http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/israeli-pm-peace-palestinians-11105210
Showing posts with label peace process. Show all posts
Showing posts with label peace process. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Netanyahu: Put aside preconditions, start negotiating an end to the conflict
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/israeli-pm-peace-palestinians-11105210
Friday, March 19, 2010
Another great idea from the Quartet
"The Quartet reiterates its call on Israel and the Palestinians to act on the basis of international law and on their previous agreements and obligations – in particular adherence to the Roadmap, irrespective of reciprocity – " http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/03/138583.htm
Thursday, January 28, 2010
No negotiations because Palestinians shun practical solution, interim agreement
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3840241,00.html
The Palestinians do not wish to negotiate with Netanyahu because they perceive him as a practical politician seeking practical solutions; this is the kind of mess the current Palestinian leadership wishes to stay away from. It doesn’t even want to get close to it
....
“We won’t be signing yet another interim agreement with Israel,” a very senior Palestinian figure says in closed-door sessions. “Ever since the Camp David talks, no agreements have been signed with Israel, and the Abbas government will not breach the Palestinian consensus of refusal. We also don’t wish to get our ‘state in progress’ from Israel. We already have it. We got it on our own.”
“The current situation serves us well. Palestine is growing, the security situation is decent, Hamas is under siege in Gaza, and global public opinion endorses us and opposes the occupation. There is no rush for us. The demographic clock is ticking and the option of a bi-national state is being realized. We have no incentive for entering talks with an Israeli prime minister who wants to get down to business, that is, who wants to show results.”
...The Palestinians are willing to engage in vague negotiations with the Netanyahu government while knowing in advance that this will not lead to any results, but are unwilling to embark on practical talks as long as there is a chance that this will lead to results on the ground. They fear a situation whereby they will be asked to reject or accept a viable interim agreement, which includes the evacuation of some settlements and the transfer of more land to their control.
-- By Sever Plocker, Ynetnews.com. 1/27/10
The Palestinians do not wish to negotiate with Netanyahu because they perceive him as a practical politician seeking practical solutions; this is the kind of mess the current Palestinian leadership wishes to stay away from. It doesn’t even want to get close to it
....
“We won’t be signing yet another interim agreement with Israel,” a very senior Palestinian figure says in closed-door sessions. “Ever since the Camp David talks, no agreements have been signed with Israel, and the Abbas government will not breach the Palestinian consensus of refusal. We also don’t wish to get our ‘state in progress’ from Israel. We already have it. We got it on our own.”
“The current situation serves us well. Palestine is growing, the security situation is decent, Hamas is under siege in Gaza, and global public opinion endorses us and opposes the occupation. There is no rush for us. The demographic clock is ticking and the option of a bi-national state is being realized. We have no incentive for entering talks with an Israeli prime minister who wants to get down to business, that is, who wants to show results.”
...The Palestinians are willing to engage in vague negotiations with the Netanyahu government while knowing in advance that this will not lead to any results, but are unwilling to embark on practical talks as long as there is a chance that this will lead to results on the ground. They fear a situation whereby they will be asked to reject or accept a viable interim agreement, which includes the evacuation of some settlements and the transfer of more land to their control.
-- By Sever Plocker, Ynetnews.com. 1/27/10
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
JPost: Netanyahu has good meeting with Mubarak
1. Egypt's Foreign Minister: Netanyahu seems to genuinely want to try to resume negotiations with the Palestinians.
2. US envoy George Mitchell expected to bring documents setting the basis for restarting diplomatic discussions.
3. Netanyahu, in a speech Monday to 140 Israeli ambassadors and heads of delegations currently in Jerusalem for a series of high-level briefings, emphasized the importance in his mind of Palestinian acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state, and said that demilitarization was Israel's key security requirement for any future Palestinian state.
Recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, Netanyahu said, was necessary for any agreement with the Palestinians that would lead to an end to the conflict.
"We want an end to the conflict," he said. "That means the Palestinians must stop attempts to use a Palestinian state as jumping-off point for further claims against Israel. No claim to flood Israel with refugees, which would mean the end of theJewish state; and no irredentist claims to the Negev, Galilee or Israeli citizens, which would mean the dissolution of the Jewish state."
Regarding Israel's demands that any future Palestinian state be demilitarized, Netanyahu said this would necessitate preventing the import of rockets and missiles that could be fired into Israel, as was currently the situation in Gaza and Lebanon.
He said the situation in Lebanon, and the rearming of Hizbullah despite Security Council Resolution 1701 prohibiting just that, proved that agreements on paper were ineffective.
"I am doubtful that anyone can do this except a real Israeli presence, Israeli forces," he said, intimating that in any future agreement with the Palestinians, Israeli forces - not international ones - would have to be on the eastern border of a future Palestinian state to prevent it from importing arms and staging attacks against Israel.
1. Egypt's Foreign Minister: Netanyahu seems to genuinely want to try to resume negotiations with the Palestinians.
2. US envoy George Mitchell expected to bring documents setting the basis for restarting diplomatic discussions.
3. Netanyahu, in a speech Monday to 140 Israeli ambassadors and heads of delegations currently in Jerusalem for a series of high-level briefings, emphasized the importance in his mind of Palestinian acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state, and said that demilitarization was Israel's key security requirement for any future Palestinian state.
Recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, Netanyahu said, was necessary for any agreement with the Palestinians that would lead to an end to the conflict.
"We want an end to the conflict," he said. "That means the Palestinians must stop attempts to use a Palestinian state as jumping-off point for further claims against Israel. No claim to flood Israel with refugees, which would mean the end of theJewish state; and no irredentist claims to the Negev, Galilee or Israeli citizens, which would mean the dissolution of the Jewish state."
