The first, of course, is that this is not the Land of Ishmael.
Now, there is this book in the field of Conflict Management:-
Barriers to Peace in the Israeli- Palestinian Conflict
by Prof' Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov of the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies.
From the description:
This book presents a detailed study of the various barriers to settling the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, barriers which in their range and complexity have singled out this conflict as a protracted and ongoing conflict. In addition to pointing out substantive, and tangible barriers, this study highlights psychological, religious and cultural barriers that greatly intensify and exacerbate the difficulties in reaching a settlement. These psychological, religious and cultural barriers have framed the core issues of the conflict – Jerusalem, refugees, settlements and borders – not simply as strongly disputed interests, but as protected, sacred values, rooted in religious belief and historical meta-narratives and not open to compromise.
The force and magnitude of the barriers discussed in this book – in particular their portrayal as protected values – inevitably leads to the conclusion that the likelihood of ending the conflict through a settlement is exceedingly low at present...
Download the Executive Summary.
It's just that some people can't stand the thought that they cannot solve a problem. It's people like those that usually cause the real problems - solutions suggested that don't solve problems but assuage their own persons.
^
Posts
1 comment:
Thanks for the PDF summary. It's a very interesting reading. A few scattered thoughts based on the summary alone:
A. The summary nigh-explicitly presents a certain outline for peace. Lets make a thought experiment: if the outline included something the Israelis or the Palestinians (or both) had to oppose, would any of it be different? Say Israelis has to blind their left eye and Palestinians their right eye. Half the book might be about psychological impediments to blindness... By mythologizing "peace" (actually in this case, a piece of paper with highly uncertain consequences at best), they prevent nigh any analysis of actual agreements or the outline they suggest or the principles behind it. This might be why only one chapter seems to be dedicated to an actual analysis of said agreement [the twelfth] and that's only from a limited perspective and is barely mentioned in the summary!
This part is easily the most ridiculous:
"The starting point for a peace agreement suggested in this book is based
on the outcomes of the 1967 War and not that of the War of 1947-1948. The
guiding principle should therefore be the formula of land for peace."
Yea, because you said it in THE book, all the Palestinians and Israelis will jump right through. Especially Hamas. In short, the book seems to try to psychologize away any opposition to their outline, which is hardly a way to reach to anywhere.
B. The outline is incoherent. To give one example:
1. "Similarly, a compromise over the Right of Return could be framed as a
means for establishing a Palestinian state."
"The Palestinian claim to exercise their Right of Return to
Israeli territory is utterly contradictory to the goal of establishing a Palestinian
state."
2. "Should the split among the Palestinians
or failure to reach an agreed solution on the Jerusalem and refugee problems
prevent a permanent agreement [Obviously it does - Y.], it will be necessary to propose partial, interim
arrangements that will enable the establishment of a Palestinian state and provide
international guarantees for the completion of the process."
I thought the idea was to trade the so-called "Right of Return" in turn for a Palestinian state. How is this accomplished by giving/promising it to them in advance is incomprehensible to me. Obviously they're not going to talk about RoR in an interim agreement! There are more contradictions like this if one reads carefully.
Post a Comment