Informative analysis and appreciated, but at this stage of history, best to assume the 2 state solution is dead.
Call it a rebuttable presumption if you want. Basically the odds of a 2 state solution materializing are about the same as Israel returning to the 1967 borders.
So in my opinion, all analysis should factor in that assumption. Otherwise such analysis is irrelevant. Actually such analysis can do more harm than good because it allows those who desire to see the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians to point to such work and say, "You see, we are not the problem."
That said, I do appreciate the efforts at interfaith dialogue and cultural exchange by the members of the Middle East Project. Of course, at least from my perspective, the ME project comes across as potentially anachronistic, for the reasons stated above. So my hope is that the Middle East Project will start asking the truly tough questions.
With that in mind and perhaps I am wrong, the organization seems to reflect more of a Huffington Post approach than the realist approach. So, in my opinion, it faces the danger of coming across as DC trendy. But every little bit helps.
Reconciliation requires trust, and the time and space for it to be manifestly justified. I see precious little evidence that any of this exists. Perhaps in the longer term, dialogue will be followed by power sharing or the allocation effort that will allow trust and working relationships to develop. A crisis that forces both to turn their full attention to Israel rather than each other would speed the process immensely.
Looks like "sausage making" to me. An inspirational leader is required.
Who has the most votes? Who would win in a plebesite, Fatah, Hamas or None of the above??
Posted by: R Whitman | 10 July 2010 at 08:20 AM
Informative analysis and appreciated, but at this stage of history, best to assume the 2 state solution is dead.
Call it a rebuttable presumption if you want. Basically the odds of a 2 state solution materializing are about the same as Israel returning to the 1967 borders.
So in my opinion, all analysis should factor in that assumption. Otherwise such analysis is irrelevant. Actually such analysis can do more harm than good because it allows those who desire to see the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians to point to such work and say, "You see, we are not the problem."
That said, I do appreciate the efforts at interfaith dialogue and cultural exchange by the members of the Middle East Project. Of course, at least from my perspective, the ME project comes across as potentially anachronistic, for the reasons stated above. So my hope is that the Middle East Project will start asking the truly tough questions.
With that in mind and perhaps I am wrong, the organization seems to reflect more of a Huffington Post approach than the realist approach. So, in my opinion, it faces the danger of coming across as DC trendy. But every little bit helps.
Posted by: Sidney O. Smith III | 10 July 2010 at 09:22 AM
Reconciliation requires trust, and the time and space for it to be manifestly justified. I see precious little evidence that any of this exists. Perhaps in the longer term, dialogue will be followed by power sharing or the allocation effort that will allow trust and working relationships to develop. A crisis that forces both to turn their full attention to Israel rather than each other would speed the process immensely.
Posted by: jon | 11 July 2010 at 11:06 AM