As I have read press reports of the U.S. offering massive incentives to Israel in an effort to secure a three month settlement freeze, I've wanted to give the U.S. peace negotiators the benefit of the doubt. On too many levels, however, I'm having trouble understanding the logic behind all of this.
First of all, I have a problem with the very idea that we are negotiating with the Israelis on the terms of a settlement freeze. If settlement construction is "illegitimate" then what are we talking about?
There was some hope early on when President Obama stated that settlement activity must end, and this was then echoed and amplified by Secretary Clinton making it clear that the President meant "all" construction. But when Israel dispatched Defense Minister Ehud Barak to Washington to negotiate terms and the U.S., instead of sending him home, began a long and involved discussion with the Israelis, hope began to fade.
What ensued was a year and a half of mixed signals and meandering -- which continues until today. On the one hand, the U.S. insists that settlement construction is wrong, but then argues that existing settlements are "accepted realities." The Israelis aren't fools. They know that if they build, there will be complaints. But they also know they can weather this storm, and when they do (as they have in the past), what they build they can keep. They've been at this game for 40+ years and know that if they maneuver and buy time, they win.
I also don't understand the logic behind a three month one-time-only renewal of a freeze. Unless the Administration has a trick up their sleeves and are supremely confident that they can work magic in 90 days, this freeze will end, and the Israelis will declare that their obligation has also ended. I suppose that the assumption here is that in the next three months an agreement can be reached on borders including what the Israelis call "Jerusalem" (which it must always be remembered includes not just the Holy City, but their "land grab" of large swatches of the West Bank to the north, east and south of the city). The idea appears to be that the Israelis will accept borders that encapsulate the major settlements they have already built (something which the U.S. appears to have accepted) with land around them allowing for "natural growth" and the Palestinians will then accept this fait accompli. Within these "accepted borders" construction will be allowed while negotiations on other issues continue. Since the same hard-liners in Netanyahu's government who do not accept a limited freeze are even more opposed to returning land to the Palestinians, and since the Palestinians most likely will not be able to easily accept the borders that Israel may offer, this entire approach, I fear, is less a "trick up their sleeves" and more a risky "pipe dream."
It also makes no sense that the U.S. is offering incentives, on a grand scale, to Israel for a mere three month freeze. The logic here is that Prime Minister Netanyahu needs this to convince his government to accept the terms of a freeze. But Netanyahu's government is itself the problem. He could, if he were truly committed to a negotiated peace agreement, form a different and broader coalition government with other parties. But it is his insistence on maintaining his hard-line anti-peace coalition that has created the current impasse. This is not how Bush and Baker dealt with Shamir in 1991-1992, or how Clinton dealt with Netanyahu in 1998. In both of those cases, U.S. pressure helped force a change in Israel. In this instance, however, we are rewarding Netanyahu's intransigence and supporting his hard-line coalition. By any measure, this is establishing a dangerous precedent, with troubling consequences down the road.
If the Israeli Prime Minister cannot get his coalition to agree to stop building "illegitimate" settlements without huge U.S. incentives, how will he get them to agree (and how much more will it cost the U.S. to get them to agree) to any reasonable withdrawal from the occupied lands?
So is the logic here that Israel will go through this "agonizing" internal debate (sweetened with incentives) to agree to stop doing what they should not have been doing all along, and then put the ball in the Palestinian court, forcing them to accept what they were never a party to in the first place, or appear to be the "spoilers"?
And "what about the Palestinians"? What troubles me most in all of this is the degree to which the U.S. has inserted itself in the negotiating process not on behalf of the Palestinians, but instead of the Palestinians. I have real reservations about the extent to which some of the recent statements made by American officials and some of the reported incentives the U.S. appear to have offered to the Israelis "give away the store" and limit Palestinian flexibility and leverage. By appearing to agree to Israel's demand that they keep settlement blocs and maintain a security presence in the Jordan Valley, the U.S. risks weighing in on two critical final status issues in a manner that predetermines their outcome. And by agreeing to block any Palestinian effort to go to the United Nations as a "court of last resort", the U.S. has further constrained Palestinian options.
Since it is my understanding that these matters have not been agreed to or even discussed with the Palestinians, or other Arab leaders, one can only imagine their consternation and loss of confidence as they witness this unfolding affair.
What, then, is the logic?
Dr. James J. Zogby is the author of Arab Voices: What They Are Saying to Us, and Why it Matters (Palgrave Macmillan, October 2010) and the founder and president of the Arab American Institute (AAI), a Washington, D.C.-based organization which serves as the political and policy research arm of the Arab American community.
James Zogby: Israel: Using WikiLeaks to Build a Straw Man
It didn't take the wikileaks to determine that Israel cannot be trusted- going back to 1948.
We can look to the 43 year occupation of the stolen territories to see what Israel's word is worth.
And then the losing side makes demands of the winning side and the winning side actually considers these demands instead of demanding the losing side surrender unconditionally.
Since when does the winning side have to negotiate with the losing side?
The winning side dictates the terms of peace to the losing side and the losing side considers itself lucky to walk out in one piece...why oh why should this situation be any different??
