I hope that I am wrong

As those of you that have been reading my ramblings in this space for a while know I have about given up on the viability of a two state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. My rational has been that there is no overlap between the positions of the two parties and therefore no room for a negotiated settlement. Today, during a conference call with Ambassador (ret) Phillip Wilcox, President of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, I asked him his opinion. He expressed that in his opinion, backed up by polls; there is considerable support within the Israeli and Palestinian polities for a two state solution within the framework outlined by the Geneva Agreements or the Arab Peace Initiative. The problem he said was that the two governments do not reflect the views of the people and most reasonable people have given up on their ability to influence their government. The Israeli government has been captive to the Israeli military and the settler movement for a long time. The Palestinian government is not strong enough to confront the rejectionist parties. The catch 22 is that it is virtually impossible for Palestinian institutions to develop in an environment of Israeli occupation where security is defacto in the hands of the Israeli military. As we move closer to the Middle East Peace Conference (now being downgraded to a meeting) called for by President Bush, Secretary of State Rice is pushing hard for the two parties to agree on a “political horizon” prior to the conference. This is a step forward since, up to now, all of the focus has been on the process rather than on the end game. It is, however, very unlikely that the two parties can, by themselves, come to an agreement in six weeks on something that they have been unable to agree on for 60 years. Ambassador Wilcox feels, and I agree with him, that the only chance for a “political horizon” to come forward is for the President of the United States to articulate a proposed agreement that addresses the issues of borders, settlements, refugees and status of Jerusalem. This will require an enormous amount of political courage on the part of the Bush administration, something that this administration does not seem to have in great supply. There clearly is not unanimity within the administration as to what the “political horizon” should look like. Many strong voices within the administration are advocates for the Israeli right wing position of “no compromise with terrorists”. One potentially promising event occurred within the last week when Israeli Vice Premier Ramon floated a trial balloon proposing that Israel give up their occupation of Arab East Jerusalem as part of a peace deal. (For this story click here.) Ramon is a Labor party member of Olmert’s Kadima led governing coalition and may or may not speak for Olmert. It may, however, indicate that Olmert is beginning to think pragmatically. I am not optimistic that anything positive can come from all this. I hope that I am wrong. The good news is that I have been wrong before.