The Palestinians are the cause of exiting and ex-presidents. There’s no real electoral payback anticipated in supporting them. Jews and Israel-loving evangelicals dwarf any Arab lobby to the extent that it’s not even funny. President Bush is now on the exit track. And it’s time to rectify the fundamental error he had made in allowing the war-on-terror rhetoric to wrongly discredit the Palestinian national movement.
His best hope in Annapolis may be the Texas connection. If Bush gets behind Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister who attended the University of Texas, things may finally move on this front. But for that to happen, he has to stick with him. Fayyad, 55, is the can-do face of the Palestinian movement. Just like his people, he’s long been in the wilderness. Unlike many of them, he hasn’t succumbed to the culture of the victim. “One year,” he said in an hour-long conversation, “is more than adequate to come to a peace treaty and end this conflict.”
In seven years in office, Bush has been, in fact, quite uninterested in such an ending. He has hallucinated about roads from Baghdad to Jerusalem. He also talked about two states and later lost interest in the initiative. The American Middle East policy has, in fact, been quite distracted and unbalanced on the whole. Now, overcoming his Clinton angst, Bush has summoned the parties to Annapolis, Md. But clearly, it’s happening too late in the day. The rising Middle Eastern power, Iran, has not been invited to the conference. Nor has the Hamas. What’s instead present, and that too in abundance, is desperation. Bush must use it.
The Palestinians, on one hand, are desperate because they are now looking at a dead end. They’ve been the losers over six decades of strife, through ineptitude, corruption & Arab hypocrisy, apart from their susceptibility to victims’ hollow consolations. As Fayyad had earlier noted, “Last year more than 50,000 Palestinians emigrated. How is that consistent with ending the occupation?”
The Israeli desperation, on the other hand, is relatively quieter. The economy has indeed blossomed, but not the Israeli soul. Four decades of occupation since the 1967 war have been a scourge for the country. Jewish precariousness still persists. The diaspora Jew did not go to Zion to build the Jew among nations.
Bush faces Palestinian weakness and compromised Israeli strength. He must offset the weakness by standing with the Palestinians on core demands. He must insist on Israeli sacrifice – territorial and ideological – in the name of US-guaranteed security. “Without peace,” Bush should tell the Israelis, “the Arab birth rate and the jihadist tide will eventually wash over you.”
Fayyad told me he’s coming into the conference Tuesday “disappointed that more progress has not been made.” On core issues – Jerusalem, borders, settlements – the impasse has prevailed. Annapolis can solve nothing actually; all it can do, realistically speaking, is to jump-start an intense process.
That process then needs essentially three elements, Fayyad told me. First, there should be an explicit framing within the context of UN Security Council resolutions, including 242, that makes clear Israel’s obligation to, in Fayyad’s words, “end the occupation that began in 1967.” Second, the Annapolis conference must result in an Israeli commitment to freeze the West Bank settlements and to remove illegal settler outposts, which will be paralleled by Palestinian commitments to “institution building and fighting terrorism.” Third, “we must get a reference to a timeline, a conclusion of final status peace within the Bush presidency.” Fayyad is right. A return to the 1967 lines, plus or minus agreed swaps, is the only plausible basis for a two-state accord. An Israeli settlement freeze is the first step to a Palestinian buy-in. A time table is the anchor all the talking needs. I asked Fayyad how he’d reassure Israel about security. He became animated. “Political pluralism is fine, but I can’t tolerate security pluralism. There’s no such thing as militias running around taking decisions! That has led to catastrophe. Law and order is basic. I said in a speech the other day that Nablus is more important than Annapolis! It is. The people of Nablus need security, just like Israelis.”
His best hope in Annapolis may be the Texas connection. If Bush gets behind Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister who attended the University of Texas, things may finally move on this front. But for that to happen, he has to stick with him. Fayyad, 55, is the can-do face of the Palestinian movement. Just like his people, he’s long been in the wilderness. Unlike many of them, he hasn’t succumbed to the culture of the victim. “One year,” he said in an hour-long conversation, “is more than adequate to come to a peace treaty and end this conflict.”
