Agreement between Israel and Palestine for a road-map to peace in 12 months
A good sign, which however needs from Israel to stop the new constructions in West Bank, and the Palestinians to recognize the sovereignty of Israel and stop the attacks.

Drew Angerer/ The New York Times
In one small but hopeful early sign, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authorityagreed to meet in the Middle East on Sept. 14-15, and then to hold talks every two weeks thereafter, according to George Mitchell, the Obama administration envoy for Middle East peace, wire services reported.
Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Abbas both pledged themselves to be peacemakers, though each cited the issues that could keep them apart: security concerns on the part of the Israelis, particularly after the killing of four Israeli settlers, and Israel’s continued settlement construction, which the Palestinians insist must be halted in order for the talks to go anywhere.
Noting that they disagree on other core issues — which, in addition to security and settlements, include borders, the status of Jerusalem, and the rights of Palestinian refugees — Mr. Netanyahu said, “True peace, lasting peace, will be achieved only with mutual and painful concessions from both sides.”
Mr. Abbas called on Israel to stop building settlements and to lift its embargo on Gaza. He noted that “we’re not starting from scratch, because we had many rounds of negotiation between the P.L.O. and the Israeli government,” referring to the Palestinian Liberation Organization.
The Palestinians want the negotiations to start off from where they left off at the end of 2008, when Mr. Abbas was negotiating with the former Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert. Mr. Netanyahu, who leads a right-leaning coalition government, has rejected any preconditions for the talks.
The Arab League also has put its stamp of approval on the negotiations.
Source : The New York Times



Comments
I have my doubts to find sustainable solution for Palestine-Israeli conflict. Why so? In Israel big part of population thinks that Israel as strong Jewish state can best defence their interests and hard line government is implementing their wish. Palestinian leadership is defending rights of local Muslim population, refugees and vision of Palestine state. Hard line Palestine groups – with remarkable popular support – is implementing their vision with terrorist acts. In outside power centres especially in Anglo-Saxon world Israeli and Palestinian interest groups are putting their pressure to western capitals. Many outsiders admit that both sides have good base for their claims. U.S. is interested about some nice pictures before next elections and influential military-industrial complex sees lucrative future deals if conflict continues.
So far resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has had two options on the top of agenda. The first is aim of two states for two peoples and the second is a bi-national Palestinian-Israeli state in which Palestinians and Israelis would have equal rights or a Palestinian-Israeli confederation, in which two states share joint political institutions – a one-sate option. Sadly – I do not believe any of these alternatives and from my viewpoint instead of dead road maps more pragmatic approach should be applied. In my recent post “Will (East) Jerusalem be the End of Two-State Illusion?” - http://arirusila.wordpress.com/2010...
I try to find elements for this approach.
If some ethnic groups hate each other and when both can base their views and claims to selected parts of hundreds or thousands of years so basically there only two peaceful solutions: to train tolerance for generations developing same time living conditions or separate the groups by ethnic lines. After WWII Germans moved e.g. from Poland inside new borders. Finland settled some 10 % of its population from territories occupied by the Soviet Union, which from its side transferred new population to new regions. Israel itself is mainly settled by immigrants and e.g. in last twenty years over half a million people with some Jewish origin has come from ex-Soviet Union. In smaller scale more or less forced population transfers have been emptying Jewish colonies in Gaza. To be successful these kind of population transfers must be supported by effective re-settlement programmes.
More about issues e.g. in my article “Gaza War – Could Balkan history show way out?”
http://arirusila.wordpress.com/2009...
I wonder why there is not more discussion about a “three-state” approach, where Gaza is returned to Egyptian control and the West Bank in some configuration reverts to Jordanian sovereignty. From my point of view this solution could also be more economically sustainable than other options. It could be a bit further developed by making a buffer zone between Israel and hard-liners in Gaza. From my point of view the best way to do this is to relocate population from Gaza some 50-100 km SW to Sinai. There is possible to build new infrastructure instead again repairing existing one. With good planning and implementing economic-social programmes backed with sufficient international Aid money it is possible also to create more sustainable economy than today’s Gaza. More in “The Three-State Option could solve Gaza Conflict” http://arirusila.wordpress.com/2009...
Depending viewpoint actions mentioned above are not right, legal and acceptable and they are against many high flown statements from international community. However I think that as pragmatic solutions they could be realistic and work on the ground.