[Ha'aretz] Shlomo Avineri - There are good reasons to worry that the current round of peace talks between Israel and the PA will yield no real results, especially because the two sides are so far apart in their basic positions on borders, settlements, Jerusalem and refugees. In other prominent conflicts in Cyprus, Kosovo, Bosnia and Kashmir, the international community understood, reluctantly but out of a realism based on both theory and practice, that there was no immediate chance of resolving the crisis. And so it turned to other channels - what is known as "conflict management." The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is far more complex, but for some reason the international community believes it can offer a swift and immediate solution for it. Those who ask European leaders why they think they can succeed in the Middle East after having so clearly failed in Cyprus and Kosovo will see that they begin to think anew. Changing the paradigm from "conflict resolution" to "conflict management" does not mean accepting the status quo. In our context, this means continuing to seek ways of minimizing the friction between the two sides. Historic disputes are not resolved with a wave of the hand, much less by external directives (the U.S. has yet to "resolve" any one of them). It takes lengthy internal processes, which alone can lead to the formation of a joint political desire to reach an agreement. The writer is professor emeritus at Hebrew University and former director general of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
2008-07-04 01:00:00Full ArticleBACK Visit the Daily Alert Archive