Europeans: 'Obama administration put more pressure on its friends in the negotiations than on the Iranians'
The Wall Street Journal reports that the Europeans - particularly France - are having some
buyer's remorse about the sellout to a nuclear Iran.
French President François Hollande ran into a
difficult question late last month about war and Iran. It’s time now to pay
attention to his answer.
Invited to dinner by members of the French
Presidential Press Association on July 27, the president was asked if he went
along with the contention of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, later voiced by President Barack Obama,
that war would inevitably follow rejection by the U.S. Congress of the nuclear
deal between the great powers and Iran.
Mr. Hollande, whose full-page photo on a French
magazine cover this week is headlined The Anesthetist, doesn’t do
alarmisme. He didn’t assert, as Mr. Obama so often has, that war is the
single alternative to the Iran nuclear agreement. No way.
My recollection of Mr. Hollande’s
response—jibing with that of the journalists seated to my left and right that
evening—is that he said disapproval by Congress meant new “uncertainty,” and
uncertainty in the Middle East could sometimes mean war.
A month later, this much is clear about the
approach of the other European parties to the deal: Neither German Chancellor
Angela Merkel nor
U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron
have made an explicit link between Congress’s possible September vote against
the agreement and anything resembling the Obama administration’s notions of
instant cataclysm.
After initially nodding “yes” to the deal, the
French have partially reverted to form reflecting their traditional hard-nosed
antinuclear proliferation position. It’s OK in Paris to acknowledge that the
accord is an oversold mediocrity, and its character nonhistoric. Mr. Obama’s
notions of co-opting a suddenly tranquilized Iran to embrace the Forces of Good
in the Middle East can get characterized as naive. American sanctions experts
say big French banks have informed them they are in no rush to return to
Iran.
Citing the profound weaknesses of an agreement
that allows controls over Iran to end after 15 years and the mullahs to keep an
absurdly high number of centrifuges, a French official told me he graded the
accord as C-plus. He expressed concern about America’s willingness over time to
continue paying the enormous expense of its vast Iranian surveillance
operations. And he also said that the deal’s concessions to Tehran made a
pressing reality of Saudi Arabia’s quest for an atomic weapon.
One of the toughest of the country’s hard-nosed
security experts, Bruno Tertrais, wrote last month in the Canadian newspaper Le
Devoir that “with pressure from the Obama administration” European negotiators’
original intent deteriorated from a rollback of Iran’s nuclear ambitions to
their containment.
Camille Grand, director of the Foundation for
Strategic Research—a think tank with a reputation for telling truths the French
government might prefer to avoid—told me how this slippage had come about. “From
2013 on,” he said, “the Americans gave the impression they wanted the deal more
than Iran did. The administration put more pressure on its friends in the
negotiations than on the Iranians.”
...
For now, even if there are French critics, there
is no political or governmental force actively fighting the deal. It creates the
impression of a French security establishment that will shoot from the cover of
the sidelines, yet isn’t mobilized to urge that the agreement be
renegotiated.
But shooting from the sidelines can still have
an effect. Consider the recent ado about reports that Jacques Audibert, Mr.
Hollande’s national security adviser, told a U.S. congressional delegation to
Paris in July that France, while supporting the deal overall, would view a move
by Congress to block the deal as manageable without causing a break between the
U.S. and Europe. Rep. Loretta Sanchez, a Democrat, described the conversation
later. Although the French denied her account, her colleagues on the delegation
affirmed it—and why would she concoct a story so inconvenient to a president of
her party anyway?
So how come didn’t France lie across the tracks
to block the accord? My explanation:
Because an economically nonperforming President
Hollande couldn’t say “no” to French industry wanting a shot at new Iranian
contracts. Because France no longer musters the international political levers
to shoulder splendid isolation. And because it would not assume the cost of
being regarded as Benjamin Netanyahu’s single objective ally.
And now, French buyer’s remorse? In theory, a
bit. But not enough to try holding off on its own what France knows is a lousy
Iran nuclear deal.
Is anyone in Congress listening?