Kick the Israelis out of occupied Palestine - what's so hard to comprehend about that for you? It's like grade school math
If you lay down in front of the Free Palestine truck, sure there will be a big bump or two - so what?
I think I can answer that, Mr. Zogby, but I'm not sure you'll like the answer.
It's simple, really: Obama realized he's made a mistake in rashly accepting the Abbas precondition. Not only did this not lead to peace, it provided disincentives to negotiations. It enabled Abbas to straddle the fence and avoid making tough decisions for another year or so, assured that he'll pay no penalty for it.
But when you're US President you don't admit mistakes. You quietly correct them. By apparently "cutting a deal" with Netanyahu, Obama kills two birds with one stone:
- He provides Israel with the fighter planes "as a gesture of good will", thus hoping to attract back the Jewish voters. In practice, he would have provided them anyway, as it is in America's interest for Israel to have them.
- He "elegantly" lets Abbas know he has 90 days to make progress, before US forgets his precondition & instead provides Israel with diplomatic support. "Elegantly", because the message is formulated as a concession to Israel -- but it is clearly an ultimatum to the Palestinian Authority. In the process, he signals to Abbas his presidential displeasure; fully deserved -- after all, Abbas showed him the middle finger by not negotiating for 9 months, when a 10 months moratorium was announced.
Not a bad move, actually -- Obama could be learning faster than we thought.
Netanhaha announced his preconditions before he sat down.
If Netanyahu made the demand behind the scenes, then it would be correctly termed as coercion or blackmail if you prefer?
Obama could not negotiate a lap dance in Las Vegas.
How do you negotiate with "the Palestinians" as a whole? How do you talk with folks who want the deal settled before they sit down and still cannot claim that what you agree upon will be accepted?
Whatever Israel does now is wrong under these conditions. The 3 month freeze is already rejected. The one before meant nothing and only led further into the swamp.
So now what? No real Palestinian democratic state. They had that chance and blew it when Fatah and Hamas had their continuing civil war.
I want a two state solution but cannot see that now.
First, you invite them to the talks. Why would the Palestinians care about any agreement reached only between Israel and the US?
And I guess we should stop egging Fatah to take out Hamas.
What benefits? Arab promises for peace which are not credible??
If it's legal, there's no need to stop them (Israel), and we should instead get both sides to negotiate about something else - water rights, that sort of thing.
"The Fourth Geneva Convention on Rules of War was adopted in 1949 by the international community in response to Nazi atrocities during World War II. The convention outlaws torture, collective punishment and the resettlement by an occupying power of its own civilians on territory under its military control."
"a special UN meeting held in Geneva on July 15, 1999 unanimously passed a resolution stating that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply to Israeli settlements in the "occupied territories." The closed-door meeting lasted a mere 45 minutes."
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_israel_4th_geneva_2001.php
Copy the link and google if it fails.
Your entire arguement for Israel amounts to one of entitlement, which has, and still comes at the expense of the Palestinian Arabs to this day. The fact is, that Israel does recognize the same rights for Palestinian Arabs which they recognize for themselves.
The Republican Party will do anything Israel wants and Israel really seems to have control over our media. Look at the way Obama was pounced on just for taking a similar stand on Israel that George H.W. Bush took when he was president.
The story just doesn't change, in Oslo, Arafat was offered literally everything, yet what did he choose? Terrorism, that's what he chose.
Israel has a proven track record of following through on their promise, look at Gaza Sinai, yet what do they get in return? More terrorism?
The Palestinians are not interested in peace. They're interested in the demise of Israel just as they were in 1948, nothing changed. They'd rather cling to their refugee status and terrorize innocent civilians. Each and every time when push comes to shove they create reasons why they wont negotiate.
Well, this time Israel learned, they've given up plenty of land in the past, and they just wont do it again just to get empty promises in exchange.
The whining has to stop, it's time the Palestinians took personal accountability for their actions and inactions.
How can Palestinians build a state with 200,000 armed Israeli militants sitting on their land blocking roads and stealing food, water, destroying olive groves and contaminating the land?
The Palis' charter still calls for the destruction of Israel......
So by your logic, the winner is supposed to give in to the LOSER, and accept the loser's terms?
Will you explain that logic?
Besides, the Palis had 20 years to declare their state, 1947-67 when their side had full control of the WB and Gaza...... why they didn't? Israel also oppressed them that time?
Insisting on solving this problem is kind of like insisting on forcing two people who hate each other to become best friends. what does it matter? Especially if we are friends with one and not the other, why the need to pretend to be impartial?
We'll stay friends with our friend and let them handle their business with their enemy that in all fairness, doesn't involve us anyway.
The president that gets this solved in his/her term will be the one to avoid all involvement and simply say, "let Israel handle this and we'll stick to our own business" and that would make Israel's enemies stop making ridiculous demands to which they know they have no claims anyway.
Supporting Israel is fundamental to who we are as a nation as Israel's enemies are our enemies and they'd be our enemies whether we support Israel or not.
This Huffpost article is just part of the reasons.
