Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: ostacoli alla pace

In recent days, there have been a number of terrorist attacks against
Israeli civilians. As we consider the implications of this fact and
its causes, we must remember that peace could have come multiple times
since 2000 at Camp David. The Palestinians have thus far refused to
agree to a solution with which Israel could possibly agree to end the
conflict and at the moment, the Palestinians refuse even to negotiate
at all. Before you argue about what the Israelis have not offered in
previous negotiations, let’s just look at the primary issues that have
prevented the success of the process. Here are the main stumbling
blocks as I see them:
    Control of the Old City of Jerusalem. The PA insists on the 1967
lines which would put the entire Old City and all of the Holy sites,
yes including the Western Wall Plaza, out of the safe reach of Jews
for the foreseeable future. This is only one of many problems posed by
Palestinian insistence on the 1967 lines regarding Jerusalem.
    Right of Return. The idea that not only must a future Palestinian
state be allowed to accommodate hundreds of thousands of refugees from
the 1967 conflict, but that Israel must accommodate millions of
refugees from the 1949 conflict who are hostile to its very existence
is so unreasonable a demand as to be laughable were it not a main goal
of the Palestinian side. If Israel is to be a Jewish state, refugees
may only be afforded restitution and remain where they are or
potentially locate themselves in the Palestinian state.
    Security. No matter what the resolutions of the issues of borders
and refugees might be, if those resolutions jeopardize the security of
Israel to such an extent as to threaten its very existence, they are
not viable. This is a primary concern around Jerusalem and Ben Gurion
Airport.
    Settlement Blocs. Yes, Israel settled hundreds of thousands of
people across the Green Line, but two things must be considered here.
First, territorial exchanges could easily adjust the total land area
in a future Palestinian state. And second, one might ask why there is
an assumption that the Palestinians are entitled to all of the West
Bank to begin with? The fact is that the territory which Israel
settled was disputed territory, not territory belonging to another
nation. No Palestinian state exists now and certainly none existed
when Israel took over the territory. Thus, Palestinian national claims
to all of the disputed land amount to demands for land for which
Israel has potentially a greater legal claim (possession is nine-
tenths of the law) in spite of fit throwing at the UN by opponents of
Israel.
Israel may well “lose” when the Palestinians go to the floor of the UN
General Assembly in September. A significant majority of the members
of the UN will almost certainly vote for the Palestinian side. Yet,
one must also understand that the game being played is not fair
either. Israel is not going to get anything resembling a fair hearing
by the vast majority of nations in the UN. It never has, no matter
what concessions it has made.
Peace will only be possible when the four issues that I cited above
are addressed. No vote in the UN is going to accomplish that. Direct
negotiations are the only way. Israel will make concessions, hurtful
concessions, to achieve peace. It already has. But it cannot concede
those things that would threaten its existence or its primary purpose
as a place where Jews may live and thrive in peace and security.
http://weareforisrael.org/2011/08/30/impedimentstopeace/

  pene severe per chi incita
perfettamente d'accordo, Gilles.

 Lieberman
piace tanto ai ggiovani....AHR AHR AHR