For the record, France
opposed the 24-day wait period for inspections.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, France, Francois Hollande, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Jacques Audibert, John Kerry, Laurent Fabius, Loretta Sanchez
Netanyahu rains on another French parade
Prime Minister Netanyahu has once again
rained on French President Francois Hollande's parade.
Israel's prime minister said Sunday he will "fiercely reject" any
international proposals meant to bring about a solution to the conflict
with the Palestinians.
Benjamin Netanyahu made the remarks ahead of a visit by French
Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius. France has said it will propose a
resolution in the United Nations Security Council with a framework for
negotiations toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"The way to reach an agreement is only through negotiations and we
will fiercely reject attempts to impose international dictates," he told
his weekly Cabinet meeting.
Netanyahu said that attacks against Israelis will continue with any
international proposal that does not take Israel's security concerns
into account.
...
Fabius is coming to the region to sound out leaders about a planned
Security Council resolution that aims to restart peace talks after a
more than year-long lull.
Palestinian officials and French diplomats have said the proposal
would call for basing the borders between Israel and a future
Palestinian state on the lines that existed before Israel captured the
West Bank, east Jerusalem and Gaza Strip in the 1967 Mideast war. It
also would set a two-year deadline for an agreement. Israel rejects a
return to its pre-1967 lines, saying they are indefensible. It also
opposes deadlines.
That's not Fabius in the picture with Netanyahu - it's French President Francois Hollande. In any event, the reaction is the same.
Heh.
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, France, Francois Hollande, Laurent Fabius, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome
Kerry managed to anger everyone
By butting into the 'cease fire' talks and working against the interests of the United States' traditional allies, US Secretary of State John FN Kerry has managed to anger everyone except the bad guys: Hamas (whom he has apparently saved to fight another day) and its supporters Qatar and Turkey.
David Horovitz has written a
devastating piece on the Israeli view of Kerry's shenanigans. He refers to Kerry's actions as the betrayal.
The Netanyahu government has had no shortage
of run-ins with Kerry in the mere 18 months he has held office. The
prime minister publicly pleaded with him in November not to sign the
interim deal with Iran on its rogue nuclear program, and there has been
constant friction between the two governments over thwarting Iran’s bid
for the bomb. Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon in January ridiculed
Kerry’s security proposals for a West Bank withdrawal, calling the
secretary “messianic” and obsessive” in his quest for an accord with the
Palestinians that simply wasn’t there. The collapse of the talks in
March-April was accompanied by allegations from Jerusalem that Kerry had
botched the process, telling Israel one thing and the Palestinian
Authority another, including misrepresenting Israel’s position on
Palestinian prisoner releases.
But none of those episodes, though deeply
troubling and relating to issues central to Israel’s well-being,
provoked the kind of outraged disbelief at Kerry’s performance that has
been emanating from the Israeli leadership in the past 48 hours. Leaked
comments from unnamed senior government sources to Army Radio, Channel 2
and other Hebrew outlets have described the secretary as amateurish,
incompetent, incapable of understanding the material he is dealing with —
in short, a blithering fool.
But actually, it’s worse than that. What
emerges from Kerry’s self-initiated ceasefire mission — Israel had
already accepted the Egyptian ceasefire proposal; and nobody asked him
to come out on a trip he prefaced with sneering remarks about Israel’s
attempted “pinpoint” strikes on Hamas terror targets — is that Jerusalem
now regards him as duplicitous and dangerous.
Contrary to his public claim at his press
conference in Cairo that his ceasefire proposal was “built on” the
Egyptian initiative, it manifestly is nothing of the kind. As indicated
by the unconfirmed text reported by Issacharoff, by other subsequent reports of its content,
and by the cabinet’s outraged rejection, it is a proposal that, to
quote an unnamed official cited by Channel 2, “tunneled under the
Egyptian initiative,” a document, to quote from another of those leaked
comments, that reads like it was drawn up for or even by Hamas’s Khaled
Mashaal.
