Most of the articles I read to today made me wonder about in what world the authors were living? Let’s start with this New York Times op-ed from former Israeli Prime Minister Tzvi Livni on the possibility of an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians:
The argument over historical narratives hasn’t changed. It won’t. Those on both sides that insist on forcing their narrative on the other side, or turning the conflict into a religious war, cannot make the compromises needed for peace. This is true also for those from the international community supporting one side and denying the rights of the other. This is destructive and only strengthens extremists.
Peace based on the vision of two states for two peoples gives an answer to the national aspirations of both the Jewish people and the Palestinians and requires compromises by both.
which is fair enough. But this is more aspirational than actual:
National conflicts cannot be resolved by wars and violence, but only by a political resolution, leadership and compromise. A religious conflict is not a conflict over rights, but a fight against the right of others to live by their faith. For religious ideologists, there is no compromise.
History is filled with counter-examples, a notable case being the saving of the remnants of European Jewry by wars and violence about 80 years ago. And I think his conclusion is a free flight of fancy:
An agreement will be possible when pragmatic leaders on both sides understand that the price of not having an agreement for their people is far higher than the price of compromise.
It is pragmatism not to mention survival instinct on the part of the political leadership both among Israelis and Palestinians that has driven those parties farther apart over the last 30 years. The most extreme elements in both societies have veto power over any agreement which shoves those agreements into insignificance. As long as that’s the case which is to say the foreseeable future, agreements are meaningless.
