106 Days to Go
The Challenge of Moving Forward

By Sherwin Pomerantz

It is now 106 days to the opening of the United Nations General Assembly’s 2011 session in New York and the proposed vote to grant the Palestinians recognition for statehood.

As you know the thrust of my messages over the last few weeks have zeroed in on two points. First, is the need to make every effort to convince the delegates to the UN that they should NOT vote in favor of the resolution confirming Palestinian statehood. On that score I was somewhat surprised and disappointed to see this morning’s headlines here claiming that Prime Minister Netanyahu has decided that the effort cannot be stopped. I am not a diplomat, but I am also not willing to give up the fight.

Second, is my suggestion that Israelis and Palestinians sit down with each other and talk even if the Palestinian side includes members of Hamas. And I do understand clearly that at this point in time Hamas, as a matter of policy, objects not only to the presence of Israel in the region but the presence of Jews here as well.

Some of my readers have questioned how I can at one and the same time be against international recognition of Palestinian statehood while simultaneously suggesting that Israel recognize both Palestine and Hamas as evidenced by my urging the parties to sit and speak with each other. Yet, the answer is relatively simply.

Those of us who are against UN recognition of Palestinian statehood are against it because we believe that the issues revolving around such recognition (i.e. borders, the return of refugees, the status of Jerusalem, security in the Jordan Valley and issues of demilitarization) must be negotiated between the two parties, not be imposed by an outside body whether that be the UN or the US.

Having said that, and in support of that theory, it is very easy to make the jump to urge the parties to sit down and speak with each other about possible solutions. And may I remind everyone that the elements of the solution are already in place and have been agreed upon in discussion after discussion from Oslo onwards. What has actually complicated the situation is the imposition of new addenda to these issues by outside parties.

President Obama’s earlier insistence that Israel halt construction in all of the territories and Jerusalem, for example, actually impeded progress towards peace. This was never a demand of the Palestinians until the President put it on the table and, of course, no one can expect the Palestinians to be more liberal than the President of the US. This was a gift of no value other than to place obstacles in the path to peace.

So my position really is understandable. Peace will not come to this area until the parties themselves find it possible to sit down and talk face to face, without interference and without obstacles placed in the way by outside parties. The passing of the proposed UN motion would simply be another obstacle, but one which could unleash chaos here in its wake.

The most disappointing thing in all of this, of course, is the fact that we have a number of highly intelligent people on both sides of the virtual table who, down deep, know exactly what needs to be done to end the conflict. However, their standing on ceremony has become its own obstacle to peace and the possible cause of terrible times ahead for all of us. Would that it were different!