlock between Israel and its Arab neighbours.
When the tiresome peace processors speak of negotiations they almost always mean concessions by Israel: territorial concessions, concessions on Jerusalem, demographic concessions, symbolic concessions, economic concessions, security concessions, historic concessions, moral concessions, concessions to Palestinian pride and to Palestinian shame. There is no concession that Israel has not tried, in one way or another, to meet. And there are forces in Israel which think that too much has already been forfeited. Of course, Palestinian expectations rise with every concession from Israel.
And on compromise on the part of the Palestinians?
The question then is: what must the Palestinians give up to secure tangible possibilities for statehood?

Yes, I know that there is much that they must accomplish among their to really become a nation and have a history as a people. But, whether we gloat or weep about these deficiencies, that's not our business. There are plenty of states that rule over populations that are neither a nation nor a people. I suspect that the Palestinians won't be the last of this unfortunate formula.

But since President Obama has put the idea of reciprocity on the table he is morally obliged to begin to make a list. And so is George Mitchell and Tony Blair and the busily intrusive European Union. The idea that Israel will give up a series of strategic advantages for recognition of its flag is nonsense.

No comments: