Khaled Abu Toameh, to my mind the best Arab journalist working in Israel and the Palestinian territories, reports in today's Jerusalem Post that "Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has told his Fatah movement he wants a more specific US commitment on the borders of a future Palestinian state before agreeing to direct talks with Israel.
"Abbas says he received assurances from US President Barack Obama, but that they weren't clear 'enough. ," reports Abu Toameh " He says he expects enormous pressure, but that he will not go 'blindly' into negotiations. "
In other words, until Mahmoud Abbas knows the specific outcome of peace negotiations with Israel, he won't even begin to negotiate the terms directly with Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu. Even in Arabic that's known as "hutzpa".
All of which resurrects the question many of us have been asking for decades: if the Palestinians are truly ready to divide Palestine into two peace abiding states -- one Arab and one Jewish -- why have they turned down every offer that's ever been made to them to do just that -- even the one proffered in 2007 at a U.S.-sponsored peace conference in Annapolis by then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for a Palestinian Arab state in 97 percent of the West Bank and the entire Gaza Strip. Abbas also used the occasion, and has used several since then, to categorically dismiss the request to recognize Israel as a Jewish state alongside the would-be Palestinian state, insisting instead on full implementation of the "right of return" of Palestinian "refugees" and their millions of on-the-global-dole descendants..
The answer, I fear, is that the Palestinians really don't seem to want that peaceful solution and will continue to stall for time until the Arab fantasy day when the Jewish state vanishes -- their ultimate goal.
One of the best histories of this steady blockage procedure comes from Mideast historian Efraim Karsh. Editor of the Middle East Quarterly and author most recently of Palestine Betrayed (Yale), Karsh is professor of Middle East and Mediterranean Studies at King's College, University of London.
In a biting new article in the Jewish Ideas Daily and reprinted by the Middle East Quarterly, Karsh carefully traces the history of Palestinian avoidance of a Mideast peace solution that will result in two states for two peoples. Indeed, as he pointedly asks, "... is there in fact a fundamental distinction between Hamas and Fatah when it comes to a two-state solution? Neither faction formally accepts Israel's right to exist; both are formally committed to its eventual destruction. Moreover, for all the admittedly sharp differences between Arafat and his successor Abbas both in personality and in political style, the two are warp and woof of the same dogmatic PLO fabric."
Anyone interested in the truth about the Mideast crisis should read Karsh's article in full:
http://www.meforum.org/2689/against-two-state-solution
Things are simply "peachy" under the current conditions so there is no need to get into any negotiations.
1- The living conditions in Gaza and the West bank are just Great.
2- There are no massive lines to get to work through the friendly guarded Israeli checkpoints, no blockage and/or privatization of roads.
3- There are no new "illegal" Israeli settlements in Arab territories.
4- The Jewish setters and their 4 to 1 armed guards are just the most beautiful people to get along with on earth.
5- The Palestinians have never enjoyed more freedom to roam through their country.
Israel has just spoiled the Palestinians to the point that they "don't want to spoil a good thing".
Thanks for a very compelling article Mr. Chesnoff.
Gosh, what's so hard about that?
ICJ rules 10-4 that there is no provision in International Law which prohibits "Declarations of Independence". This related to the newly independent Kosovo but it also must apply to the underlying dispute regarding Israeli independence in 1948. Of course, Israel-bashers will claim that this is "off topic" or irrelevant or as a last resort, they will merely deny that the ICJ spoke solely for Kosovo or solely for the 21st century. (The very sad fact is that if the ICJ ever did consider the same exact issues as it related to Israel, it would just as likely reverse itself.) But for now, I'm having a good day!
But the only thing different between Kosovo and 1948 Israel are the (admittedly numerous) ancillary issues. The fundamental core legal result is applicable to either. Ethnic minority populations are NOT legally barred from unilateral declarations of independence. The ICJ does NOT say what would (or should) occur when the nation loosing some of its borders takes force to put-down such a declaration.
Until they do it is unlikely they will ever agree to peace and two states.
Israel should call what it does: "Favored immigration status".
This would help reveal what the Arabs are trying to pull. Calling their demand a "right of return" which applies almost exclusively to people who were born OUTSIDE Israel, lack citizenship rights WHERE THEY WERE BORN and never once set foot inside the Jewish Homeland.
I think you are (mainly) agreeing with yourself. A not insignificant number of Jerusalem area Arabs are really the offspring of Jews, converted to Islam over the numerous centuries.
