Scoop Link: A Middle East Peace That Could Happen (But Won’t) In Washington-Speak, “Palestinian State” Means “Fried Chicken”
By Noam Chomsky, TomDispatch.com
The fact that the Israel-Palestine conflict grinds on without resolution might appear to be rather strange. For many of
the world’s conflicts, it is difficult even to conjure up a feasible settlement. In this case, it is not only possible,
but there is near universal agreement on its basic contours: a two-state settlement along the internationally recognized
(pre-June 1967) borders -- with “minor and mutual modifications,” to adopt official U.S. terminology before Washington
departed from the international community in the mid-1970s.
The basic principles have been accepted by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states (who go on to call for
full normalization of relations), the Organization of Islamic States (including Iran), and relevant non-state actors
(including Hamas). A settlement along these lines was first proposed at the U.N. Security Council in January 1976 by the
major Arab states. Israel refused to attend the session. The U.S. vetoed the resolution, and did so again in 1980. The
record at the General Assembly since is similar.
There was one important and revealing break in U.S.-Israeli rejectionism. After the failed Camp David agreements in
2000, President Clinton recognized that the terms he and Israel had proposed were unacceptable to any Palestinians. That
December, he proposed his “parameters”: imprecise, but more forthcoming. He then stated that both sides had accepted the
parameters, while expressing reservations.
...snip...
See the full version: http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175239/tomgram:_noam_chomsky,_eyeless_in_gaza___/#more
ENDS