RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

writing for godot

How Secretary of State Kerry Can Break the Israel-Palestinian Impasse by Taking a Leaf From Harry Truman's Book

Print
Written by Dr Peretz Darr   
Monday, 03 June 2013 12:03
On the 17th of April US Secretary of State John Kerry appearing at a hearing of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee stated that in his view the window of opportunity for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will close within a period of two years. He also reaffirmed his commitment to explore how negotiations can be achieved. Sixty two years ago another administration-that of President Harry Truman- confronted an impasse of another sort that required urgent resolution. The path chosen in 1951 to resolve a seemingly insurmountable problem can serve as a model with respect to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

A survey conducted in 2010 indicated that between 70 to 80 percent of the Jewish population in Israel would support a two state '67 border "Clinton" solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict if the Truman model were applied. Given security assurances the "Peace Camp" among Israeli Jews crosses party lines and is much larger than generally perceived. With the unprecedented Arab League Peace Initiative on the table Secretary of State Kerry by taking a leaf from Harry Truman's book, can break the 65 year old impasse between Israel and the Palestinians.



The background to the problem that required immediate resolution was the outbreak of the Korean War on the 25th of June 1950 and the reversals inflicted by the Chinese intervention in November of that year. The Truman administration was desperate to permit the partial rearmament of Japan in an effort to expand the coalition of the allied forces. What stood in the way to Japan's rearmament was the "No War" article in the Japanese post World War 2 constitution which in effect demilitarized Japan. Having been attacked and threatened with invasion by Japan in the 2nd World War, Australia viewed Japan as a major threat to its national security. Both Australia and New Zealand strongly objected to the Truman administration's request. As a condition to their rescinding their opposition to Japan's rearmament they demanded that the US provide a security umbrella in the form of a three country Defense Treaty. The impasse to Japan's rearmament was resolved in San Francisco on the 1st of September 1951. A three nation treaty- Anzus- signed by the US, Australia and New Zealand bound the signatories to consider that an armed attack in the Pacific area on any one of them would endanger the security of the others. The general feeling at the time was that the Defense Treaty provided Australia with the most foolproof protection that it had ever experienced.



The thread that connects Australia and New Zealand of 1951 to Israel of 2013 is the existential threat to national security perceived by the peoples of Australia and New Zealand in 1951 and Israeli Jews today. This was quantified this year in Israel where according to a poll conducted in April 2012, 43% of respondents reported concern that the State of Israel could be destroyed.

How would the implementation of the Truman model impact on the willingness of Israeli Jews to accept the Clinton Proposal as a vehicle for resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict? This question was investigated in December of 2010 by DAHAF, one of the most highly regarded polling institutes in Israel. According to this study 70% of the Jewish public supported a peace agreement that included a US security guarantee and assurance of the Jewish character of the State of Israel. This agreement when including the dismantling of Hamas's military capabilities, a security fence and a mutual US-Israel defense treaty was supported by 81% of the Jewish public. Given the historic upheavals occurring in the Arab countries and barbaric inter-communal violence in Syria the support for a final two state solution coupled to a US-Israeli defense treaty has probably increased among Israeli Jews since the 2010 poll.

A mutual defense treaty would formalize the close relationship that already exists between the US and Israel as expressed by two Presidents. In 2006 George W. Bush said in relation to the Iranian threat "I made it clear, I'll make it clear again we will use our military might to protect Israel". In 2012 President Obama declared-"I will say that we have closer military and intelligence consultations between our two countries than we have ever had. And my number one priority continues to be the security of the United States, but also the security of Israel while in March of 2013 he declared "today I want to tell you-particularly the young people- that as long as there is a United States of America Ah-tem lo levad,(you are not alone).



An American sponsored package that couples a US-Israel Defense Treaty with a Clinton two state format addresses the deep anxiety of Israeli Jews of almost all political hues for their and Israel's future. Given the latest Arab League Peace Proposal and the large majority among Israeli Jews that such a package commands, a US-Israel Defense Treaty is a most expeditious path to follow in order to end the intractable 46 year Israeli occupation of the West Bank .





Dr Peretz Darr




I have written extensively on various aspects of public policy on long term planning
with respect to natural resources




e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
Email This Page

 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN