Compromise

My position on the situation in Palestine has been made quite clear in a number of postings and is best articulated in the statement that "it should not be seen as holy land but rather as stolen land" and I am not talking only about the post 1967 settlements. However, one has to be a realist and in being a realist one has to accept that de facto Israel does exist and this not the place to pick up on the legal case for Israel. Nevertheless, whatever that case may be it could only have a much smaller Israel as its point of reference and here I am talking about the UN partition plan from November 1947. Of course, it is very unlikely that this is going to be a bargaining chip on any negotiation table. Indeed, while I believe that Palestinians should be compensated should they not be allowed to return to the land once owned by their parents or grandparents, the very best that they could hope for is a Jewish state within the borders of the Rhodes armistice line of 1949. Of course, the Israeli establishment and Zionist settlers and, indeed, the United States of America, who all have a very different idea of Israel's borders, would never accept this. However, there is hope, for Israel itself appears to be anything but homogeneous. In "The Guardian" today - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/18/israelandthepalestinians.middleeast -there was an interesting article on the Israeli human rights organisation, 'B' T selem' and how they have been helping Palestinians to film attacks by Jewish settlers. There are people in Israel, people like those who work with the 'B'T selem' who will compromise, there are Palestinians who are realistic enough to retreat from what is their moral and legal right to the land and, perhaps, just perhaps, a real settlement is possible. There is, however, no place for Zionism in the area.

The above are maps of the UN partition plan from 1947 (Resolution 181) and the Rhodes armistice agreement of 1949.