The deadline on Israel's "settlement freeze" has come and gone. On the West Bank, construction crews are gearing back up and the settler celebrations have begun. Abbas is mulling over his options with the Arab League. Once again, the peace process seems to be hanging by a thread.
For their part, many analysts are now using the "painted into a corner" metaphor to dissect the impact of the settlement freeze. Israeli analyst Nahum Barnea, for instance, recently opined that,
Three politicians -- Barack Obama, Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas -- painted themselves into a corner and didn't know how to get out of it.
We all got painted into a corner on the issue of settlements, unfortunately, and where we should have concentrated was on territories and the borders of a future Israeli-Palestinian two-state solution.
We already know that one of the main reasons for Oslo's failure was the inability to deal with the settlement issue directly. As a result, Israel took this as an opportunity to expand its settlement regime during the course of the "peace process." This has brought us to where we are today: in the wake of Oslo more than 500,000 settlers now live throughout the West Bank in settlements and small cities, with special Israeli-only highways that effectively cut Palestinian territories into individual cantons separated by military checkpoints.
Have we learned nothing from past experience? Here's lesson #1: the settlements are not a side issue. The Israel's settlement of the West Bank and East Jerusalem are -- and have always been -- a central obstacle to the peace process. Until it is made to cease and desist, I can't see how the latest round of talks can be considered anything but a charade.
it used to be the settlements and palestinian armed resistance
the two were supposed to cease so that a just peace be negotiated
now only the israeli aggression through land appropriation and displacement of the indigenous is the only obstacle to reaching a cessation of hostilities
settlement activity in occupied territory is a hostile act under the rules of war and peace and is a belligerency
But it is a mistake to think that there is some intrinsic list as to what is and is not compatible with peace talks. I remember reading Dennis Ross defending Barak's violations of agreements during talks with Arafat as necessary to keep the Israelis on board. The problem was that Ross then turned around and took violations of agreements by Arafat as proof that he had no interest in peace.
What is consistent with successful negotiations depends on circumstances. Part of the problem is that each side assumes that the other side should not have such internal considerations while its own sides internal considerations should be respected.
Part of the problem with excluding Hamas from the talks is precisely that in alienating a major portion of the Palestinian population from representation, Abbas has less room to bend on these other kinds of issues.
In this case it is hard to read the resumption of building as anything but a sign that Israel is not currently serious about peace talks. But that is a judgement based on more than just that it is building on disputed territory.
Yet this would not the first time that a US government led initiative failed to understand the actual situation and led a doomed initiative. The elections which led to the Hamas/PA split was pushed by Bush admins who were convinced that elections were sufficient for democracy, resulted in the current impasse in Palestinian and Lebanese politics. Neither are democracies in any way a westerner can understand.
Israel has its own political issues. A 10 month freeze resulted in a sign on at the last moment after repeated attempts to get Abbas on board. Now he wants more and all of this is a precondition.
Maybe this is not the right time (sigh) maybe the leadership is not strong enough and the polity is too divided, tired, and jaded of such promises. I do not see peace now advocates from any side massing in support of a negotiated deal with Bibi and Abbas as the key players. The center just blinks.
Spindock
Lebanese democracy is very strange because of the group membership requirements. But there is nothing particularly hard to understand about how the elections in the Palestinian territories went.
When Britain's leader met with the German's and made a deal that tossed the Poles under the bus because Britain was not willing to call Germany to account for its actions, they too were labelled 'peace talks', but in reality, they were appeasement talks. And that is what these are.
http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/wbgs_campdavid.html
The land within the West Bank that Israel wanted to keep and/or control cuts the West Bank into non-contiguous enclaves that can't possibly governed as an independent nation. Exchanging that land for other land on the outskirts of the West Bank is not "equal". No land within the interior of the West Bank can be exchanged. Israel must withdraw from all "settlements" and roads within the interior of the West Bank. Only those "settlements" on the perimeter are negotiable.
They much to it. The two sides are like people haggling over the price of a sandwich while one side keeps taking bites out of it. And the mighty US stands on the sidelines, ringing it's hands.
Charade indeed.
The "piece " talks have been a charade from the very start.
It's time to banish the word "settlement" from the discussion.
It's a mush-mouth, weasel-word, that only serves the propaganda aims of AIPAC.
( and, by extension, NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, the NY Times and all their affiliates )
There are no "settlements", only Segregated Suburbs for Jews only.
There are no "occupied territories", only colonized land stolen at gunpoint.
Until and unless many more American Jews are willing to face these "inconvenient truths", the situation will only get worse, and when the backlash happens, they will have no one to blame but themselves.
Yes, that's right, American Jews. You are responsible for what these settlers do, and when we take out our aggression for the settlers on you, it's going to be your fault, not ours!
They ARE, however, responsible for the actions of the American government. Not because they're Jewish, but because they are Americans, and every American is responsible for the actions of its government, to some degree.
I think it is time for every American to face up to the realities on the ground in the conflict, and I am not niave enough to think that every American will agree with me -- but it's important they all know what actions are being done, and what positions are being taken in their names. Only with an ongoing public discussion can we be sure that the US government's behavior reflects the interests of the populace, rather than merely in the interest of the most effective lobbyists (and no that isn't a swipe at AIPAC, it's a swipe at all lobbying groups, which I think have an inordinate impact on governmental policy).