“Following Obama's 2009 Cairo speech and then his short-lived stand against Israeli settlements, Obama was warned by Democrats close to the lobby (including some inside the White House) that publicly disagreeing with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu would offend donors. That would harm the Democrats in 2010 and doom his re-election chances in 2012.”
“It is well-known in Israel that Netanyahu and his fellow right-wingers want to see the Democrats lose next Tuesday and then be rid of Obama in two years. They assume that any Republican elected President in 2012 will not only let Israel do whatever it wants, he or she will have Israel's back when it comes to making concessions of any kind. And Netanyahu's American cutouts are carrying the message.”
“It is not noteworthy when the single-issue lobbying organizations warn a president that pressuring Israel will mean political death. That is what they do.”
“But it really says something when a mainstream multi-issue organization like the American Jewish Committee issues a poll just three weeks before the upcoming election that seems designed to politically damage the president.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/israel-lobbys-last-minute_b_775382.html
Says who?
A UN now dominated by Islamic or oil dependent countries what spends 90% of its time fixated on Israel? That's now determined that Rachel's Tomb is a Mosque even though There's hundreds of years evidence from Islamic authority that its Jewish?
Your post is the usual agit prop nonsense you spend your days here selling
First of all, it is being made by a president with a world view that no longer sees America as a force for good in the world; but rather as an imperialist nation, a colonizer, and an exploiter of the Third World. That is why he has travelled the world to apologize widely for America’s past “misdeeds”, to disdain America’s allies, to ridicule the concept of “America’s exceptionalism”. The denigrated “shared values” that America has with Israel are seen as grounds to dismantle that outdated alliance.
Where is the logic of Israel trusting the word of a president who has ignored the commitments he himself made in the past, as well as the commitments of other presidents? Where is the logic of Israel being forced to “buy” what was before a “given” - the commitment to guarantee Israel’s strategic superiority to enable it to defend itself? The protection from an Arab dominated U.N. by providing a veto on issues of Israel’s security and survival? A temporary 1- year “promise”, to be removed if a peace treaty is not signed by then, giving the Palestinians a veto by virtue of refusing to negotiate?
And in return do the Palestinians have to recognize Israel’s right to exist in security as a Jewish state? End incitement? Dismantle Hamas?
No!
Totally illogical.
Their will be extremists of one sort or another who'd like to see some karmic justice administered to Islrael fro decades to come even if Israel suddenly becomes reasonable and there is absolutely no reason to think that they will. They've actually locked theirself into continuing the same actions because of what their past actions have wrought.
But you raise an interesting point, the President has traveled the world to apologize--key word, apologize, which means recgonition of historical misdeeds like slavery, and Native American genocide and now 'colonizaton and exploitation'.
Recognition of historical misdeeds is what made America a great democracy...
...it seems the rest of us are waiting for Israel to start apologizing for its historical and present misdeeds. I won't hold my breath though.
To many Israelis ignore what their own historians have to say.
I despair of the American government and it is hard to believe they know what they are doing. Read Gaza in Crisis and see in which periods of American Presidency there was hope for a settlement, one that grows more distant day by day, while entire Palestinan communities are breaking down and being destroyed.
Where are the people who really know and respect the Arabs today?Of course most Americans don't even travel to Arab countries any more....they've been scared into thinking that their lives would be in danger. But the way to know a people is to visit them in their lands and to read their extraordinary histories and to read books that relate to the political developments in the Middle East.
Go out and find the Arabs in your towns and communities, talk to them and I bet you'll be surprised. Don't allow this terrible defamation of Islam to spread.
And don't allow people like Netanyahu to destroy Israel.
You mean you think the majority of Americans don't want these deals because you don't really know.
And these "deals" are ever changing so no one can really make any conclusions when the facts aren't yet clear.
"Where are the people who really know and respect the Arabs today?"
When the Arabs transparently deny the Jewish people legitimacy by making bald faced lies like the West Wall has no connection to Jews, they not only deny Jews but 2 billion Christians as well.
The Western Wall was built hundreds of years before Islam existed but Arabs claim its Islamic ?
An even better example is Rachel's Tomb near Jerusalem. But now Arabs claim its a Mosque
And yet according to an Ottoman document found by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, in 1830 the Turks issued a firman (royal decree) that gave legal force to Rachel’s Tomb being recognized as a Jewish holy site. The governor of Damascus sent a written order to the mufti of Jerusalem to fulfill the sultan’s order: “The tomb of esteemed Rachel, the mother of our Lord Joseph... they [the Jews] are accustomed to visit it from ancient days; and no one is permitted to prevent them or oppose them [from doing] this.”
The above is why they have no credibility and the majority of Americans support Israel no matter how many times you claim otherwise.
The Israelis now want to declare Jerusalem the "Jewish Capital" They are going to be in for a rude awakening if they even try to do that. Their attempts to legitimize themselves will fall flat on their face.
q> by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, in 1830
Oh boy- let's go back 170 years! because there isn't enough problems going back to 1967.
q> Wall has no connection to Jews,
As opposed to what the Israel Ministry of Truth cranks out about Muslims not having any connection to Jerusalem...