And Kerry didn’t let up after unleashing his
dreadful proposal. Following Friday’s fiasco, he jetted off to Paris
and, quite extraordinarily, convened further consultations dominated by
countries that overtly wish to do Israel harm. He met with his
counterparts from Turkey, whose Hamas-backing leadership has lately
accused Israel of attempting genocide in Gaza and compared Netanyahu to Hitler, and with Qatar, Hamas’s funder in chief, directly
accused by president Shimon Peres last week of financing Hamas’s rockets and tunnels. Staggeringly, he did not bring Israel, Egypt, or the PA to his Paris sessions.
David seems uncertain whether Kerry's behavior is 'amateurish' or purposeful. Perhaps this piece by Ed Lasky
from ten years ago - in which Lasky explained why people to whom Israel is important ought to vote for George W. Bush and not for Kerry (who was then running for President) will make it clear that Kerry is far from an amateur. Like so many others on the Left,
Kerry is viciously anti-Israel.
As the son of a diplomat posted overseas and as someone who spent
many years living abroad (indeed, he attempted but failed to get a
deferment to study in Paris during the Vietnam war), he brings to the
table a multilateralist view of the world, a penchant to seek
international approval for his actions — what he notoriously called the
'global test.'
Kerry trumpets that he will work with the United Nations and European
allies in developing foreign policy. Some have said that he intends to
outsource our foreign policy to the likes of France and the UN. Others
term this a surrender of American sovereignty. This is not surprising
since he has
a fetish for the UN.
When has multilateralsim ever been a positive for the world's Jews?
...
Kerry spoke negatively about Israel's security fence before the
Arab—American Institute last year, when he bemoaned 'how disheartened
Palestinians are by the Israeli government's decision to build a barrier
off the Green Line, cutting deeply into Palestinian areas' and went on
to say that 'We do not need another barrier to peace... and that
provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israel's security
over the long term.' Of course, the fence has actually lead to fewer
deaths among both Palestinians and Israelis, and has been the number one
cause of the reduction in terror casualties.
Kerry also denounced the 'endless cycle of violence and reprisals' —
thereby equating Israel's defensive measures to root out killers to the
murder of innocent Israelis by Palestinian terrorists.
Kerry supporters point to a seemingly solid Senatorial record on
votes for Israel, but this is a specious argument. It does not take much
to have a solid record on Israel, since most of the Resolutions
regarding Israel are painless offers of moral support.
In a devastating article,
'John Kerry on Israel: Second to Several' , Rick Rickman pointed out
that Kerry was not a strong supporter of Israel. In 2000, for example,
he did not join 60 co—sponsors of the 'Middle East Peace Process Support
Act' — a bill calling on the President not to recognize a unilaterally
declared Palestinian state. He also failed to co—sponsor a pro—Israel
'Peace Through Negotiations Act.' In 1993 he failed to join 55 Senators
in signing the Grassley/Lautenberg letter to the State Department,
demanding that Hamas be listed as a terrorist organization. He did not
support the assassination of Sheikh Yassin, often called 'the
Palestinian Osama bin Laden' for his exhortations to violence.
In a book Kerry wrote, he called Yasser Arafat a 'statesman'. Granted
this was during a period when diplomats were attempting to whitewash
Arafat. But it was also a period when Arafat was openly brainwashing
Palestinians to hate, and was planning his terror campaign against
Israel.
Who would carry Kerry's water in negotiations with
Europe, Israel, and the Arab nations? Kerry has suggested Jimmy Carter
and James Baker. Jimmy Carter's animus towards Israel should be known by
any reasonably intelligent Senator and many instances of this dislike
can be found. James Baker famously said 'F%$#ck the Jews.... they don't
vote for us anyway' (more on this later), when advisers remarked that
his condescending approach to Israel could hurt domestically.
Other 'experts' surrounding Kerry include Sandy Berger, who even said in May 2000 that Palestinian violence was 'a blessing"
because it might speed up the negotiating process. Martin Indyk is an
ex—Ambassador to Israel and recently told Israel to unilaterally give up
the strategically vital Golan Heights to Syria, or continue to expect
Syria to support Hizbullah. Indyk has been called Arafat's Yes—Man.
Iran poses the foremost threat to Israel. Iranian missiles are
paraded in Tehran with Tel Aviv and Jerusalem scribbled on their sides.
