In 1716, Francois de Callieres, an emissary of King Louis XVI, made this pithy observation about powers great and small in one of the foundational texts of modern diplomacy, On the Manner of Dealing with Princes:
The blunder of the smallest of sovereigns may indeed cast an apple of discord among all the greatest powers, because there is no state so great which does not find it useful to have relations with the lesser states.
As a remedy, de Callieres insisted that negotiations must be continuous, so that, at the end of a process that is likely to be complex and tortuous, all parties understand that it is in their respective interests to compromise. However, when it comes to the U.S.-led effort to bring peace to the Middle East, de Callieres's insights, long embedded into the norms of modern diplomacy, are being displaced by that "smallest of sovereigns," the Palestinian Authority.
Rather than engage in negotiations which will reinforce the need for compromise, the PA has embarked on a strategy that, in the language of de Callieres, places its "passions" over its "interests." Moreover, the PA is getting away with it, because it has become adept, in its relations with powers great and small, at trading its supposed powerlessness as a form of power.
In less than two decades of existence, the PA has received tens of billions in aid from the European Union, the United States, Japan, Canada and other democracies. When its representatives arrive in foreign capitals, they are greeted with the same protocol shown to politicians and diplomats from other countries. Its often apocalyptic declarations are pored over with suitable anxiety, and whenever its President, Mahmoud Abbas, threatens to resign -- which he does frequently -- there is a predictable stampede of outsiders imploring him not do so.
It must be gratifying to be treated like a legally recognized state without having the responsibilities of a legally recognized state. Recall the record of successive U.S.-sponsored negotiations. First the PA plays hard to get, then it dismisses serious offers from the Israeli side as not really offers at all. Then it makes threats: to unilaterally cancel security arrangements with Israel , or even to dissolve itself, with the deliberate goal of triggering regional instability.
The key here is how the PA plays the image of powerlessness to its advantage. Take its current campaign to secure, outside the framework of negotiations, international recognition of a Palestinian state in those territories that came under Israeli control following the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. In Latin America, Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay have agreed to do exactly that, thereby aiding the Palestinian leadership in its quest to force the hand of the United States by driving this issue into the chamber of the United Nations Security Council.
Never mind that such a policy is legally and politically inchoate. It contradicts two previous documents which already contradicted each other: the Palestinian Declaration of Independence at Algiers in 1988, which deliberately didn't specify the borders of a Palestinian state, and the Oslo Accords of 1993, signed with Israel, which established the PA. The legal scholar Natan Lerner has written that "what has not been established cannot be recognized," but the PA and its international supporters are determined to break with precedent.
The PA knows that it can count on the pro-Palestinian instincts of many Latin American, Asian and African states, assiduously groomed by the PLO during the 1970s. Yet there's another factor, as a communications strategist who's worked for the Israeli and other foreign governments explained to me in a recent conversation. "It's hard to convince the outside world," he said, "why what the PA is doing is wrong."
My interlocutor observed that since the end of the Cold War, 33 new countries have come into existence, most of them emerging from former communist uberstates like the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. "These states have achieved independence in super-fast fashion, so the snail's pace of the Palestinian effort stands out and wins sympathy," he said.
Negotiations would have resulted in a Palestinian state as much as a decade ago, but the unwillingess of Palestinian leaders -- whether nationalist or Islamist or some combination thereof -- to compromise on final status issues, in particular the so-called 'right of return,' habitually confounds anything more than an interim agreement.
Now Europe is the PA's next target in its bid to win recognition of statehood. Rather typically, if the European answer is not an outright 'yes,' neither is it a full-throated 'no.'
This is a shame, because what the PA is doing is ultimately self-defeating.
At best, the Palestinians will have an entity whose legal status is the topic of constant dispute, with little more than symbolic meaning. If PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's program of institution-building is to culminate successfully by his August 2011 deadline, what's needed is a real state, not a T-shirt slogan. And that can only happen through an agreement with Israel.