Regarding Israel's demands that any future Palestinian state be demilitarized, Netanyahu said this would necessitate preventing the import of rockets and missiles that could be fired into Israel, as was currently the situation in Gaza and Lebanon.
He said the situation in Lebanon, and the rearming of Hizbullah despite Security Council Resolution 1701 prohibiting just that, proved that agreements on paper were ineffective.
"I am doubtful that anyone can do this except a real Israeli presence, Israeli forces," he said, intimating that in any future agreement with the Palestinians, Israeli forces - not international ones - would have to be on the eastern border of a future Palestinian state to prevent it from importing arms and staging attacks against Israel.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
The Mythical Peace That is Just Out of Reach
By Ami Isseroff 11/29/09 Abridged.
By Ami Isseroff 11/29/09 Abridged.
The conventional wisdom in much of the world holds that there is an Israeli-Arab peace settlement that is just out of reach - so near yet so far, frustrated only by tactical accidents. We all know what the peace settlement must look like, says the myth. If only Israel wasn't so stubborn about building in Jerusalem or (under Ehud Olmert) not negotiating at all about Jerusalem, there could be peace in a week. But somehow peace...remains beyond reach.... [because the Palestinian leadership -- as demonstrated by the existing documents of their statements to date -- insist on terms that are designed to destroy Israel as a Jewish state.]
[It is a myth] that the Palestinian leaders have really agreed or are secretly ready to agree to all the [supposedly 'everyone knows what peace will look like'] proposals and/or that polls show that the Palestinian people back these [everyone-knows-to-be reasonable] concessions.
There cannot be peace until...the Palestinian position changes from demands that amount to destruction of Israel to requirements that can be considered a legitimate and serious bargaining position.
[The article documents Palestinian opinion on the so-termed "Right of Return"]
Monday, November 9, 2009
Israeli PM Netanyahu’s Speech at the Jewish Federations of North America General Assembly Excerpt
My goal is not negotiations for negotiations sake. My goal is to reach a peace treaty, and soon.
But to get a peace agreement, we must start negotiating. Let’s stop talking about negotiations. Let’s start moving.
This past June at Bar-Ilan University, I put forward a vision of peace that has united the vast majority of Israelis.
In this vision of two states for two peoples, a demilitarized Palestinian state would recognize the Jewish state.
Now, what do I mean by a Jewish state? It is a state in which all individuals and all minorities have equal individual rights. Yet our national symbols, language and culture spring from the heritage of the Jewish people. And most important, any Jew from anywhere in the world has a right to immigrate to Israel and become a citizen.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Dominant Palestinian view remains *the* obstacle to peace
No peace soon because "the dominant Palestinian view is still the
desire to win a total victory and wipe Israel off the map. The back-up
stance is that any peace agreement must not block the continued pursuit
of that goal. And the back-up position to that is to reject strong
security guarantees, recognition of ...Israel as a Jewish state, an
unmilitarized Palestinian state, settlement of Palestinian refugees in
Palestine, territorial compromise or exchanges, and indeed any
concession whatsoever." -- Barry Rubin
And Now the Truth Becomes Clear: Hilary Clinton Announces that the Palestinians are the Obstacles to Peace
By Barry Rubin Monday, November 2, 2009 rubinreports.blogspot.com
Yesterday I discussed the significance of Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s praise for Israel’s policy during her trip to Jerusalem, saying Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had offered unprecedented concessions to get peace talks started again.
We don’t know what the plan is though there are hints that Israel agreed to stop all construction on the West Bank once the 3,000 apartment units now being constructed were completed and that this would have no effect on construction in east Jerusalem. This is indeed a major concession on Netanyahu’s part and once again puts the lie to the claim that he is inflexible or hard line (though no doubt we will still daily see this in media coverage).
This visit, however, is also seemingly a major turning point in both U.S. policy and public perceptions of the problem regarding the peace process.
At the center of this stands the Number One Paradox of the issue, in some ways of all Middle Eastern politics: Why is it that although the Palestinians complain that they are suffering from a horrible occupation and not having a state of their own they are not in any hurry to make a peace agreement, end the “occupation,” and get a state.
The main answer is that the dominant Palestinian view is still the desire to win a total victory and wipe Israel off the map. The back-up stance is that any peace agreement must not block the continued pursuit of that goal. And the back-up position to that is to reject strong security guarantees, recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, an unmilitarized Palestinian state, settlement of Palestinian refugees in Palestine, territorial compromise or exchanges, and indeed any concession whatsoever.
There are two implications of this:
--The Palestinians are at fault for the failure to achieve peace.
--There isn’t going to be any Israel-Palestinian peace in the near- or even medium-term future.
If you understand the preceding 176 words then you understand the issue comprehensively.
The president of the United States has said that he wants talks resumed immediately and believes it possible to make a breakthrough. The Palestinian leadership is thwarting him on both points. In other words, they are responsible for the failure of a major U.S. policy.
Following Clinton’s visit, Palestinian Authority (PA) leaders have restated their refusal even to talk with Israel. They also claim that Netanyahu is refusing to discuss some issues in the talks, though the Israeli prime minister has simply not made such statements. In fact, as the Washington Post reported, November 1:
“The Palestinian position, if anything, appears to have hardened in recent days, leaving Israel to portray itself as the more willing partner.”
Well, Israel is the more willing partner, isn’t it? That’s the point that breaks the apparent paradox of suffering Palestinians yearning for peace but being thwarted by Israeli intransigence.
One point in the Post article, however, is just flat wrong:
“Israel promised to halt settlements under previous international agreements, and Palestinian officials say they want those promises fulfilled.”
