I posted somewhere that this would be the ideal solution. But it will never happen, right?
Excerpts:
"The quartet, to be led by Colin Powell, US secretary of state, Kofi Annan, UN secretary- general, Javier Solana, EU foreign policy chief, and Igor Ivanov, Russian foreign minister, aim to thrash out three ideas as part of a goal to revive a political process.
The first is that Yassir Arafat, Palestinian leader, should appoint a prime minister recognised at home and abroad and taking on day-to-day responsibilities.
[snip]
The second idea is that the quartet should push for an envoy to be appointed by the UN Security Council. The envoy would have executive powers to oversee the implementation of Palestinian political reforms and establishing security co-operation between the Israelis and the Palestinians. In effect, this would mean placing the Palestinians under a protectorate.
EU diplomats said such a post could work provided it offered the Palestinians the prospect of statehood after a short period. They added it could not be a “one-way process but a parallel one”. Israel should undertake measures to lift the closures, stop confiscating Palestinian land to build special security roads for the settlers, and cease building illegal settlements.
The quartet is using President George W. Bush’s speech, made last month, to test the sincerity of his ideas, in which he said Israel and Palestine should exist side by side.
“We are now saying: here is our reform plan for the Palestinians. We will deliver on the Palestinian side. Washington, you start delivering the Israelis,” said a senior EU diplomat.
This idea of burden-sharing is the third element of the quartet’s strategy. Other members increasingly believe Washington must play its part in persuading Ariel Sharon, Israeli prime minister, to accept the principle of exchanging land for peace, that a future Palestinian state must be politically and economically viable, and that Mr Sharon must stop setting new demands to the Palestinians as a pre- condition for negotiations.
Jim Hoagland’s view:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63916-2002Jul12.html
Wait, so, you’re saying that it would be a good idea to set up a protectorate for the Palestinians, who want an independent state, headed by the UN, which Israel doesn’t trust? I see some problems with this.
Certainly. But if, IF, there was a protectorate, the chances for 1)a stable and democratic Palestine, 2) peace would increase tremendously, or so I believe.
Certainly. But if, IF, there was a protectorate, the chances for 1)a stable and democratic Palestine, 2) peace would increase tremendously, or so I believe.
Well, until Hamas and those groups that are currently bombing Israelis start bombing offices of the protectorate, and until Israel starts complaining about the protectorate’s positions in matters of joint Israeli/Palestinian concern, like the status of the settlements, and water rights.
The problem for many is Palistinians is they are offered no protection of their rights or liberies by what I believe to be a very bigoted and prejudice isreali government. After having their rights stripped, their homes stolen and destroyed along with their whole country and infrastructure. Palestinians can not be expected to trust or love their neibours until Isreal makes major changes, returning some of what they stole under the banner of judaism and offer palestinians reconcilation for the crimes the many crimes Isreal have commited against these people since these events are used by extremists in validating their terrorist actions. If Isreal accepts responcibility for the destruction their invasion and subsequent occupation have caused, and Palestinians are given some of the liberties and consumer cumforts we enjoy, they would become more pacified and apathetic, too apathetic for political or religious violence, much like we do in the west! YAY!