The NY Times has an editorial (this is not an Op-Ed, it is the entire Editorial Board) today titled Keeping Palestinian Hopes Alive:
Since negotiations seem impossible, President Obama has told Mr. Netanyahu that the United States would have to “reassess our options.” Obama administration officials say that could mean support for a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for a sovereign Palestine along the pre-1967 lines that divided Israel from the West Bank and Gaza. At a minimum, the administration should not veto a resolution that is expected to be proposed by France and other permanent council members.
In recent years, peace proposals advanced by the United States and others have focused on agreed upon land swaps that would let Israel retain some settlements while compensating Palestinians with land that is reciprocal in quantity and quality. In a Palestinian state, security forces would be used only to maintain internal security and the rule of law. The two states would refrain from alliances that bring them into conflict. Palestinian refugees would have the right of return to Palestine, a limited number would be permitted to unite with families in Israel. Jerusalem would be open to all but also shared in some way.
The United States has long been Israel’s main defender at the United Nations, fending off political attacks and vetoing resolutions that criticize or punish Israel. While the United Nations has often been unfair to Israel, and the United States has to remain on guard against that, it should consider potential resolutions if they fault Israel fairly for building settlements or taking other steps that foreclose the possibility of a Palestinian state.
There is a sop to the Israel hawks:
A clear Security Council statement in favor of a two-state solution would be an important benchmark. If the United States and other major powers quickly show commitment to that approach, they might be able to keep Palestinians from pressing a complaint against Israel in the International Criminal Court. The Palestinians, who will join the court on April 1, have long argued for an investigation of Israeli “war crimes.” Israel vehemently opposes action by the court, which would poison relations even more and alienate many Americans.
They are assuming the ICC will take the case, and that there is a real risk they will decide against the Israeli administration. Most of the legal analysis I've seen suggests the case is pretty clear cut against the settlements and the use of water and other resources from the West Bank. So my read is that there's no way the ICC can avoid that issue (occupying powers are prohibited from utilizing resources, that's basically to prevent pillaging).
I think the Editorial is a big deal since it means the liberal establishment including the Sulzbergers have lost patience with the Israeli leadership. They specifically point to many years of stalling and settlement building (which is not new). The open call for the US to support a Security Council resolution on Palestinian statehood is new (to my knowledge).
I sense is that the NY Times readership has shifted their stance over the past few weeks. I read the comments regularly. There used to be a lot of reflexive support for Israeli policy, particularly last year during Protective Edge. It has been minimal once the Iran-talks issue ramped up and Bib's speech to Congress.
As an example, the top comment on the editorial is:
Robert Eller. 6 hours ago
"The intent is not to impose a settlement but to encourage, in time, negotiations."
And why should the intent not be to impose a settlement?
"Encourage, in time, negotiations?" Where have the NYT editors been for the last 67 years? It surely sounds like the Editorial Board would like to "Keep Palestinian hopes alive." But that is all the Editors apparently want to keep alive.
It's time to not only talk about, but bring about, a living Palestine.