In fact, at the time it signed the original peace process agreement—often called the Oslo accord—in 1993, that’s 16 years ago—Israel put forward its interpretation of the agreement. It said that there would be no new Jewish settlements and no geographical expansion of existing settlements. But Israel made it clear that it would continue to build apartments on existing settlements. That position was not challenged by the Palestinians at the time and it has never held up talks before now.
Indeed, another Washington Post article of November 1, this one by Howard Schneider, pointed out—though only indirectly—why things got even worse:
“However, Obama's election raised expectations among Palestinians and throughout the Arab states that the peace process would yield quicker results from an administration willing to openly criticize Israel and, it seemed, elevate Palestinian interests.”
More than that, it was the Obama Administration which called for a total freeze, distances itself from Israel, and took other steps leading the PA and Arab states to believe that by being intransigent they could get Washington to deliver Israel on their own terms. In other words, while everyone is being too polite to say so, the Obama Administration was responsible for the situation deteriorating.
Now both Egypt and Jordan have come out in support of the PA position, also setting themselves on a collision course with Washington, that there should be no talks at all until all construction on settlements stops without exception, including anything now being completed and all building in east Jerusalem. There is no chance Israel is going to agree to that; there is no chance the Obama Administration will demand it.
And so we have come to the point where it is becoming clear even to those who have been ruled by wishful thinking that there is not going to be any peace and that the Palestinian-Arab side is responsible for this situation.
It is quite probable--and this is extremely important to understand--that there is nothing the Obama Administration can say or do in order to make them change their mind. After all, this is the ideal position from the standpoint of the PA, Egypt, Jordan, and others. Refuse to support talks, reap benefits by showing their militancy, and be able to blame it on Israel.
After all his efforts and alleged popularity, Obama has absolutely zero credit and no leverage in the Arabic-speaking world.
How is this going to affect Obama Administration policy and thinking?
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).
desire to win a total victory and wipe Israel off the map. The back-up
stance is that any peace agreement must not block the continued pursuit
of that goal. And the back-up position to that is to reject strong
security guarantees, recognition of ...Israel as a Jewish state, an
unmilitarized Palestinian state, settlement of Palestinian refugees in
Palestine, territorial compromise or exchanges, and indeed any
concession whatsoever." -- Barry Rubin
And Now the Truth Becomes Clear: Hilary Clinton Announces that the Palestinians are the Obstacles to Peace
By Barry Rubin Monday, November 2, 2009 rubinreports.blogspot.com
Yesterday I discussed the significance of Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s praise for Israel’s policy during her trip to Jerusalem, saying Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had offered unprecedented concessions to get peace talks started again.
We don’t know what the plan is though there are hints that Israel agreed to stop all construction on the West Bank once the 3,000 apartment units now being constructed were completed and that this would have no effect on construction in east Jerusalem. This is indeed a major concession on Netanyahu’s part and once again puts the lie to the claim that he is inflexible or hard line (though no doubt we will still daily see this in media coverage).
This visit, however, is also seemingly a major turning point in both U.S. policy and public perceptions of the problem regarding the peace process.
At the center of this stands the Number One Paradox of the issue, in some ways of all Middle Eastern politics: Why is it that although the Palestinians complain that they are suffering from a horrible occupation and not having a state of their own they are not in any hurry to make a peace agreement, end the “occupation,” and get a state.
The main answer is that the dominant Palestinian view is still the desire to win a total victory and wipe Israel off the map. The back-up stance is that any peace agreement must not block the continued pursuit of that goal. And the back-up position to that is to reject strong security guarantees, recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, an unmilitarized Palestinian state, settlement of Palestinian refugees in Palestine, territorial compromise or exchanges, and indeed any concession whatsoever.
There are two implications of this:
--The Palestinians are at fault for the failure to achieve peace.
--There isn’t going to be any Israel-Palestinian peace in the near- or even medium-term future.
If you understand the preceding 176 words then you understand the issue comprehensively.
The president of the United States has said that he wants talks resumed immediately and believes it possible to make a breakthrough. The Palestinian leadership is thwarting him on both points. In other words, they are responsible for the failure of a major U.S. policy.
Following Clinton’s visit, Palestinian Authority (PA) leaders have restated their refusal even to talk with Israel. They also claim that Netanyahu is refusing to discuss some issues in the talks, though the Israeli prime minister has simply not made such statements. In fact, as the Washington Post reported, November 1:
“The Palestinian position, if anything, appears to have hardened in recent days, leaving Israel to portray itself as the more willing partner.”
Well, Israel is the more willing partner, isn’t it? That’s the point that breaks the apparent paradox of suffering Palestinians yearning for peace but being thwarted by Israeli intransigence.
One point in the Post article, however, is just flat wrong:
“Israel promised to halt settlements under previous international agreements, and Palestinian officials say they want those promises fulfilled.”
In fact, at the time it signed the original peace process agreement—often called the Oslo accord—in 1993, that’s 16 years ago—Israel put forward its interpretation of the agreement. It said that there would be no new Jewish settlements and no geographical expansion of existing settlements. But Israel made it clear that it would continue to build apartments on existing settlements. That position was not challenged by the Palestinians at the time and it has never held up talks before now.
Indeed, another Washington Post article of November 1, this one by Howard Schneider, pointed out—though only indirectly—why things got even worse:
“However, Obama's election raised expectations among Palestinians and throughout the Arab states that the peace process would yield quicker results from an administration willing to openly criticize Israel and, it seemed, elevate Palestinian interests.”
More than that, it was the Obama Administration which called for a total freeze, distances itself from Israel, and took other steps leading the PA and Arab states to believe that by being intransigent they could get Washington to deliver Israel on their own terms. In other words, while everyone is being too polite to say so, the Obama Administration was responsible for the situation deteriorating.