In seven years in office, Bush has been, in fact, quite uninterested in such an ending. He has hallucinated about roads from Baghdad to Jerusalem. He also talked about two states and later lost interest in the initiative. The American Middle East policy has, in fact, been quite distracted and unbalanced on the whole. Now, overcoming his Clinton angst, Bush has summoned the parties to Annapolis, Md. But clearly, it’s happening too late in the day. The rising Middle Eastern power, Iran, has not been invited to the conference. Nor has the Hamas. What’s instead present, and that too in abundance, is desperation. Bush must use it.
The Palestinians, on one hand, are desperate because they are now looking at a dead end. They’ve been the losers over six decades of strife, through ineptitude, corruption & Arab hypocrisy, apart from their susceptibility to victims’ hollow consolations. As Fayyad had earlier noted, “Last year more than 50,000 Palestinians emigrated. How is that consistent with ending the occupation?”
The Israeli desperation, on the other hand, is relatively quieter. The economy has indeed blossomed, but not the Israeli soul. Four decades of occupation since the 1967 war have been a scourge for the country. Jewish precariousness still persists. The diaspora Jew did not go to Zion to build the Jew among nations.
Bush faces Palestinian weakness and compromised Israeli strength. He must offset the weakness by standing with the Palestinians on core demands. He must insist on Israeli sacrifice – territorial and ideological – in the name of US-guaranteed security. “Without peace,” Bush should tell the Israelis, “the Arab birth rate and the jihadist tide will eventually wash over you.”
Fayyad told me he’s coming into the conference Tuesday “disappointed that more progress has not been made.” On core issues – Jerusalem, borders, settlements – the impasse has prevailed. Annapolis can solve nothing actually; all it can do, realistically speaking, is to jump-start an intense process.
That process then needs essentially three elements, Fayyad told me. First, there should be an explicit framing within the context of UN Security Council resolutions, including 242, that makes clear Israel’s obligation to, in Fayyad’s words, “end the occupation that began in 1967.” Second, the Annapolis conference must result in an Israeli commitment to freeze the West Bank settlements and to remove illegal settler outposts, which will be paralleled by Palestinian commitments to “institution building and fighting terrorism.” Third, “we must get a reference to a timeline, a conclusion of final status peace within the Bush presidency.” Fayyad is right. A return to the 1967 lines, plus or minus agreed swaps, is the only plausible basis for a two-state accord. An Israeli settlement freeze is the first step to a Palestinian buy-in. A time table is the anchor all the talking needs. I asked Fayyad how he’d reassure Israel about security. He became animated. “Political pluralism is fine, but I can’t tolerate security pluralism. There’s no such thing as militias running around taking decisions! That has led to catastrophe. Law and order is basic. I said in a speech the other day that Nablus is more important than Annapolis! It is. The people of Nablus need security, just like Israelis.”
For Complete IIPM Article, Click on IIPM Article
Source : IIPM Editorial,
An IIPM and Professor Arindam Chaudhuri (Renowned Management Guru and Economist) Initiative
Read these article :-
ZEE BUSINESS BEST B SCHOOL SURVEY
B-schooled in India, Placed Abroad (Print Version)
IIPM in Financial times (Print Version)
IIPM makes business education truly global (Print Version)
The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM)
IIPM Campus
Top Articles on IIPM:-
IIPM makes business education truly global-Education-The Times of ...
The Hindu : Education Plus : Honour for IIPM
IIPM ranked No.1 B-School in India, Management News - By ...
IIPM Ranked No1 B-School in India
Moneycontrol >> News >> Press- News >> IIPM ranked No1 B-School in ...
IIPM ranked No. 1 B-school in India- Zee Business Survey ...
IIPM ranked No1 B-School in India :: Education, Careers ...
The Hindu Business Line : IIPM placements hit a high of over 2000 jobs
Deccan Herald - IIPM ranked as top B-School in India
India eNews - IIPM Ranked No1 B-School in India
IIPM Delhi - Indian Institute of Planning and Management New Delhi ...
domain-b.com : IIPM ranked ahead of IIMs
