This is J Street's latest thinking on the background of what is happening in the United Nations:...shaping a resolution that is consistent with longstanding US policy and internationally accepted parameters on which a two-state solution would be achieved. This outline would specify the need to establish borders based on pre-1967 lines with swaps, a Palestinian capital in Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, mutual recognition and guarantees for the security of both states, an agreed-upon resolution to the refugee issue, mutual recognition by Israel and a new state of Palestine of each other as the national homeland of their respective people – and a diplomatic process to achieve agreement within a set period of time. The US and the international community should then invite the parties to reconvene talks based on the basis of that resolution.
Every single element in the outline above is not new and has been negotiated many dozens of times, not to mention fought over as well. I do note that, oddly, J St. does back Israel as a national homeland of the Jewish people which the PA reps reject.Since 1920, when Arab anti-Zionist organized political violence first appeared, killing 7 Jews during the Pesach holiday, the Zionist movement has always decided to go the route of compromise and yielding The official leadership surrendered territory, accepted partition plans, acquiesced to a 'certificate' system of immigration, recompensed Arabs who did not actually own the land they worked and so on.The only time an 'East Jerusalem' made its appearance, in all of history, was due to the Arabs rejecting the internationalization program and launching a war of aggression in 1947. Arab refugees came into being not because Jews "expelled" them but because their leaders sought to eradicate the Jews but lost their battles. And Jews in Arab lands, hundreds of miles from the fighting ended up themselves, becoming refugees through no direct fault of their own.Besides a worldview dominated by irrational, illogical and detached-from-reality left-wing progressive ideology rather than a serious analysis of the history and the diplomacy of the conflict, J Street once again seeks foremost to back up its political partner in the White House as well as their own preference for a Galut existence and then, secondly, to promote policies that do not respond to the problems and why they are problems and third, to ignore that failing of thinking of theirs, end up undermining Israel's security, existence and diplomatic standing.With J Street, one needs to be aware of detours, no exits, turnabouts and now, another wrong road in a wrong direction.^