Now both Egypt and Jordan have come out in support of the PA position, also setting themselves on a collision course with Washington, that there should be no talks at all until all construction on settlements stops without exception, including anything now being completed and all building in east Jerusalem. There is no chance Israel is going to agree to that; there is no chance the Obama Administration will demand it.
And so we have come to the point where it is becoming clear even to those who have been ruled by wishful thinking that there is not going to be any peace and that the Palestinian-Arab side is responsible for this situation.
It is quite probable--and this is extremely important to understand--that there is nothing the Obama Administration can say or do in order to make them change their mind. After all, this is the ideal position from the standpoint of the PA, Egypt, Jordan, and others. Refuse to support talks, reap benefits by showing their militancy, and be able to blame it on Israel.
After all his efforts and alleged popularity, Obama has absolutely zero credit and no leverage in the Arabic-speaking world.
How is this going to affect Obama Administration policy and thinking?
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).
Sunday, August 9, 2009
AJC: Fatah Party Heightens Tensions, Deals Blow to Peace Prospects
NEW YORK, Aug. 9 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- AJC expressed deep dismay with the Fatah Party, headed by Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas, which is holding its first general assembly in 20 years.
"While much of the world, including Israel, favors a two-state solution, the biggest obstacle remains the Palestinians' own leadership," said AJC Executive Director David Harris. "Despite hopes for political reform of Fatah, and steps to renew peace negotiations with Israel, longstanding Palestinian obstinacy and rejectionism have been the prevailing messages emerging from Bethlehem."
To point, Fatah adopted a measure demanding that Israel hand over all of Jerusalem before any peace talks can resume. This came after the unopposed Abbas was elected Fatah leader, assuring he will continue to serve as Palestinian Authority President.
"Two months ago, President Abbas firmly rejected Prime Minister Netanyahu's call in his Bar-Ilan University speech to resume direct Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, and now Abbas ups the ante with preposterous demands on Jerusalem and other final status issues," said Harris.
"Why can't Palestinian leaders openly recognize the fact that four consecutive Israeli prime ministers have offered a two-state solution?" asked Harris. "Sixty-two years after the UN voted to establish a Jewish and an Arab state in mandatory Palestine, even so-called moderate Palestinian leaders are still saying 'no' to recognizing Israel's legitimacy."
The Fatah General Assembly is expected to continue through Tuesday. "Given the tone and substance so far, one can only wonder how much more damage to the peace process Fatah can deliver," said Harris. "The United States and the international community should recognize the regrettable fact that this Fatah leadership gathering is a slap in the face of those who seek peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians."
www.ajc.org SOURCE American Jewish Committee
NEW YORK, Aug. 9 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- AJC expressed deep dismay with the Fatah Party, headed by Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas, which is holding its first general assembly in 20 years.
"While much of the world, including Israel, favors a two-state solution, the biggest obstacle remains the Palestinians' own leadership," said AJC Executive Director David Harris. "Despite hopes for political reform of Fatah, and steps to renew peace negotiations with Israel, longstanding Palestinian obstinacy and rejectionism have been the prevailing messages emerging from Bethlehem."
To point, Fatah adopted a measure demanding that Israel hand over all of Jerusalem before any peace talks can resume. This came after the unopposed Abbas was elected Fatah leader, assuring he will continue to serve as Palestinian Authority President.
"Two months ago, President Abbas firmly rejected Prime Minister Netanyahu's call in his Bar-Ilan University speech to resume direct Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, and now Abbas ups the ante with preposterous demands on Jerusalem and other final status issues," said Harris.
"Why can't Palestinian leaders openly recognize the fact that four consecutive Israeli prime ministers have offered a two-state solution?" asked Harris. "Sixty-two years after the UN voted to establish a Jewish and an Arab state in mandatory Palestine, even so-called moderate Palestinian leaders are still saying 'no' to recognizing Israel's legitimacy."
The Fatah General Assembly is expected to continue through Tuesday. "Given the tone and substance so far, one can only wonder how much more damage to the peace process Fatah can deliver," said Harris. "The United States and the international community should recognize the regrettable fact that this Fatah leadership gathering is a slap in the face of those who seek peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians."
www.ajc.org SOURCE American Jewish Committee
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Israel to Palestinian Authority: All issues are on the table. Come talk
Israel's Deputy FM Ayalon interview on AlJazeera TV
July 28, 2009
Ayalon: We call upon the Palestinians to come to the table and speak to us, at any level they want, anywhere they want, without preconditions. ... all issues are on the table, and we do understand that no solution will be arrived at without discussing everything, including Jerusalem.
Source
July 28, 2009
Ayalon: We call upon the Palestinians to come to the table and speak to us, at any level they want, anywhere they want, without preconditions. ... all issues are on the table, and we do understand that no solution will be arrived at without discussing everything, including Jerusalem.
Source
Thursday, July 23, 2009
'Fatah has never recognized Israel'
Jul. 22, 2009 Khaled Abu Toameh , THE JERUSALEM POST
Fatah has never recognized Israel's right to exist and it has no intention of ever doing so, a veteran senior leader of the Western-backed faction said on Wednesday.
Rafik Natsheh, member of the Fatah Central Committee who also serves as chairman of the faction's disciplinary "court," is the second senior official in recent months to make similar statements regarding Israel.
Natsheh is also a former minister in the Palestinian Authority government who briefly served as Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council.
Earlier this year, Muhammad Dahlan, another top Fatah figure, said that Fatah had never recognized Israel's right to exist despite the fact that it is the largest faction in the PLO, which signed the Oslo Accords with Israel.