Iran openly brags that it will destroy Israel and says it does not fear a
nuclear counterattack because the Arab world is so big that it can
absorb retaliation. The Iranians have even gloated that concentrating so
many Jews in Israel will make their genocidal task easier. Yet, Kerry
seeks engagement with these rulers and wants to explore areas of mutual
concern. He takes the non—confrontational approach with Iran. He even
wants to provide them with nuclear fuel! This is absurd: Iran has a long
history (like North Korea) of using these negotiation to further
develop their weapons and to make 'deals' that can and will be easily
broken when it is advantageous to do so.
...
Kerry's aversion to using force was frozen in amber upon his return
form Vietnam over 30 years ago. Since then he has been adamantly opposed
to the use of force anywhere in the world, and has constantly voted to
cut defense spending and funds to support our intelligence operations.
He thought so much of his responsibilities on the Senate Intelligence
Panel that he was absent for over 75% of its meetings! .
Left wing dictatorships don't sem to bother Senator Kerry at all. He
pushed for engagement with the dictatorial Sandinista regime in
Nicaragua and found reasons to favor them with his praise. He also seems to have a soft spot for Castro and such fondness is reciprocated.
He found no reason to support 40 million South Vietnamese against an
invasion form the north and saw no risks of violence should North
Vietnam defeat the South Vietnamese. Tell that to the hundreds of
thousands killed and tortured after Saigon fell, and to the millions
still living under a Communist dictatorship. If he wouldn't act to help
40 million South Vietnamese will he take a risk to help a few million
Jews, especially when it would offend his European friends and
disappoint 300 million Arabs?
Sounds a lot like Obama, doesn't he?
Palestinian sources told the London-based
A-Sharq Al-Awsat that Kerry had initially agreed to an Egyptian proposal
for an immediate ceasefire followed by five days of negotiations
between Israel and the PA, with American assurances to address some of
Hamas’s demands. But on Friday evening Kerry produced a new plan based
on consultations with Qatar and Turkey and conducted between “the State
of Israel” and “the Palestinian factions,” excluding the PA. The Israeli
cabinet unanimously rejected Kerry’s plan.
“Kerry tried, through his latest plan, to
destroy the Egyptian bid and the Palestinian remarks on it (the Abbas
plan). His initiative is an alternative to ours,” an unnamed Palestinian
official told A-Sharq Al-Awsat. “Kerry was in fact trying to create an
alternative framework to the Egyptian initiative and our understanding
of it, in a way that placates the Qataris and the Turks.”
The Palestinian source said that PA
negotiators were “very close” to finalizing a ceasefire deal that would
insure the lifting of the blockade over Gaza and “realize all
Palestinian demands.”
...
An aide to Abbas related to A-Sharq Al-Awsat
the contents of a phone conversation between French Foreign Minister
Laurent Fabius and Abbas following the Paris meeting.
“Abu-Mazen [Abbas] asked Fabius: ‘Did Israel
agree to the ceasefire?’ He said: ‘No.’ ‘Did Hamas agree?’ He said:
‘No.’ So he embarrassed him with the question: So what is requested from
me now?’
“Abbas’s conversation with Fabius demonstrates
his level of anger and displeasure with Kerry and France’s role,” the
article concluded, before quoting the Palestinian official: “Abbas
considers the Kerry initiative as good as dead after being rejected by
Israel. He is very angry that Palestinian blood has been manipulated and
subjected to regional power struggles.”
The only group to whom Obama and Kerry show any loyalty is the Muslim Brotherhood and those nations that support those violent Islamist. This pattern has held since the beginning of the Obama administration in 2009. Now, President Hussein Obama himself is placing
enormous pressure on Israel to accept a 'cease fire' it does not want, and that does not serve its interests.
What else could go wrong?
Labels: Abu Mazen, Barack Hussein Obama, cease fire, Egypt, Gaza, Hamas, John Kerry, Laurent Fabius, Muslim Brotherhood, Operation Protective Edge, Qatar, terror tunnels, Turkey
'Narrow gaps' between Iran and the P 5+1?
