Quote:
Originally Posted by evilmatt
What Israel is doing in re: East Jerusalem settlements is underhanded and mean, I agree. However, there are a ton of other issues and acts being perpetrated by both sides that stifle the peace process. I think saying the settlements are the one big issue is buying into the media machine a bit too much. If the settlements were razed tomorrow, do you honestly think so much would change?
|
It would not solve the conflict by itself, no, but it would remove an intractable obstacle. Take a look at the maps that have been posted in the thread. Does the area emerging under eventual Palestinian control - shut off from Jerusalem to the west, and hemmed in by a string of settlements and military installations dotting the Jordan river valley to the East - look like a viable state to you? Keep the scale in mind here - the distance from Jerusalem to the dead sea is only something like 15 miles.
Settlements aren't a silver bullet, but it is hard to negotiate over the division of a pizza when your counterpart is busy eating it.
To address the OP: I don't think this is a lasting shift. If the administration had intended to explore new ground in this relationship, it would have done so in the first year. They have no desire to shake things up in this area. My guess is that Israel/Palestine will remain on the back-burner until a second Obama term. It is a shame - though I'm not at all certain that friendly pressure from the US would change the situation. The stakes for the two countries are wildly at variance. For a US administration, this is one among a huge host of concerns in the region. For the Israelis, it is absolutely central: they are busy drawing the borders of their future. To seriously alter the Israeli calculus would take a lot more than this administration - or any administration - is willing to do.