Natsheh's remarks came days before Fatah's general assembly that is slated to take place in Bethlehem on August 4.
The assembly, the first in two decades, is expected to bring some 1,500 Fatah delegates together to discuss ways of reforming the faction and holding internal elections.
One of the topics on the conference's agenda is whether Fatah should formally abandon the armed struggle and recognize Israel's right to exist.
"Fatah does not recognize Israel's right to exist," Natsheh said, "nor have we ever asked others to do so." His comments, which appeared in an interview with Al-Quds Al-Arabi, came in response to reports according to which Fatah had asked Hamas to recognize Israel as a precondition for the establishment of a Palestinian unity government.
"All these reports about recognizing Israel are false," Natsheh, who is closely associated with PA President Mahmoud Abbas, said. "It's all media nonsense. We don't ask other factions to recognize Israel because we in Fatah have never recognized Israel."
Asked about calls for dropping the reference to armed struggle from Fatah's charter, Natsheh said: "Let all the collaborators [with Israel] and those who are deluding themselves hear that this will never happen. We'll meet at the conference [in Bethlehem]."
Natsheh stressed that neither Fatah nor the Palestinians would ever relinquish the armed struggle against Israel "no matter how long the occupation continues." He said that Fatah, at the upcoming conference, would reiterate its adherence to the option of pursuing "all forms" of an armed struggle against Israel.
Another senior Fatah representative, Azzam al-Ahmed, confirmed that his faction would renew its pledge to pursue the armed struggle against Israel during the conference.
"The Fatah conference won't obliterate the "resistance option," he said."Fatah has been the target of a conspiracy to liquidate it ever since the signing of the Oslo Accords and the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority. The elimination of Fatah means the end of the revolutionary era which began in 1965 [when Fatah was founded]." He said that, more than four decades later, Fatah's main strategy and goals remain unchanged.
The decision to convene the conference in Bethlehem has triggered a crisis in Fatah. Many Fatah living in Arab countries have protested Abbas's decision, saying it was inconceivable that the parley be held under "Israeli occupation." They are still demanding that the conference be held in an Arab country to avoid a situation where Israel would try to prevent some delegates from arriving in Bethlehem.
Meanwhile, there is growing concern in Fatah that Hamas would not permit hundreds of Fatah activists from leaving the Gaza Strip to attend the conference. Senior Fatah officials said that the conference would be called off if Hamas stopped the Fatah members from leaving the Gaza Strip.
The officials said that Fatah leaders have been talking to Syria and Egypt about the possibility that Hamas might prevent their men from traveling to the West Bank. "We made it clear to the Egyptians and Syrians that the conference would not be convened without the Fatah members from the Gaza Strip," a Fatah official in Ramallah told The Jerusalem Post.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1248277865155&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Jul. 22, 2009 Khaled Abu Toameh , THE JERUSALEM POST
Fatah has never recognized Israel's right to exist and it has no intention of ever doing so, a veteran senior leader of the Western-backed faction said on Wednesday.
Rafik Natsheh, member of the Fatah Central Committee who also serves as chairman of the faction's disciplinary "court," is the second senior official in recent months to make similar statements regarding Israel.
Natsheh is also a former minister in the Palestinian Authority government who briefly served as Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council.
Earlier this year, Muhammad Dahlan, another top Fatah figure, said that Fatah had never recognized Israel's right to exist despite the fact that it is the largest faction in the PLO, which signed the Oslo Accords with Israel.
Natsheh's remarks came days before Fatah's general assembly that is slated to take place in Bethlehem on August 4.
The assembly, the first in two decades, is expected to bring some 1,500 Fatah delegates together to discuss ways of reforming the faction and holding internal elections.
One of the topics on the conference's agenda is whether Fatah should formally abandon the armed struggle and recognize Israel's right to exist.
"Fatah does not recognize Israel's right to exist," Natsheh said, "nor have we ever asked others to do so." His comments, which appeared in an interview with Al-Quds Al-Arabi, came in response to reports according to which Fatah had asked Hamas to recognize Israel as a precondition for the establishment of a Palestinian unity government.
"All these reports about recognizing Israel are false," Natsheh, who is closely associated with PA President Mahmoud Abbas, said. "It's all media nonsense. We don't ask other factions to recognize Israel because we in Fatah have never recognized Israel."
Asked about calls for dropping the reference to armed struggle from Fatah's charter, Natsheh said: "Let all the collaborators [with Israel] and those who are deluding themselves hear that this will never happen. We'll meet at the conference [in Bethlehem]."
Natsheh stressed that neither Fatah nor the Palestinians would ever relinquish the armed struggle against Israel "no matter how long the occupation continues." He said that Fatah, at the upcoming conference, would reiterate its adherence to the option of pursuing "all forms" of an armed struggle against Israel.
Another senior Fatah representative, Azzam al-Ahmed, confirmed that his faction would renew its pledge to pursue the armed struggle against Israel during the conference.
"The Fatah conference won't obliterate the "resistance option," he said."Fatah has been the target of a conspiracy to liquidate it ever since the signing of the Oslo Accords and the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority. The elimination of Fatah means the end of the revolutionary era which began in 1965 [when Fatah was founded]." He said that, more than four decades later, Fatah's main strategy and goals remain unchanged.
The decision to convene the conference in Bethlehem has triggered a crisis in Fatah. Many Fatah living in Arab countries have protested Abbas's decision, saying it was inconceivable that the parley be held under "Israeli occupation." They are still demanding that the conference be held in an Arab country to avoid a situation where Israel would try to prevent some delegates from arriving in Bethlehem.