In a sign that a deal with Iran may once again be approaching,
western foreign ministers have joined the P 5+1 talks in Geneva
Only "narrow" gaps separate Iran and P5+1 world powers from reaching
agreement on Iran's nuclear program, British Foreign Secretary William
Hague said Saturday.
Hague was among the foreign ministers who joined the talks Saturday
after hints a final agreement could be reached. The US State Department
announced Friday that "after consulting with EU High Representative
Ashton and the negotiating team on the ground, Secretary Kerry will
travel to Geneva later today with the goal of continuing to help narrow
the differences and move closer to an agreement."
Hague said that any deal must be "truly worthwhile," the BBC
reported. "There are narrow but important gaps," he said, "and it's
very important that any agreement is thorough, detailed and it's an
agreement in which the whole world can have confidence."
European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton is leading the
talks, which are being conducted by the United States, Russia, France,
China and Germany, vis-à-vis Iran.
The talks began Wednesday and were scheduled to end Friday.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Catherine Ashton, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, Laurent Fabius, Mohammad Javad Zarif, P 5+1, William Hague
Kerry lies again?
Speaking in the UAE on Monday, US Secretary of State John FN Kerry claimed that the P 5+1 were unified on the proposal presented in Geneva over the weekend. It was, claimed Kerry,
Iran that backed out.
Kerry, who spoke during a visit to the United Arab Emirates, said "the
P5+1 (6 world powers negotiating with Iran) was unified on Saturday when
we presented our proposal to the Iranians... But Iran couldn't take it,
at that particular moment they weren't able to accept."
But Kerry's claim contradicts claims by both France and Iran that it was France that torpedoed the deal.
Kerry's assessment of Iranian responsibility conflicts with Iranian accusations
that French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius blocked the deal. Indeed
Republican lawmakers in the US, foremost among them Senator John McCain,
on Sunday praised France for preventing a bad deal with Iran.
Kerry's statement that the negotiating delegations presented a
unified proposal also conflicts with Fabius's comment on Saturday when
he said "there is an initial draft that we do not accept... As we speak,
I have no certainty that we can finish up."
Kerry's comments are seen by many as an attempt to deflect criticism for rushing to sign a deal, particularly criticism coming from Israeli Prime Minister
Binyamin Netanyahu.
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, France, Iran, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, Laurent Fabius, P 5+1
France has been consistent about Iran
In the JPost, Benny Weinthal argues that despite the surprise of many commentators, France has actually been
consistent about Iran.
The BBC’s State Department correspondent Kim Ghattas wrote on Sunday,
“French diplomats have told me in recent years they believed the Obama
administration was willing to concede too much too soon.”
The French-born Israeli political scientist Dr. Emmanuel Navon told the Post
that France sees “the Americans and Germans as giving too much to
Iran.” He cited French President François Hollande’s interventionist
foreign policy. He is “not a pacifist” and showed his willingness to use
“military force” in Mali to stop an al-Qaida insurgency earlier this
year.
Navon, the director of the political science and
communications department at the Jerusalem Orthodox College, and teacher
of International Relations at Tel Aviv University and at the
Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, said France sees an agreement that
“must remove the threat of Iran reaching military capability” with
respect to its nuclear program.
Navon pointed to Hollande’s
willingness to confront Iran’s proxy – the regime of President Bashar
Assad in Syria, which was a French Mandate following the collapse of the
Ottoman Empire – with military force.
He “gave the orders to
shoot” but US President Barack Obama pulled the plug on missile strikes
and deferred the dispute to Congress for approval.
Richard Landes, a distinguished historian at Boston University with an expertise in French history, told the Post, “The fact is that his [Hollande] administration has proven to be tougher than [former French president Nicolas] Sarkozy.”
Landes noted that Hollande rapidly made the decision to go into Mali. Commentators “did not anticipate this kind of backbone.”
The
perceived lack of US tenaciousness and seriousness toward Iran’s drive
to build a nuclear weapons device was captured in the US media.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: France, Francois Hollande, Iranian nuclear threat, Laurent Fabius
Iran attacks France for supporting 'Israeli position'
Although I wonder whether France is actually capable of
stopping a deal with Iran, I appreciate the common sense coming from their foreign minister, Laurent Fabius.