This is NOT about race. It is about RELIGIOUS persecution. Had Jews been left alone to live in peace over the past 2,000 years then there would be no need for Israel. In fact, the strict reading of the Hebrew scriptures states that biblical 'Israel' will only be restored by the prophesized 'Messiah'. In the 1940's, most of the world's (orthodox) rabbis opposed the creation of Israel, for exactly that reason. It was thus a secular creation.
Jews RIGHTLY should have FAVORED immigration status because why? Because ISRAEL is their intended and intentional REFUGE from persecution. Why is that simple concept so difficult for you? If the 'refuge' is for dolphins, we don't put great-white sharks in the dolphin refuge. Dolphin refuges are for dolphins. The Jewish refuge is for JEWS. OK? . . . Pop-quiz in the AM.
(Cont'd)
Those who don't want Jews living in security, naturally, don't want any Jewish refuge. The legal "right-of return" regarding refugees (or alleged "refugees") is a LEGAL question. Such questions can not be disposed of with the wave of fingers. It is NOT a popularity contest either. Under longstanding international law, such claims MUST comply with a variety of requirements before they can be found as valid and enforceable. Such a 'tribunal' has never been assembled and likely will never be assembled. In the mean time, while the world blames the Jews for this situation, the offspring of the displaced Palestinian-Arabs are daily being denied their civil rights in the nations where they were born. You want to help these people? Get them their (undisputed) birthrights before attempting to address their (disputed) dream-rights.
>EOF
Courtb wrote: "While I still don't believe that Palestinian leadership, with Hamas or Fatah, is ready and willing to have a peaceful two state solution - ordinary Palestinians on the street poll overwhelmingly in support of it"
He has exactly put his finger on it. It is in the best interest of the Palestinian-Arab populations to:
1. Work with Israel to make business, not bloodshed.
2. Establish a viable future for themselves and their children.
3. Education (intellectual) and social evolution.
However, the street-level Arabs DO NOT make decisions. They are window-dressing. Like manikins in Macy's 34th street window. The political decisions are being choreographed by a consort of kings, presidents, war lords and religious authorities (or at least religious gang leaders--depending on which group is referenced). This problem can NEVER be solved so long as the world encourages (even demands) this 'proxy' war, where the Arab power-brokers run the conflict from the comfort and security of their armchairs, while the (mainly innocent) Palestinian-Arab people take the brunt of the punishment for their violent aggression.
I don't believe that negotiating with Israel is useful. Any agreement will be ignored or interpreted in their favor as is convenient for them.
An agreement should be imposed from the outside using force.
Prove it. You have no idea what the Israeli negotiators were thinking.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/16/netanyahu-in-2001-america_n_649427.html
This is one example of Israeli duplicity.
Every time they call for or are pressured into (sham) negotiations, there is a new trick.
An unreasonable new demand like the Palestinians must acknowledge their right to exist (which arguably legitimizes the Nakba) or acknowledge Israel as a "Jewish" state. Each is an attempt to throw a monkey wrench into the works to stop the process.
Or the Israelis make an offer so onerous that no one would accept it.
Games, games, games all the while grabbing more land on the way to Eretz Yisrael. From the river Euphrates to the river Nile.
Note: "In an effort to prevent negotiations and a diplomatic settlement, the U.S. and Israel insisted on raising the barrier to something that nobody’s going to accept"
“According to Noam Chomsky, the term "right to exist" is unique to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: "No state has a right to exist, and no one demands such a right....In an effort to prevent negotiations and a diplomatic settlement, the U.S. and Israel insisted on raising the barrier to something that nobody’s going to accept....[ Palestinians are] not going to accept...the legitimacy of their dispossession."[11] John V. Whitbeck argued that Israel's insistence on a right to exist forces Palestinians to provide a moral justification for their own suffering.[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_exist”
Video Clip
#1738
Palestinian Authority Representative in Lebanon Abbas Zaki Supports Anti-Israeli Attacks and States: We Act According to the Phased Plan. Once We Get Jerusalem, We Will Move On to Drive Israelis Out of All of Palestine
NBN TV (Lebanon) - April 9, 2008 -
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1738.htm
The Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI for short, is a Middle Eastern press monitoring organization. Its headquarters is located in Washington, DC, with branch offices in Jerusalem, Berlin, London, Rome, Shanghai, Baghdad, and Tokyo. MEMRI was co-founded in 1998 by Yigal Carmon, a former colonel in Israeli military intelligence, and another Israeli Meyrav Wurmser. It provides a free source of English language translations of material published in Arabic and Persian script, and publishes its analyses and in-depth reports on its website - although it also offers specialized content for a fee.