Meanwhile, there is growing concern in Fatah that Hamas would not permit hundreds of Fatah activists from leaving the Gaza Strip to attend the conference. Senior Fatah officials said that the conference would be called off if Hamas stopped the Fatah members from leaving the Gaza Strip.
The officials said that Fatah leaders have been talking to Syria and Egypt about the possibility that Hamas might prevent their men from traveling to the West Bank. "We made it clear to the Egyptians and Syrians that the conference would not be convened without the Fatah members from the Gaza Strip," a Fatah official in Ramallah told The Jerusalem Post.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1248277865155&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Clinton urges Arabs to make gestures now toward Israel
Published: 07.15.09
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday urged Arab states to make immediate gestures toward Israel in a bid to improve prospects for Middle East peace.
"We are asking those who embrace the (2002 Saudi-sponsored peace) proposal to take meaningful steps now," Clinton said after urging the Arabs to "prepare their publics to embrace peace and accept Israel's place in the region." (AFP)
Published: 07.15.09
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday urged Arab states to make immediate gestures toward Israel in a bid to improve prospects for Middle East peace.
"We are asking those who embrace the (2002 Saudi-sponsored peace) proposal to take meaningful steps now," Clinton said after urging the Arabs to "prepare their publics to embrace peace and accept Israel's place in the region." (AFP)
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Israeli PM: 'Let's make peace -- both diplomatically and economically'
Jerusalem Post, July 12,
Palestinian recognition of the Jewish nature of Israel is an essential condition to peace, as well as their willingness to relinquish the demand that the descendents of Palestinian refugees be allowed to resettle in the Jewish state, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Sunday.
“The key to peace lies in explicit and unequivocal recognition of Israel as the Jewish state on the part of the Palestinians. They must once and for all give up the demand to resettle inside of Israel the descendents of the refugees,” Netanyahu said during a Jerusalem memorial ceremony marking 105 years since the death of Theodor Herzl.
According to Netanyahu, the leaders of the Palestinians must say, “We have had enough of this conflict; we recognize Israel as Jewish; we will live alongside you in true peace.
“As soon as that is stated,” Netanyahu continued, “a huge window to peace will be opened.”
Jerusalem Post, July 12,
Palestinian recognition of the Jewish nature of Israel is an essential condition to peace, as well as their willingness to relinquish the demand that the descendents of Palestinian refugees be allowed to resettle in the Jewish state, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Sunday.
“The key to peace lies in explicit and unequivocal recognition of Israel as the Jewish state on the part of the Palestinians. They must once and for all give up the demand to resettle inside of Israel the descendents of the refugees,” Netanyahu said during a Jerusalem memorial ceremony marking 105 years since the death of Theodor Herzl.
According to Netanyahu, the leaders of the Palestinians must say, “We have had enough of this conflict; we recognize Israel as Jewish; we will live alongside you in true peace.
“As soon as that is stated,” Netanyahu continued, “a huge window to peace will be opened.”
Friday, July 3, 2009
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Three Failed Plans to Wipe Israel Off the Map that keep the conflict going
By Barry Rubin June 7, 2009
There are now no less than three main plans for wiping Israel off the map.
1. Conquest. This is the old PLO strategy and continues to be the Hamas strategy. In addition, it is endorsed less overtly by a large group—arguably a majority—in Fatah, the party that controls the Palestinian Authority.
Israel will be militarily defeated, perhaps with some assistance from internal collapse, and replaced by a Palestinian Arab Islamic (Fatah version) or Palestinian Arab Islamist state.
2. Two-Stages. This was officially adopted by the PLO and Fatah. It is an alternative vision that appeals to many in those two groups but is rejected by Hamas.
A Palestinian state will be created on as much territory as possible and then used as a base for conquering the rest . A diplomatic deal can only be made to obtain such a state, however, if its terms do not foreclose the possibility of the second stage being implemented. The demand that virtually all Palestinians who wish to do so can go and live in Israel is a supplement to ensure that phase one turns into phase 2. In 2000, Yasir Arafat either rejected this in preference to Plan Number 1 or at least deemed the terms offered insufficient to make the second stage easy or possible.
3. Binational state. This is supported by some in PLO and Fatah, partly because it has more appeal to naïve or other Westerners. It is rejected by Hamas.
A binational state will be created. (Note the irony that this totally betrays the idea of the Palestinian movement being a nationalist one seeking its own state.) Despite assurances, it will be unworkable and beset by violence. But since Israel’s strength would be dismantled and millions of Palestinian Arabs would migrate onto its territory, there would be a relatively brief—but very bloody—transition to an Arab victory and the reconstitution of the state as an Arab Muslim Palestine.
None of these plans will actually ever happen but they motivate people to fight, die, kill, and hold conferences, not necessarily in that order.
Another major effect is to convince Palestinians (and also other Arabs and Muslims) that they don’t have to make the compromises necessary for a real two-state solution.
If someone asks you why the conflict remains unsettled, tell them it is because the Palestinian (and to some extent Arab) side doesn’t see why it should settle for less when it can implement plans 1, 2, or 3. And of course to the extent Westerners make them think this is possible they assist in postponing a solution and ensuring more suffering and bloodshed.
----------------------------
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. See the GLORIA/MERIA site at www.gloria-center.org.
By Barry Rubin June 7, 2009
There are now no less than three main plans for wiping Israel off the map.
1. Conquest. This is the old PLO strategy and continues to be the Hamas strategy. In addition, it is endorsed less overtly by a large group—arguably a majority—in Fatah, the party that controls the Palestinian Authority.
Israel will be militarily defeated, perhaps with some assistance from internal collapse, and replaced by a Palestinian Arab Islamic (Fatah version) or Palestinian Arab Islamist state.
