The Washington Institute for Neocon I mean Near East Policy had a forum on rethinking the 2-state solution in which an Israeli general said, basically it's over: "Ultimately, the most the Israeli government can offer the Palestinians
— and survive politically — is far less than what any Palestinian
leadership can accept." (Just what I have suggested to Steve F.) He wants to give the Palestinians to Jordan, or some such. Who can even read this stuff? But Martin Indyk, the former ambassador and former Australian and former Clintonite, insists on the Clinton parameters and hints at an imposed solution:
Henry Siegman has also called for an imposed solution. Hey the U.N. imposed a solution in '47, which the Palestinians rejected, and which the Israelis also rejected inasmuch as they cleansed Jaffa and countless villages and took a lot more land than the U.N. gave them. The key to an imposed solution would be: fairness. And can that be achieved? Or will there be another generation of violence, and emigration by the non-radical Israelis?
Jeff Blankfort sent me the WINEP item, and says the dialogue is yet another "charade" that people somehow take seriously while Israel establishes more facts on the ground.