The organization's translations are regularly quoted by major international newspapers, and its work has generated strong criticism and praise. Some critics have accused MEMRI of selectivity choosing for translation and dissemination the most extreme views from Arabic and Persian media, which portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light, while ignoring moderate views that are often found in the same media outlets. Other critics charge that while MEMRI does sometimes translate pro-US or pro-democracy voices in the regional media, it systematically leaves out intelligent criticism of Western-style democracy, US and Israeli policy and secularism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute
Call me when there is an "A Street", pushing Arab leaders to negotiate and compromise. Call me after the refugees of the Arabs' failed wars against Israel are given citizenship in the countries they have been living in for 6 decades. Until there are Palestinians willing to accept Israel as a fact, and get on with their lives, accept that the war is over and that they lost, peace talks are a waste of time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkN1KMLZH4o&feature=player_embedded
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/07/18/tricky-bibi/
It is a matter of record that Mahmoud Abbas participated in 18 years of direct negotiations with seven Israeli governments; all without a settlement freeze.
In which time the settlements and their associated infrastructure grew exponentially. What do you suggest, that Abbas sit down for another 18 years of negotiation while Israel continues it's apartheid rampage? That Israel, again, uses negotiations as a cover for settlement activities He has wised up to the problems of his previous approach. More power to him.
While he declines negotiations the world is now seeing that it's not the Palestinians that were the problem as defined by the Israeli's but the Israeli's themselves.
To quote Nahum Goldman when he stepped down as president of the World Jewish Congress in 1977: "In 30 years, Israel has never presented the Arabs with a single peace plan. She has rejected every settlement plan devised by her friends and by her enemies. She has seemingly no other object than to preserve the status quo while adding territory piece by piece."
Do you really think now, in the 21st century, with Youtube and the internet everyone is just going to believe you and Israel just because you say so?
If you actually want peace, you don’t build illegal settlement colonies in the Palestinian capital or on Palestinian land.
Giving the Israeli habit of increasing settlements during peace talks, it is not surprising that Abbas would want to know what Israel means by a peace settlement. That is not to say that it would not be better for Abbas to negotiate and see what Israel wants. But the idea that waiting to see what is on the table is a uniquely Palestinian ploy is just silly.
It is not that the facts here are wrong. It is that an equally strong case could be made for how the Israelis have never really wanted peace. And the people who make the cases on either side are the people who are more interested in assigning blame for the failures than they are in the possibilities of peace.
If Israel is engaged in a delaying tactic while it expands settlements what motivation does Abbas have to give the tactic cover? It is a serious shame that during the Oslo period, when the Palestinians did a good job of keeping the peace in the name of a peace deal Israel used the opportunity to increase its settlements. It is currently using dishonest legalism about its inability to stop natural growth (which magically turns into an ability when it comes to Palestinian natural growth) to keep the settlements where they are. But we are expecting Abbas to act as if Israel is not doing the same thing over again. And I support his acting that way because the alternatives are worse. But I am not about to pretend that Israel deserves to be lauded for a willingness to negotiate while insisting on its right to make peace harder.
I don't intend to pretend that the Palestinians have been pristine or that the Isarelis have done nothing that deserves praise. But the analysis above is embarassingly simplistic. As I said, it reflects an attempt to assign blame, not an interest in peace.
The Palestinians are not likely to play their only remaining card except in the context of an actual peace deal. And by that I mean a peace deal that human beings could be expected to accept.
Is the Israeli population really prepared today to give up the settlements in the West Bank and as much of Jerusalem as Barak suggested in 2000? I don't see any indication of it. And unlike the right of return which is just a bargaining chip, the existence of the settlements causes actual serious suffering.
I think many people here are associating Palestinian peace with complete subjugation, which are two different things.
-Talking.
"What do you call the policing of the West Bank?"
-A government securing it's power.
"What do you call Salam Fayyad's direct and unequivocal policy of politics, non-violent resistance and state-building as a way to achieve their political aspirations?"
-More talking.
I think many people here are associating talking about peace on the part of the Palsetinians with actually *working* towards it, which they haven't been doing.
Their supporters chant "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" at every rally
They elected Hamas, a group that seeks to destroy Israel.
They've rejected every peace offer on the pretext of "not good enough"
Even though Israel is a "racist, apartheid state", millions of Palestinians still want to move there under the tenets of the so-called right of return.
What more evidence could you possibly need?