Olmert: Jerusalem must be partitioned

[seanobr]

I find the effort to portray Israeli rule as more benevolent than that offered by a hypothetical Palestinian state nothing but evasion, because at issue is not the quality of Palestinian leadership in relation to anyone else, but their right to territory.  The Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem is illegal; it is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, U.N. Resolution 478 is not debatable, and only the most tendentious interpretations of Resolution 242 can legitimate Israel's conduct in the West Bank.  We shouldn't confuse the inability of Israel and the Palestinian Authority to reach a mutually beneficial settlement with what the Palestinian Authority is entitled to under international law; the question of security is another matter entirely.  

As for whether or not an agreement is achievable, my perspective has changed dramatically since the start of the Obama administration, in the sense that I am no longer convinced a peaceful resolution to the situation must be an objective of anyone external to the conflict.  There is no reason for us to expend effort vainly persuading Israel to abandon its current policy -- it's refusal to accept the faint hope of reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas indicates to me its commitment to peace is superficial -- and I increasingly have nothing but indifference for everyone involved.  Ideally, America would be far more dispassionate in our evaluation of Israel's importance to us: make it clear that we will support a U.N. resolution recognizing Palestinian statehood, be far more critical of Israeli behavior when appropriate, and gradually establish a distance between the two of us commensurate with our divergent national interests.  Despite its unique identity, Israel is merely another state, and maybe it's time to start treating it as such.  Israel doesn't have to show any enthusiasm for peace if that is what it desires; we can simply stop acting as its cupbearer.

More specifically, I don't believe any individual is capable of representing either the Israeli or Palestinian cause in the way required at present.  It would also demand a permissive atmosphere in America, which can only come about from a significant adjustment in how we view the region.  When one political party unites to encourage a foreign leader to upbraid their elected President for his perceived and illusory antagonism toward another country, and has no problem with the abject dehumanization of the Palestinian people, I see no reason to be optimistic that will occur any time soon.  We may have reached the point where, aside from defining a personal legacy, there is no incentive for any President to intrude upon the Israeli and Palestinian quest for peace.  The conflict will be ignored, but not as part of a strategic reassessment; rather, the conventional logic about Israel's relevance is so pervasive that the only way to reconcile American policy is to neglect it entirely.