Writing in the Guardian Peter Tatchell says what mainstream newspapers have been slow or reluctant to report ... Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad implied in a New York interview that Iran may be willing to acknowledge the existence of the state of Israel.
Ahmadinejad was asked: "If the Palestinian leaders agree to a two-state solution, could Iran live with an Israeli state?"
This was his astonishing reply:
"If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay ... Whatever the people decide, we will respect it. I mean, it's very much in correspondence with our proposal to allow Palestinian people to decide through free referendums."
Since most Palestinians are willing to accept a two-state solution, the Iranian president is, in effect, agreeing to Israel's right to exist and opening the door to a peace deal that Iran will endorse.
Link to the rest of Tatchell's article here.
This is certainly cause for guarded optimism, however given the track record of Ahmadinejad the initial response of many will be to question his motives and sincerity. After all this is the same man who has repeatedly called for the destruction of the state of Israel.
Despite Ahmadinejad's fire and brimstone rhetoric, there is more flexibility than many believe to be the case. The way language is employed is key to understanding the Iranian position. Notice that Ahmadinejad said 'the Zionists can stay' without referring directly to Israel. However a two-state solution with Israeli concessions could lead to a change in the Iranian tune.
Fact is, when you get behind the bombast and posturing, the Iranian position is quite similar to the position held by the Arab League on Israel ... namely the requirement for a just peace. However given Israel's track record - it's bulldozing, military aggression and the maintenance of a quasi-apartheid state what are the chances that it will ever be ready to make the concessions that will pave the path to peace?
Skepticism aside, Ahmadinejad's comment provides an opening and Tatchell is right in saying it should be followed up. Peter also makes this key point with respect to what needs to happen in order to create the conditions for a peaceful settlement:
Tags:
This is certainly cause for guarded optimism, however given the track record of Ahmadinejad the initial response of many will be to question his motives and sincerity. After all this is the same man who has repeatedly called for the destruction of the state of Israel.
Despite Ahmadinejad's fire and brimstone rhetoric, there is more flexibility than many believe to be the case. The way language is employed is key to understanding the Iranian position. Notice that Ahmadinejad said 'the Zionists can stay' without referring directly to Israel. However a two-state solution with Israeli concessions could lead to a change in the Iranian tune.
Fact is, when you get behind the bombast and posturing, the Iranian position is quite similar to the position held by the Arab League on Israel ... namely the requirement for a just peace. However given Israel's track record - it's bulldozing, military aggression and the maintenance of a quasi-apartheid state what are the chances that it will ever be ready to make the concessions that will pave the path to peace?
Skepticism aside, Ahmadinejad's comment provides an opening and Tatchell is right in saying it should be followed up. Peter also makes this key point with respect to what needs to happen in order to create the conditions for a peaceful settlement:
The key to peace in the Middle East is concessions from the occupying power. As the stronger, wealthier and conquering partner, Israel should take the initiative and help kick-start the peace process by withdrawing unilaterally and totally from the territories it has occupied illegally (according to international law) since the 1967 war. This means pulling out from all of the West Bank and dismantling all the illegal Israeli settlements.
Tags:
