In an ideal world, the map of Israel (and its neighbors) would look something like the map above. Israel could be the orange shaded nation in the middle, while Palestine would be tha nation shaded in gray. This is the "Two-State" solution that most people want and believe in.
With the effective annexation of the West Bank, successful negotiations could have taken place on Israel's terms, as it would control what land would have been given to Palestine for nationhood. But this was, is, and probably not be what Israel wants to do. Instead, it has placed illegal settlements in key sites in the West Bank, making it impossible for a practical two-state solution to be negotiated.
There is no way to say any one party to this inter-generational conflict is guilty or innocent. The forebears of today's Israelis were kicked out of the land by the Romans roughly 2,000 years ago. The British promised this land to both Jews and Arabs at the end of World War 1, and the aftermath of World War 2 made it necessary for Jews to establish a home in their traditional homeland.
- - - - - -
Recently, the US abstained from a vote condemning Israel for its illegal settlements on the West Bank. Trump went wild, saying that Obama has betrayed our national interests. But whose interests come first - USA's or Israel's? The only reason that America doesn't abandon Israel is the political support Israel gets from American Jews and Christian Fundamentalists who want a place for the Messiah's second coming. Both groups support Israel for religious reasons, and not for reasons that benefit America.
There is only one reason for America to support Israel, and that is a moral one. We should support democracies wherever they are found, and respect them even when they act in their interests, not ours. But if we did that as a policy, we'd never have had the pissing match with Iran, we'd have never have used the CIA to overthrow Salvador Allende, and we'd insisted on an official "Two-China" policy. Sadly, Israel is evolving into an Apartheid state, and none of the pro-Israel camp seems to care. Soon, demographics being what they are, there will be more disenfranchised Arabs in the lands Israel controls, and no way to allow them a voice in their lives - as that would come out as "Death to Israel!"
Time is running out for a Two-State solution, and Israel's actions are only making matters worse for that solution. Our Secretary of State has effectively said, that in a Single State solution, Israel could either be a Jewish state or a Democracy, but not both. Most people want the Two-State solution, but radicals are making this impossible. Is helping the radical element a way to make peace? I doubt it.
- - - - - -
Today's GOP is filled with people who would usurp the power of the presidency and invite the Prime Minister of Israel to speak to Congress, bypassing the State Department. It looks like they will give Israel everything it asks for - and then some. This is not a healthy development. It'll be like a kid in a candy store, and mistakes of excess will likely be made. Slow moving initiatives with countries such as Iran will be scuttled. Who knows what will happen then?
Every nation has a right to be secure in its borders. And every people have a right to be treated fairly in the nations in which they live. The Israel-Palestine conflict will likely be with us for generations yet to come, as both sides are taking positions only meant to stir up people for the benefit of those other than themselves. Religious zealots living in Israel have no desire to live in peace with their Muslim neighbors. The Arab side is no better, as Muslims have been taught for generations that the Infidel is their sworn enemy, and that the Infidel must be expelled from Muslim territory.
In a way, the Arab nations are right. Solve the problem of Jerusalem and you'll solve the problem of the Middle-East. Sadly, I don't see a huckster real estate promoter being up to the challenges this region will present him in the next four years....
I can still remember that in my lifetime, the United States once considered Iran as one of its closest allies. And there is no reason not to do so today, save for a 35 year pissing match that was triggered by the Embassy Hostage Crisis and the United States getting exposed as preparing to overthrow the duly elected government of Iran.
This conflict between nations should not only be examined from the American side (we have just complaints), but from the Iranian side as well (where they also have just complaints). What would be the key issue getting in the way of normalizing relations between the two countries after a generation and a half, if Israel was not given a veto over our actions in the Middle East? Both countries want to crush ISIS. Both countries want stability in the region. And both countries have legitimate concerns about the balance of power in the region.
Looking at the above map, one can easily see the regional importance of Iran - it borders part of the former USSR, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and shares the Persian Gulf with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, The U.A.E. and Oman. This country could either cause a lot of mischief, or be a valuable power for peace. But without normal diplomatic and trade relations, we have no direct way to influence them to work with us. (I must note that American soldiers are reported to being ferried over Iranian airspace to Afghanistan via foreign flagged aircraft, with the tacit approval of the Iranians. So there is something going on behind the scenes that few people want to talk about in a loud voice.) So it only makes sense to find ways to openly work with this country, if only because they hold a strategically important position in the region.
- - - - - -
When I started writing this entry, the P5+1 (5 Permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany - a major Iran trading partner) negotiations are taking place to resolve the West's issues with Iran's stated plans to develop nuclear technology for peaceful uses. These negotiations have been extended for several months because both sides realized the importance of cutting a deal everyone could live with.
As it was 35+ years ago, both sides have legitimate issues. From our perspective in the West, it's easy to understand our goal - this world does not need another nation with the capability of making nuclear weapons. When India and Pakistan developed their bombs, it took a lot of diplomacy to develop deals that preserved most of the pre-bomb status quo, and allowed both countries to save face while not getting into a nuclear arms race as the USA and USSR did after WW2. But Iran has a legitimate issue that we in the West don't think of - Tehran is one of the most polluted cities on Earth. Iran's leadership knows that it must lead the country out of the fossil fuel age, and sees nuclear energy as the best short term way to bridge the gap from a fossil fuel age and a renewable fuel age. They simply want to control their destiny - and this is very understandable.
When the Israeli PM, Bibi Netanyahu, was invited to speak to Congress, it was a slap in our president's face, and a violation of protocol. Congress does not make foreign policy. That power is solely invested in the executive branch of government. When Bibi spoke, he was against a deal with Iran, considering that nation's policies to be an existential threat to his country. And most in the GOP support Israel with unquestioned loyalty - as if they want to accelerate the "Second Coming" via support of Israel's bellicose policies. Bibi had no alternative to negotiations - and it appeared that he wanted the USA to fight a war against Iran that his country couldn't win alone.
Luckily, Obama is more cerebral in his thought patterns. He knows that we have a once in a generation chance to gradually shift Iran into a partner for peace. With the exceptions of Egypt and Jordan, no Middle East Muslim country has relations with Israel. Officially, they all call for Israel's destruction, while working very quietly with Israel on the side. This is what we would likely see several years after a deal with Iran. But it will take time to get there.
- - - - - -
Sadly, 47 US Senators wrote a letter to Iran attempting to undercut Obama's ability to work with the Iranians in negotiating a nuclear technology treaty. The NY Daily News labeled these Senators as traitors on its front page. And the Washington Post simply considers the actions of these senators irresponsible. Luckily, the Iranian leadership recognizes this as a Propaganda Ploy and responded accordingly, enlightening these Senators about what our Constitution and International Law say about the subject. And in an article in the Daily Kos, they note that Al Jazeera got it right - The Iran deal will be a Security Council Non-Proliferation Treaty Resolution, and likely be covered by a previous treaty ratified by our Legislative branch of government. I'll bet that these Senators now wish they had tried to make their point with softer words and actions....
- - - - - -
As I said in this entry's title - Iran is a country that must be dealt with. And it only makes sense for us to deal with Iran from a position of mutual respect, as only with respect will we be able to resolve our differences.....
