Report: Obama will impose two-state solution

Obama may need to turn Tel Aviv into Jenin to accomplish this.

Not that that would be a bad thing.

"Obama will be sympathetic to Israel re Iran"

This is disturbing. I'd almost rather let the status quo alone in the Occupied Territories than worsen the situation with Iran. Of course, this depends on exactly what "sympathetic" means. Israel bombing Iran is just flat-out unacceptable, especially given the 2007 NIE that indicated that Iran is not working on nuclear weapons. Despite Ahmedinejad's rhetoric, there's really no sign that Iran intends to actually do anything against Israel, so why should we be "sympathetic" to them on this issue regardless of what we get in exchange? Just because we want something from someone is no reason to support their paranoid delusions.

The US and Iran have not had proper diplomatic relations in thirty years. This needs to change. Being "sympathetic" to Israel about Iran does not seem productive in this regard.

Obama needs to take the rhetoric inappropriately applied to Iran and apply it (appropriately) to Israel: "All options are on the table."

Personally, I see the chance of the IDF removing the settlers as zero. If Obama is serious about a Palestinian state, he will have to use the US military to remove or kill the settlers and provide a defensive force to protect Palestinians from renewed aggression. Barring this, there will be no progress whatsoever.

Obama and US cannot directly impose a two-state solution on Natenyahu. Indirect pressure, however, has a much greater chance of success, and a good place to start is by publicly discussing the illegality of the settlements and the inhumanity of the Occupation. That will not only get Netanyahu's attention, but the Israeli public's as well. When the Israelis realize that Obama is no George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton, for that matter, then real movement toward a two-state solution will begin.

And once Israel has Tehran taken out (and that's assuming it can be done which is a very big IF) what is to prevent Israel from just rolling over a Palestinian state? – Nothing. Sounds like a set up to me.

What comes first, the imposition and implementation of the two-state solution, or the sympathy on Iran nukes? Somehow I think Iran will be far less intransigent in all areas once it knows the Israelis have nothing left to gain by instigating (or having their lobby instigate) a wider Mideast war. Acquiescing to and implementing a two-state solution would be a long overdue act of good will on Israel's part.

Best case scenario:

It's all true. Obama puts pressure on the Israelis via Rahm Emanuel. The Israelis say, with a conciliatory smile, "OK, OK, since you put it that way, we'll negotiate a settlement with the Palestinians". The Israelis make the Palestinians a "generous offer" in which the the Palestinians get to declare "statehood" in what is left of the West Bank and Gaza with Abu Dis as their "capital". In the meantime, Israel escalates land confiscations for the wall, frantically expands existing colonies filling them with hastily converted "Jews" it conveniently discovered living in some remote Brazilian village along the Amazon.

The Israelis then make a "generous offer" in which Israel keeps all its established colonies, with a large "buffer zone" around each, the Jordan Valley, and all its colonists-only "bypass" roads. The Palestinians get to "declare statehood" in whatever bits and pieces and nooks and crannies are left over, while Israel maintains full control over that "state's" borders, airspace, seacoast, and water resources, and thereby, of course, it economy. Palestine is not permitted to have a military, which would, of course, pose an existential threat to Israel, and its police forces are only allowed to carry small calibre pistols and billy clubs. The Palestinians are required to declare that this satisfies all their demands and grievances, and the matter is closed forever.

The Palestinians say "what part of that do you think looks anything like what we have been struggling and suffering for for the last 60 + years? What part of that looks to you like something anyone in their right mind would accept? Please come back and talk to us when you are sober".

Everyone shakes their heads and blames Palestinian intransigence, yet again, for the "breakdown of the negotiations". Israelis smile smugly, sigh, and say "See? We make painful concessions, and they spit on us for it. Those Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity". Obama shrugs and says "we did our best, but the Palestinians are obviously still not ready for peace" onward to Iran! Nice liberal and progressive Americans say "What is WRONG with those Palestinians? They will never get an offer that good again! Obviously, all they care about is destroying Israel and annihilating the Jews."

And the Arab League continues to re-offer what Israel claims it has always wanted – peace, recognition, and full, normal diplomatic and economic relations, while the Israelis continues to point their middle finger in response.

Agreed Shirin. History repeating itself.

Stevieb, I predict that if anything my best case scenario is what will happen. Why? Because it is pretty much what has happened in the past.

Obama won't do squat, except to cave in with regards to Iran.

PS If this does eventuate and Israel attempts a major bombing campaign (which will fail like all of their previous bombing campaigns), then this would be a very, very ugly episode, not only for the two countries involved but also Iraq, Turkey, Syria and worst of the worst, the Palestinians themselves. What land would be left there with Iranians hovering over? Once again, the Palestinians are left out in the cold and pay the price with their blood.

syvanen, your points are well taken. The changes you mentioned to give Obama more space to pressure Israel – if he really does have the will to do so, and that is one of the big questions here.

Shirin,

I do read Helena's blog numerous times a week (and it is very helpful). I comment from time to time (but not lately) and I haven't seen another by the same name comment there but I have seen another Joshua comment here (he's a Zionist unlike me). I assume that is him doing the deed over there.

What's even more startling is that her blog is infiltrated MORESO than this blog (although by only about four or five of the same commentors). How is that possible? This site has some of the worst vitriolic morons on this subject.

If Obama's plan is to do a quid pro quo Iran-Palestine…it won't work.

There is only one way to settle fairly and justly Isr-Pal:

Withdraw all Isr aid.
Let it be know Isr no longer has the unconditional support of the US and the US will no longer support the occupation of Palestine or any illegitmate Israeli agression toward Iran or any of it's other neighbors.
Declare we will prevent Iran nukes only on the condition that Israel de-nuke itself under supervision by the UN Atomic Commission.
And then bring the EU, Russia, China and all other major world players into agreement with the new US "Stability" policy re the ME and Israel.

Then let Israel, as the soverign state they claim they are, choose the door with lady behind it or the one with the tiger behind it and be responsible for their own destiny.

Saying we can't control what Israel does as a state is a meaningless statement because we can control what we do and that is all we need to do to put an end to Isr-Pal and Isr-Iran.

Shirin is probably right. She usually is. But — the Israelis will be even more opposed to the settlement she thinks will be proposed than the Palestinians. Livni's father had the Irgun emblem engraved on his headstone. Study it. Feiglin – perhaps the actual Likud power, according to Gershom Gorenberg – states explicitly that Jordan is Israel. That the temple will be rebuilt. And Lieberman, assaulter of twelve year olds, well…

American Jews have enabled the creation of an Israel one hopes they did not intend.

Any significant movement on Obama's part is in the first place a huge personal risk (Lord Moyne, Bernadotte, Rabin, others?) and in the second place a huge political risk, given the number, complexity, and gravity of the other issues he confronts. Carter and Bush senior were the only presidents since Eisenhower and Kennedy to confront the Israelis as one might suppose relative size, wealth, and military power might entitle a president to confront a client with two percent of his country's population, and a tiny fraction of one percent its size, that was causing serious problems or risks. But they did not fare well.

So I wonder. Why go out on a limb? Blather, 'trust building,' more roadmaps – more Clinton/Bush delay. Or more misdirection – Clinton/Bush wars. Why confront it – and especially tie the Iran issue to a time frame that must be measured in this way?

Something is happening.