Yet the independence campaign means that Israel has no reason to trust the PA now -- and therefore no reason to engage with anything other than extreme caution. How can Israel risk accepting a security package from the Obama administration when it is almost certain, a few months down the line, that the Palestinians will find another cause to abandon talks and blame Israel for the collapse? Israelis know that they are perceived widely, and unfairly, as hardliners -- they don't want to be seen as ingrates too.
To break the deadlock, the PA needs to follow the advice of de Callieres, and swap out passion for interest. Ultimately, it has a choice: either a Palestinian state or a Palestinian cause. There will be no shortage of Latin American populists and European celebrities lining up to endorse the latter. That's just one of many reasons why it would be wise for the PA to concentrate on the former and commit itself to reaching agreement with the one state that can make Palestine a reality: Israel.
Follow Ben S. Cohen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ZWord
Steven Simon and Dana H. Allin: To Contain Iran, Succeed in Palestine
Steve Clemons: Leapfrogging Barriers to a Two-State Deal
Carlo Strenger: Why Jewish Values Demand a Two-State Solution
The Palestinians are not asking for special treatment in their demand to be able to return to their homes. In this instance it is the state of Israel seeking special treatment in seeking to be excused from having to comply with their obligations under international Law.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaming_the_Victims#.22Broadcasts.22_.28Christopher_Hitchens.29
Palestinian diplomatic outreach must not harm relations with the United States
http://7yna.sl.pt
Personally I have a hard time believing that since the Palestinians have ALREADY OFFERED THOSE CONCESSIONS... and Israel still balks.
Are you lying on purpose, or do you just not know the simple, basic facts?
This is perhaps the the most humorously disingenuous think I have read. 10 points. :))
What Ben S Cohen wants is for them to show up, give up the right of retrun, give up on east Jerusalem, give up on the land already stolen and in return get a state thats a swiss cheese geographically and have no control over the goings and the comings. Now that would make Mr Cohen happy
Never before has there been a situation where facts are so universally disregarded and discarded.
Let me ask you a simple question. You say there is an "occupation"? From who is this territory "occupied"? Jordan? Who "occupied it from 1948 - 1967 (or Egypt the same thing in Gaza)?
Britain? Who occupied it from 1918-1948?
The Ottoman Empire who occupied it for the several centuries before that?
Byzantium?
The Sunni Arabs who in 1964 suddenly started calling themselves "Palestinians" because an Egyptian named Yasser Arafat (born in Cairo) teamed up with Gamel Nasser to create a terrorist organization to destroy Israel, have never had a "state' or anything else that can be occupied.
Not to mention the inconvenient fact that there is no occupation under international law, despite the loose throw around of that term ONLY in this situation.
Let me put it to you this way, a guy from Brooklyn or Poland does not have more right to the west bank than the indeginous people. Call them Arabs, Palestinains or what ever you want
To quote Professor Avi Shlaim, the renowned Israeli historian, as summarized by Ha'aretz (11 August 2005) in its review of his highly acclaimed book The Iron Wall (2000): “...based on facts, he surveys the history of Israel's contacts with the Arab world from 1948 to 2000, and states decisively ('The job of the historian is to judge,' he says) that the Israeli story that Israel has always stretched out its hand to peace, but there was nobody to talk to - is groundless. The Arabs have repeatedly outstretched a hand to peace - says Shlaim – and Israel has always rejected it. Each time with a different excuse."
As for the 2000 Camp David Summit, Barak and Clinton tried to shove a very bad deal down Arafat's throat. It could only be rejected. Suffice to quote Shlomo Ben-Ami, then Israel’s foreign minister and lead negotiator at Camp David: "Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well." (National Public Radio, 14 February 2006.)
As for the Camp David accords, I disagree with your assessment, but more importantly, the proper response to an unacceptable proposal is a counter proposal. None was forthcoming from Arafat. Instead he went home to start the war he had been planning.
The Palestinians have no interest in peace. Not then, not now.
