Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: For Once, Hope in the Middle East

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/opinion/27indyk.html?_r=1
For Once, Hope in the Middle East
By MARTIN INDYK
Washington
NOW that President Obama has finally succeeded in bringing the
Israelis and the Palestinians back to the negotiating table, the
commentariat is already dismissing his chances of reaching a peace
agreement. But there are four factors that distinguish the direct
talks that will get under way on Sept. 2 in Washington from previous
attempts — factors that offer some reason for optimism.
First, violence is down considerably in the region. Throughout the
1990s, Israel was plagued by terrorist attacks, which undermined its
leaders’ ability to justify tangible concessions. Israelis came to
believe that the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat was playing a double
game, professing peace in the negotiations while allowing terrorists
to operate in territory he was supposed to control.
Today, the Palestinian Authority is policing its West Bank territory
to prevent violent attacks on Israelis and to prove its reliability as
a negotiating partner. Hamas — mainly out of fear of an Israeli
intervention that might remove it from power — is doing the same in
Gaza.
These efforts, combined with more effective Israeli security measures,
have meant that the number of Israeli civilians killed in terrorist
attacks has dropped from an intifada high of 452 in 2002 to 6 last
year and only 2 so far this year.
Second, settlement activity has slowed significantly. As a result of
Israel’s 10-month settlement moratorium, no new housing starts in the
West Bank were reported by the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics in
the first quarter of this year. What’s more, there have been hardly
any new housing projects in East Jerusalem since the brouhaha in
March, when Vice President Joe Biden, during a visit to Israel,
condemned the announcement of 1,600 additional residential units. The
demolition of Palestinian houses there is also down compared with
recent years.
The settlement moratorium, however, is due to expire on Sept. 26. The
Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, seems unlikely to extend
it, and Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president, has
declared that he will withdraw from negotiations if settlement
activity resumes.
However, there could be a workable compromise if Mr. Netanyahu
restricts building to modest growth in the settlement blocs that will
most likely be absorbed into Israel in the final agreement, while
offering changes that would make a real difference to West Bank
Palestinians. Israel could promise that there would be no more Israeli
Army incursions into areas under Palestinian control; it could also
allow the Palestinian police to patrol in most West Bank villages.
Third, the public on both sides supports a two-state solution. So do a
majority of Arabs. The simple truth is that most people in the Middle
East are exhausted by this conflict, and if Mr. Netanyahu and Mr.
Abbas can reach a viable agreement, the public on all sides will
likely support it by a large majority.
Yes, Mr. Netanyahu would face strident opposition from within his
Likud party, but he could lean on the support of the Israeli center
and left to ensure a Knesset majority. And because a referendum on
Palestinian statehood would likely receive overwhelming support in
Gaza as well as the West Bank, Hamas — always attuned to Palestinian
public opinion — would have a hard time standing in the way.
Fourth, there isn’t a lot to negotiate. In the 17 years since the Oslo
accords were signed, detailed final status negotiations have dealt
exhaustively with all the critical issues. If an independent
Palestinian state is to be established, the zone of agreement is clear
and the necessary trade-offs are already known.
Security arrangements were all but settled in 2000 at Camp David
before the talks collapsed. The increased threat of rocket attacks
since then, among other developments, require the two sides to agree
on stricter border controls and a robust third-party force in the
Jordan Valley. But one year is ample time to resolve this. In fact, if
the leaders are sincere in their intent to make a deal, dragging out
the negotiations would only weaken them politically and give time for
the opponents of peace to rally.
In short, the negotiating environment is better suited to peacemaking
today than it has been at any point in the last decade. The prospects
for peace depend now on the willpower of the leaders.
Does President Abbas, already a weakened figure, have the courage to
defend the necessary concessions to his people, particularly when it
comes to conceding the “right of return” to Israel? Does Prime
Minister Netanyahu have the determination to withdraw from at least 95
percent of the West Bank and to accept a Palestinian capital in Arab
East Jerusalem? And does President Obama have the statesmanship to
persuade both parties to make the deal and to reassure them that the
United States will be there with a safety net if it fails?
At the end of the Clinton administration, Shimon Peres observed that
“history is like a horse that gallops past your window and the true
test of statesmanship is to jump from that window onto the horse.”
Arafat failed that test, leaving Palestinians and Israelis mired in
conflict. We cannot know whether Mr. Abbas and Mr. Netanyahu will take
the politically perilous leap. But for the time being, we should
suspend disbelief and welcome the fact that American diplomacy has
ensured they will soon be put to the test.
Martin Indyk, the director of the foreign policy program at the
Brookings Institution and the author of “Innocent Abroad: An Intimate
Account of American Peace Diplomacy in the Middle East,” was the
United States ambassador to Israel during the Clinton administration.
-- 
Usa la testa, il culo la seguira'. 
(Derek Raymond - Il Museo dell'Inferno)
http://bloggoanchio.splinder.com

 NOW that President Obama has finally succeeded
il NYTimes sta arrivando a vertici da Pravda stalinista nella sua
incensazione di Obama.