2. Two-Stages. This was officially adopted by the PLO and Fatah. It is an alternative vision that appeals to many in those two groups but is rejected by Hamas.
A Palestinian state will be created on as much territory as possible and then used as a base for conquering the rest . A diplomatic deal can only be made to obtain such a state, however, if its terms do not foreclose the possibility of the second stage being implemented. The demand that virtually all Palestinians who wish to do so can go and live in Israel is a supplement to ensure that phase one turns into phase 2. In 2000, Yasir Arafat either rejected this in preference to Plan Number 1 or at least deemed the terms offered insufficient to make the second stage easy or possible.
3. Binational state. This is supported by some in PLO and Fatah, partly because it has more appeal to naïve or other Westerners. It is rejected by Hamas.
A binational state will be created. (Note the irony that this totally betrays the idea of the Palestinian movement being a nationalist one seeking its own state.) Despite assurances, it will be unworkable and beset by violence. But since Israel’s strength would be dismantled and millions of Palestinian Arabs would migrate onto its territory, there would be a relatively brief—but very bloody—transition to an Arab victory and the reconstitution of the state as an Arab Muslim Palestine.
None of these plans will actually ever happen but they motivate people to fight, die, kill, and hold conferences, not necessarily in that order.
Another major effect is to convince Palestinians (and also other Arabs and Muslims) that they don’t have to make the compromises necessary for a real two-state solution.
If someone asks you why the conflict remains unsettled, tell them it is because the Palestinian (and to some extent Arab) side doesn’t see why it should settle for less when it can implement plans 1, 2, or 3. And of course to the extent Westerners make them think this is possible they assist in postponing a solution and ensuring more suffering and bloodshed.
----------------------------
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. See the GLORIA/MERIA site at www.gloria-center.org.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Why Isn't the Palestinian Authority Moderate?
Why don't Arab Leaders Obey the New York Times?
By Barry Rubin May 31, 2009
So dreadful was the performance of Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas during his meeting with President Barack Obama that even the New York Times took notice. Usually, the Palestinians are exempt from any hint of the real world criteria applied to others.
But according to the May 30, Times editorial, the meeting was “a reminder of how much the Palestinians and leading Arab states, starting with Saudi Arabia and Egypt, must do to help revive foundering peace negotiations.”
The peace negotiations, of course, foundered almost a decade ago when then PA leader Yasir Arafat rejected a two-state solution, an historical fact that the Times and much of the Western political elite seems not yet to have absorbed. Indeed, it was that very fact that has led to the failure of any peace process and all the bloodshed since.
Naturally, given its peculiar view of the world, the Times cannot quite blame anyone but Israel and George W. Bush for this failure:
“We have sympathy for Mr. Abbas, the moderate-but-weak leader of the Fatah party. Israel, the Bush administration and far too many Arab leaders have failed to give him the support that he needs to make the difficult compromises necessary for any peace deal.”
This is the kind of paragraph by the way that should lead to reflection by anyone who was actually serious and not blinded by the strange brew that passes for the dominant ideology in Western intellectual circles nowadays. It is after all a set of beliefs which insists that Abbas—who wrote a doctoral dissertation denying that the Holocaust happened and prefers demanding all Palestinians can go live in Israel even if this stance prevents them from getting their own independent state—is better than Netanyahu. Abbas is branded “moderate” while Netanyahu is always called hardline.
Exactly what has Abbas done as the PA leader to be considered moderate, or at least moderate except in comparison to Hamas? If he had his way, he would make a deal with Hamas which would make him behave a lot more like Hamas rather than having Hamas become moderate.
At least, the Times added on this occasion: “That’s no excuse, however, for the depressing passivity that Mr. Abbas displayed” in calling for the United States to wait until Hamas joined his government or Netanyahu made concessions for nothing in return.
It is somewhat humorous that while Netanyahu has been unfairly and inaccurately blasted for supposedly refusing to talk with the Palestinians it is the Palestinians who openly refuse to talk to Israel.
At any rate, there's nothing funnier than a newspaper editorial writer telling a dictator that he "must" do something. But why, why is Abbas so passive? Why doesn’t Abbas do what the Times wants:
“He must keep improving those forces. He must redouble efforts to halt the constant spewing of hatred against Israel in schools, mosques and media. He must work harder to weed out corruption. Unless Mr. Abbas’s government does more to improve the lives of Palestinians it will surely lose again to Hamas in elections scheduled for January.”
Those elections won’t be held at all, of course, for precisely that reason. But suppose Israel gives up land and authority to Abbas, he doesn't mend his ways, and then Hamas--as the Times warns could well happen--takes over an independent state so as to wage warfare against Israel all the more effectively and on two fronts?
The Times might spare a moment to consider that possibility. Israeli leaders must do so: U.S. leaders should do so.
But the real reason Abbas doesn't obey the Times is that he likes the spewing of hatred--which conforms in part with his own views--and has nothing personally against corruption. In many future editorials, the Times will no doubt never equate such behavior with Israel's refusal to risk its existence on the good intentions of Mr. Abbas. In fact, if the newspaper were serious it would say: we know that he won't change his behavior and that's why Israel can't bet its survival on his leading a peace-loving Palestinian state at the present time.
It is also interesting that the Times views Abbas’s weakness as largely due to Israel and the previous U.S. president. The real factors include his own character, his lack of political skills, his own hardline views, his failure in making any effort to prepare his people for a compromise peace, and the radicalism of Fatah itself. Indeed, to a large degree Abbas—and his prime minister Salam Fayyad—are merely “moderate” fronts which allows Fatah to seek continued Western support and funding.