Peace is now attainable as all Arab states and the PA have long since agreed to the Arab League's 2002 Beirut Summit Peace Initiative which offers Israel a peace treaty, recognition as a sovereign state, exchange of ambassadors, trade, tourism, etc., if Israel complies with hard-won international law (which it ratified) and its previous commitments.
He diverted the focus from the basic issue:
!! Arabs refusal to recognize the Jewish right to a independent state in the 3500 years old homeland/
1947 and 2010
Result of his policy:Palestinians avoid negations
For years Palestinians and Israel negotiated
Recorded on Oslo agreement,Clinton+ Barak+Arafat cape David summit,Taba/
Barak on Taba made an unprecedented offer to Arafat in exchange for a :
*formal letter stating that the conflict is over and no additional future requirements will be made
-The Palestinians open deadly terrorist war against Israeli civilian
--
Wikileake disclosed:Arab leaders demand USA to stop Islamist Iran by any means without connection to Israel.
Obama required Israel to give up major heritage,security assets,pretending they are key to form a coalition with Arabs states against Iran NUK's.
Obama knew first hand that his linkage is incorrect.
A long standing peace parameters:
1:Arabs recognition of:
-Jewish right for their single state:Israel
-Palestinian right to create the 23 Arab state.
2:Muslims governed by Arabs-Jews by Israel
-Israel will hand over to Palestin land inhabited by Arabs from Israel and the Jews from settlements governed by Israel.
-Arabs and Jew will remain in their current homes
3:Defining the boarders.
4:Solving the Refugees issue-Arabs and Jews from Arab countries.
5:End the Jews hate teaching and preaching.
6;No additional issues are open for conflict continuation
-
People prefers to be governed by their own
Imposed boarders are conflict reasons
Examples:Balbans-Tibet-Africa-Canada French-Belgia-Kashmir-Scots-Irish-Kurds
Is that a "Divine Right" ... or just "right of Conquest"?
Israel come into existence by hook and by crook.
What goes around comes around.
Like it or lump it.
Only 2% of Israel's population is Christian, almost all of that 2% are ARAB and PALESTINIAN Christians.
In other words, almost all the Christians remaining in Israel are Palestinian and Arab Christians who are now being persecuted by right wing fanatical settler Jews with money being supplied to them from right wing fanatical "Christian" televangelist groups in the United States who believe they are supporting the "chosen people" even though right wing settler Jews do not believe in Jesus and have a history of using political and physical force as well as violence to gain control of Palestinian land/territories.
Much of this is done under the umbrella group called "The Israel Lobby".
If this wasn't so tragic and deadly for some, it would be humorous.
Hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Christians have already fled from Israel.There are an estimated 144,000 Palestinian Christians remaining in Israel.
Although most Christians and Jews are NOT right-wing religious/political fanatics, the ones that are seem to have a lot of political influence and press coverage in Israel and the U.S. This seems to be to the detriment of Palestinian and Arab Christians in Israel.
Israel has repeatedly rejected peacemaking resolutions/plans issued by the 192 member nation U.N.
It's well-documented, however that Christians in PA and Hamas controlled areas are subject to persecution, and once vibrant communities of Christians like in Bethlehem have dwindled to a fraction of their former numbers.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/insideisrael/2009/December/Rights-Group-Hamas-Desecrated-Christian-Graves-/
http://www.israelwhat.com/resource-muslim-persecution-of-christians-in-palestine/
http://www.faithfreedom.org/op-ed/persecution-of-palestinian-christians/
http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/why-christians-are-leaving-palestine
Second here's a link from HP if you want a testimony from a Christian:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-kanwisher/listening-to-palestinians_b_796630.html
Of what use is a T Shirt Slogan. Something to sell? Certainly not to govern! Without effective government the bloodshed and suffering continue.
He who destroy a human life is considered by Scripture as though he had destroyed the whole world. He who saves a human life is considered by Scriptue as though he had preserved the whole universe.” (Sanhedrin 37a). R. Jochanan said, ‘Anyone who robs his neighbor of the smallest coin is considered as though he had taken his life” (Baba Kamma 119a)
Choose to negotiate a real peace and not a create a T-shirt slogan.