AFP reports Saturday Fabius said "there is an initial draft
that we do not accept... As we speak, I have no certainty that we can
finish up."
Fabius added further that "there are some points on which we are not
satisfied," citing the "extremely prolific" Arak nuclear reactor and the
question of uranium enrichment. He also expressed concerns over Iran's
stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium.
Iran's spokesman of the parliamentary foreign affairs committee,
Hossein Naqavi Hosseini, strongly attacked the French PM, saying "the
behaviour of the French representative in the nuclear talks shows that
France is trying to blackmail" Iran.
Hosseini's colleague Esmaeel Kosari echoed his sentiment, saying
Fabius's comments "express the positions of the Zionist regime [Israel],
which prompts us to eye the talks with pessimism."
Meanwhile Iranian FM Zarif said Saturday "we have reached an
agreement on some questions, but on others there are still
disagreements.... There are differences of opinion within the
P5+1 group."
If there's a deal, it will be very difficult for Israel to attack unilaterally. We'd have the entire western world against us.
Labels: Iranian nuclear threat, Laurent Fabius, P 5+1
It's come to this: France now looking out for Israel's interests at P 5+1 talks
With the United States deciding that it's more important to have a deal with Iran than to defend Israel, it has
fallen to France to try to defend the Jewish state.
Delegates had been suggesting that "good progress" had been made but one
Western diplomat told Associated Press they were now preparing an
announcement of a new meeting in a few weeks' time.
The diplomat said France was holding out for tougher conditions.
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told France Inter
Radio his nation did not want to be part of a "sucker's deal" and
referred to "several points that.. we're not satisfied with compared
with the initial text".
One sticking point Mr Fabius mentioned was whether Iran
should suspend operations at its Arak research reactor - a possible
producer of weapons-grade plutonium.
Another was that Tehran was resisting demands to downgrade its stockpile of uranium enriched to 20%, he said.
I find it astounding that the United States is willing to sign onto a deal that even France calls a 'sucker's deal.' Obama will live in infamy,
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, France, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, Laurent Fabius, P 5+1
And you didn't think anyone was that blind anymore
On Sunday, Prime Minister Netanyahu found himself in the awkward position of having to explain to French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius that Israel's conflict with the 'Palestinians' is
not the central conflict of the Middle East.
The root of the area’s instability, Netanyahu said in a public
statement made alongside Fabius before the two met in Jerusalem, is the regional
rejection of modernity, moderation, progress and political solutions.
“I
say that because for too long people believed that the root cause of this
instability in the Middle East was the Palestinian-Israeli problem. It is not
the root cause; it’s one of its results,” he said.
“If we have peace with
the Palestinians, the centrifuges will not stop spinning in Iran, the turmoil
will not stop in Syria, the instability in North Africa will not cease, the
attacks on the West will not cease,” he added.
Netanyahu seemed to be
responding directly to comments Fabius made Saturday in Ramallah, after meting
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
“Even if we speak of other
neighboring countries – the dramatic conflict in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt – the
fact remains that the Israeli-Palestinian issue is one of the issues, perhaps
the central one, for the region,” Fabius said.
After meeting Netanyahu,
Fabius said at a solo press conference that while in the past the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict burned while the rest of the region was relatively
quiet, now the situation was reversed.
But, he said, it would be a “grave
mistake” to follow those saying that this was not the time to move on the
Israeli-Palestinian track because of everything else happening in the
region.
“I think it is necessary to take advantage of a situation where
there it is relative quiet,” he said, adding that the quiet demonstrated a
“change of mentality” that needed to be harnessed for moving the process
forward.
While acknowledging that an Israeli-Palestinian accord would not
solve all the problems in the region, Fabius said that if Israel and the
Palestinian Authority could be turned into an “island of stability” it would be
easier to deal with the other problems.
If there's a car accident, God forbid, and you have one person what a broken arm and one person whose arm is hanging by a thread, which one do you treat first? Fabius is arguing that it's the one with the broken arm. He would let the person whose arm is hanging by a thread bleed to death. Does that make any sense?
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, France, Laurent Fabius, Middle East peace process, Palestinian state, two-state solution
