Now available for mobile phones!

If you wish to view the blog on mobile phone, click here.

Would you like to comment on postings?
Join the Jewish Current Events page on Facebook.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Lozowick: Blindness to Palestinian aggression harms the negotiations

Commentary by Yaacov Lozowick

 "Why is this reciprocity not crystal clear? Because it isn't, you know."

Tuesday, September 14, 2010     http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/2010/09/terms-of-negotiations.html

Terms of Negotiations

Up front, unambiguous, and with no obfuscations: I'm in favor of the continuation of the settlement freeze. Not in Modi'in Illit, which will remain in Israel no matter what, and certainly not in any part of Jerusalem. But in all the places we know we'll leave some day - and let's define them broadly, not narrowly - I'm in favor of the freeze. I'd be in favor of it even if there were no negotiations: we know that someday we're going to disband those settlements, so there's no rational point in building in them, is there. So let's stop.

On that level, I've got no problem with
the American position that since negotiations have finally started it would be a bad idea to interfere by building in the settlements. So long as the negotiations may possibly lead to peace, no changes should be made in the disputed areas.

By either side.

So while there's no problem with Palestinians building in areas we all know will eventually be part of their state (the corollaries of Midi'in Illit), it should be clear to all sides and the international community that the Palestinians, too, must refrain from actions which harm the negotiations. Things such as
firing rockets at Israeli civilians, shooting at their cars, or stoning Israeli civilians. Shhh! There are negotiations going on, and all sides must refrain from harming them.

Why is this reciprocity not crystal clear? Because it isn't, you know.

Update: Khaled Abu Toameh (a Palestinian) says the same,
only with greater fervor.

Debka: Today's Middle East negotiations

A headline review of today's news from Debka.com

Before leaving Sharm el-Sheikh, Netanyahu, Abbas, Clinton met again
after first round of talks ended in 40 minutes

* Mitchell: Extending West Bank building moratorium makes sense, but it
is a sensitive political issue in Israel

* We have asked Abbas for steps to promote continuation of talks

* First, Netanyahu talked to Clinton, Abbas to Mubarak

* Fifteen Israeli cabinet ministers plus Knesset Speaker publish open
letter against moratorium

* Hamas military chief Al Jabry says only fire will exorcize conflict
with Israel

* Palestinian state must extend from "Sea to Jordan"

Rosner's FAQs on Sharm Talks

 
Tuesday Sep 14, 2010

Rosner's Domain: Sharm talks FAQ

Posted by SHMUEL ROSNER

1. Why wouldn't Netanyahu agree to continued freeze?

He should not - for two reasons.

One is political: opponents of freeze will make the life of the Netanyahu government much more difficult. True - Netanyahu is quite strong politically speaking. But he the PM needs to spend a lot of time and energy on preserving the coalition he will not have time and energy for other, more important things.

One is even more important: The Netanyahu government went out of its way and agreed to freeze construction for ten months. It was understood by all parties involved that in September construction will resume. Such understandings should be honored. Not because of pride or principle. They should be honored, because if they aren't no future understandings will have any credibility.

2. So why the Americans keep pushing for freeze?

Sadly, because they have little else they can do to. Secretary Clinton doesn't want the talks to blow-up before they even start - and since the Palestinians threaten to leave the table if construction resumes, the Americans have no choice but to push.

3. Will it blow up that soon?

 It might, but one needs to be careful: Israeli-Palestinian peace talks have long history, most of it history of moving from one "crisis" to another. Those wanting to see peace talks will have to stomach a lot of such make-or-break, do-or-die, take-it-or-I-will-leave moments. In other words: This isn't crisis, it is just another day of peace talks.

4. Do Israelis care about peace?

Time's cover story aside (It is just so pathetic that I couldn't even bring myself to explain why such story should not be published by respectable magazine. If you want something to read about it - try the American Jewish Committee's fine analysis of its content) - Israelis really don't care. Well, they do care about peace, but not about the talks. I've noticed this morning that radio-news editors had listed the Sharm talks as item number four on the agenda. That's pretty low for all the brouhaha and the dignitaries involved.

5. Why don't they care?

The answer is quite obvious.

6. Do Palestinians care?

As far as I can tell, the answer is no - for the same reason. By the way, Israeli-Palestinian talk is the classic case of something to which the media is paying more attention than the public (if you need proof, you can find it here).