Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumU.S.: It will be hard to support Israel in UN if it steps back from two-state solution
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.653819Sherman's comments come amid France's efforts to advance a new initiative to reach a Security Council resolution on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. According to the French initiative, a Security Council decision would include principles for a solution to the conflict, such as the delineation of borders for a future Palestinian state, according to 1967 lines and with land exchange. Sherman's remarks were essentially a veiled threat indicating that the U.S. will consider not imposing a veto on a resolution of the kind.
Seems pretty obvious where this is heading.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Maybe this can be the crowning jewel of the Obama presidency while he is free to act without worrying about re-election.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Seems very implausible that settlement expansion would cease after the government becomes more rightwing.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)It definitely does not look promising, though, I agree.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)not serious about it. Two-state solution has to be something they're serious about, not something that they do just enough on to get Obama off their back.
I have very high doubts that Obama is capable of influencing Israel on this beyond drawing some token measures for public consumption. Netanyahu pretty much gave Obama the middle finger as part of his election campaign, and was rewarded for it by the voters.
It's been pretty clear that he and Obama do not care what the other has to say.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)it has no reason to be serious about it. It's getting all the benefits of annexation, and thanks to the US' guardianship and the EU's cowardice, it pays none of the costs. in fact it demands that the rest of the world pay those costs.
And so long as the EU is shitting itself in terror of ever being called 'antisemitic" and the US is obsessed with the voting habits of evangelical christians... this is the way it will remain. Israel will not engage any two-state solution, as it has no incentive or - apparently - responsibility to do so. The Palestinians lack any power or ability to force it. Thus without radical change, there will never be two states.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Certainly not the current government.
That's why I am saying this can be the time for the US to act since Obama doesn't need to worry about the voting habits of evangelical Christians right now (and not many of them are lining up to support the Democrats anyway).
We must give Israel the incentive that they are lacking.
shira
(30,109 posts)Israel accepted the Kerry objectives. Abbas rejected them (no 2 states for 2 people, no backing off RoR, and no agreement to an end-of-conflict).
I don't how that equates to Israel needing to be pressured. If it were the other way around with the PA agreeing to Kerry's terms and Israel rejecting them, it would make more sense to pressure Israel.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Also his recent statements on the campaign trail did not bode well.
That's not to say I don't think the Palestinian side will need a push as well.
It is frustrating that the two sides weren't able to work something out when Bill Clinton was fully engaged in the process and the leadership of Israel was much more moderate than it currently is.
shira
(30,109 posts)Agreed. This conflict should've ended 15 years ago.
And that was a Labor/Meretz coalition back in 1999-2000. I'm afraid that if they can't come to an agreement with the Palestinians, no one can.