Nothing is Irreversible ....p426

The city of Jerusalem has shown to the world that nothing is permanent, or in Armstrong's words, irreversible.  Jerusalem has been built up, destroyed, and built up again throughout history.   For as long as it feels like there has been violence, we cannot forget that there has been peace as well.  Nothing is permanent.  

I have always felt that is was unfortunate how, in the stages of state building, that the Palestinians were not as organized or as linked to foreign powers to have any real sway after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.  There were also a lot of position changing on the foreign side that did not help the Palestinian cause at the time, and you can say even still today.  

Reading these last few chapters has brought me back sort of to where I was at the beginning of the book.  At a glance, the conflict appears to be never ending.  There are people on both sides who do extreme and deadly acts, which greatly affect the attitudes of the populations  against each other.  However, when people take the time to look deeper into the conflict and the history of the region, the conflict begins to look not quite as inevitable.  

There is a chance for peace.  I get the sense that there are many on both sides who do want peace and are willing to compromise.   However, these people are either overshadowed by political leaders, or prevented by extremist activities that turn many away from thinking compromise is possible.  

Since politics has shown throughout history to be a major factor in peace and violence, Palestine's current push for statehood could be a turning point.  If the world came to see Palestine as legitimate, this would give the Palestinian side a little bit more weight in peace talks.  I feel that as a state dealing with another state that is has to come with a different attitude than a state dealing with people without a state.

  

Negotiations fail when people refuse to bend in the slightest.  We saw how after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, that the Palestinian's decision to wait, refuse to accept anything, left them without a state.  Maybe now we are in a part of history when the decision of compromise may have the biggest repercussions for the Israeli side, and maybe for the United Sates as well.  There is wide support for a Palestinian state around the world.  However, Israel is against Palestine being recognized as a state by the United Nations, and the United States has voiced the intention to veto Palestinian statehood.  There is a possibility that if Israel and the United States are left as the two countries who prevented Palestine from becoming a state, that peace talks will continue to fail, and if Palestine becomes a state by other means, a lose of a potential ally or deals regarding shared resources.  It may be a stretch to compare the lack of compromise by the Palestinians in the early creation of the Israeli state, with the current lack of compromise as Palestine attempts to become a state, but I think there are similarities.    

As Armstrong concludes in her book, nothing is permeant, and there are people, both in Jerusalem, and in the region, who want there to be peace.  Now is the time for the politicians in charge to look back on their shared history and mark the moments where there was coexistence and prosperity, and what actions can and did destroy peace.