Sunday, December 27, 2009

Israeli-Palestinian Dispute: The World's Solution



I was listening today to Christine Amanpour -- one of the few CNN people I can take for longer than five minutes. Amanpour pulls no punches; tries to be fair; but she still leans a little too far left for my liking. Nevertheless, she had a great pre-recorded show on today re. the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

One of her guests was a former Advisor to several U.S. Secretaries of State and the other was an Israeli journalist who has crossed enemy lines to primarily represent the other side and report back to the Israelis and through CNN and others, to the world it seems.

The real issue one of them felt was critical was whether or not these two parties could ever come to a settlement. The journalist said they could on one condition. For her, it was simple -- Israel had to give up its rights to water, land, minerals, etc. The State adviser was much more practical. For him, both parties needed to make some big decisions internally so that they could present a unified front to the world as a first step. All factions claiming to represent the Palestinians had to get on the same page with respect to whether they would pursue their claim by force or by diplomacy.

All the Jewish factions he felt had to do the following: get on the same page with respect to the issue of the settlements, all or some; and the issue of Jerusalem, again did they want all of it or some of it; and finally agree on how much they were willing to sacrifice to get what they wanted on the first two.

Most interesting, wouldn't you say. There's nothing new there. But the chances of either party coming up with a united front internal to their own camp on the issues they need to settle themselves are about the same as me becoming President of France. (I don't live there and I don't speak French.) Now add to that the fact that Mr. B.O. was given terrible advice upon entering the White House with respect to the dispute. He basically total the Israelis that unless they were willing to give up all the settlements, they could forget any hope of a resolution, at least not one with the help of the United States. Smart, very smart. Not.

So, who's left to help the parties. Maybe other rising powers. Let's see there's North Korea, China, and India. Great negotiators and some of them extremely fair towards Israel. Not.

Sorry folks, but just as 2009 came and went with "no peace in Jerusalem", so will 2010. That is unless of course the true Prince of Peace and King of Kings will return in the year ahead. Otherwise, remember you heard it first "No Peace in Jerusalem in 2010" right here in this blog. We do people keep on trying?

-- Ken Godevenos, Presentalogist -- bringing you news today you can count on tomorrow.

Join others following Ken on Twitter
Check-out AccordConsulting, SCA International, and Human Resources for the Church.

Sign up (on the right) to receive free updates. We bring you relevant information from all sorts of sources. Subscribe for free to this blog or follow us by clicking on the appropriate link in the right side bar. And please share this blog with your friends and while you’re here, why not check out some more of our recent blogs shown in the right hand column.

Also, I’ve read some good books and make some great recommendations for you at http://astore.amazon.com/accorconsu-20 which you can purchase right from there.

Check our firm out at Accord Consulting.

No comments:

Post a Comment