In his most recent New York Times column Tom Friedman says that it’s time for President Biden to promote a peace plan in the Israel-Hamas conflict and that it should be the plan that his predecessor called for in 2020:
Biden needs to say: “Israel, we are covering your flank militarily with our two aircraft carriers, financially with $14 billion in aid, and diplomatically at the U.N. The price for that is your acceptance of a peace framework based on two states for two indigenous peoples in Gaza, the West Bank and pre-1967 Israel. This plan is based on U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338, which was also the cornerstone for negotiations in the peace plan put forward by President Trump in 2020.
“Bibi, do you remember what you said about that Trump plan that gave Palestinians about 70 percent of the West Bank for a state, plus an expanded Gaza Strip and a capital in the area of Jerusalem?†Biden could add. “Here’s the Associated Press story of Jan. 28, 2020, to remind you: ‘Netanyahu called it a ‘‘historic breakthrough’’ equal in significance to the country’s declaration of independence in 1948.’â€
The Palestinian Authority foolishly rejected the Trump plan outright, instead of asking to use it as a starting point. This is a chance to make up for that mistake — or be exposed as unserious.
There are times when I wonder what opinion writers are smoking and this may be one of them. Several questions come to mind:
- Does Mr. Friedman remember Harry Truman’s remark from back in 1952? “If it’s a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat.” In that light does he really think that Mr. Biden would advocate a plan proposed by Donald Trump?
- Doesn’t that fly in the face of what President Biden has been saying since the beginning of the conflict?
- Is this really the time to promote a peace plan? Specifically, is calling for a peace plan when the fate of the hostages Hamas seized on October 7 is still up in the air?
- Would either the Israelis or the Palestinians support such a plan? There’s reason to believe that both groups see a two state solution as unworkable.
- What good would a two state solution do if significant minorities in both camps are willing to oppose the other violently?
and that’s just off the top of my head.
“..and that’s just off the top of my head.”
And it is not clear to me that you need go any further. The case is made.
As one all but fully retired now so much of this bores me. No one in government, or political discourse, wants real solutions. In the Truman to Kennedy era they might have. Then, too much money and, with the growth in government, too much power to be had. Being a politician is nothing but $ seeking. It always has been, but not so wholesale as now.
As I’ve noted. Its the peoples fault. Us vs them. (“with, without, and who’ll deny its what the fighting’s all about”) Disinterest.
Heh. And with that, I am expressing my disinterest. Its just not my fight anymore. I passed on the firm to the next generation last year. Time to view the world through the same lens.
So what to do? Other interests. Travel. Various experiences with the wife. Rock, baby……….
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the+doors+roadhouse+blues&docid=603522142984667857&mid=EEA834BAEA40BA738766EEA834BAEA40BA738766&view=detail&FORM=VRAASM&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Droadhouse%2520blues%26FORM%3DVDRE
In this case its not just the politicians its also the people. Significant percentages of people on both sides dont want to give up any land. Both sides are willing to use violence to subvert the process. Yglesias has been writing good stuff on this. Essentially every plan that is offered has one or more parts in the plan that are not possible given the actors involved. It’s also a lot more complicated than viewed by the average American who views this through a tribal lens or tries to reduce it to good guys and bad guys.
Steve