The Times analysis cries out for a simple answer to the following question as well: What could or should Israel and Bush have done to strengthen Abbas? After all, a previous view of the Times was the need to help Arafat by rushing ahead with negotiations. Then when Arafat destroyed the Camp David meeting in 2000 it was explained that this was a terrible mistake and that he needed infinite time. Does it bear any responsibility for the thousands of lives lost due to the mistaken pushing and naivete about the process in the 1990s?
The Bush administration did hurt Abbas in one way, which was to encourage relatively fair elections to be held in the Gaza Strip which Hamas won. If this is what bothers the Times, however, it should say so. Or perhaps Israel hurt Abbas by not staying in the Gaza Strip and keeping settlements there since its pullout unintentionally emboldened Hamas. One would like to see the Times explain that it is now advocating Israel should do the same thing in the West Bank, followed by a roughly similar outcome.
But the Times does hold true to the belief that the Palestinians don’t really exist. They have no ideology or goals or doctrines or views of their own. It is only Netanyahu’s “refusal…to commit to a two-state solution or halt settlement activity [which] is feeding militancy and strengthening Mr. Abbas’s Hamas rivals.”
Again, the slightest reflection on this claim would show that Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, and Ehud Olmert all did endorse a two-state solution with the result that militancy certainly didn’t decrease and Hamas got stronger any way.
Please remember this: since all of Hamas and much of Fatah opposes a permanent two-state solution which accepts Israel's existence, the prospect of this outcome doesn't make them more quiet and moderate but rather more active and etremist in a bid to block such a solution. The same applies to Iran, Syria, Hizballah, the Muslim Brotherhoods, and others, including millions of Arabs and Muslims.
They are not going to say: Obama is wonderful! He's helping us get a Palestinian state. They are going to say: Obama is evil and those cooperating with him are traitors. They are giving away most of our rightful land and ensuring the survival of Israel. Let's kill those who are selling us out. Failing to understand this reality is a major and dangerous fallacy on the part of Western policymakers today.
The Times’ strategic blindness is especially visible in a passage that doesn’t quite make sense unless one takes that kind of thinking into account:
“When Mr. Obama visits Saudi Arabia and Egypt next week he must urge leaders to do more. They could help ratchet up pressure on Mr. Netanyahu with preliminary — but symbolically important — steps like opening commercial offices in Tel Aviv and holding publicly acknowledged meetings with Israeli officials.”
But how does that rachet up pressure on Netanyahu? It’s the exact opposite, as the Arab leaders understand very well. The truth is the Times refuses to say what is essential here: if Israel is going to be called on to make sacrifices, take risks, and give concessions, the Arabs have to prove their positive intentions. If Netanyahu saw such things happening, he wouldn't feel "pressured," he'd simply respond with compromises of his own.
The newspaper simply cannot admit that Israel has just security concerns and real reasons to doubt the other side's reliability (not to mention the fact that even if one favors a Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem, Israel's capital is West Jerusalem, not Tel Aviv).
The editorial ends by saying:
“For eight years, Arab leaders and the Palestinians complained bitterly because President George W. Bush wasn’t willing to invest in Middle East peace. Now that they have an American president who is willing, they finally have to do their part.”
This is disingenuous. It is the Times--far more than Arab leaders--which has been complaining. Why didn't it have "sympathy" for Bush's obvious problem: how and why should he put the emphasis on a peace process when the Palestinians and Arab states--who supposedly are the ones desperately demanding it--won't cooperate.
Indeed, why should Obama do so now?
So here is what’s really important:
Suppose the Arab states do little or nothing, suppose the PA doesn’t stifle incitement, remains corrupt, continues to be intransigent. Will there ever come a time when the Times concludes that this isn’t working because the PA, Fatah, and most Arab states don’t want to make peace?
Will they ever write “We have sympathy for Mr. Netanyahu” (or even if there is a prime minister more to their liking by then) because he has to deal with an intransigent PA which doesn’t meet its commitments and spews hatred, Arab regimes which prefer to keep the conflict going, and radical Islamist forces hoping to have the chance to commit genocide?
Will this U.S. government do so?
Let's wait and see.
---------
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. See the GLORIA/MERIA site at www.gloria-center.org.
Why don't Arab Leaders Obey the New York Times?
"The NY Times] simply cannot admit that Israel has just security concerns and real reasons to doubt the other side's reliability."
By Barry Rubin May 31, 2009
So dreadful was the performance of Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas during his meeting with President Barack Obama that even the New York Times took notice. Usually, the Palestinians are exempt from any hint of the real world criteria applied to others.
But according to the May 30, Times editorial, the meeting was “a reminder of how much the Palestinians and leading Arab states, starting with Saudi Arabia and Egypt, must do to help revive foundering peace negotiations.”
The peace negotiations, of course, foundered almost a decade ago when then PA leader Yasir Arafat rejected a two-state solution, an historical fact that the Times and much of the Western political elite seems not yet to have absorbed. Indeed, it was that very fact that has led to the failure of any peace process and all the bloodshed since.
Naturally, given its peculiar view of the world, the Times cannot quite blame anyone but Israel and George W. Bush for this failure:
“We have sympathy for Mr. Abbas, the moderate-but-weak leader of the Fatah party. Israel, the Bush administration and far too many Arab leaders have failed to give him the support that he needs to make the difficult compromises necessary for any peace deal.”
This is the kind of paragraph by the way that should lead to reflection by anyone who was actually serious and not blinded by the strange brew that passes for the dominant ideology in Western intellectual circles nowadays. It is after all a set of beliefs which insists that Abbas—who wrote a doctoral dissertation denying that the Holocaust happened and prefers demanding all Palestinians can go live in Israel even if this stance prevents them from getting their own independent state—is better than Netanyahu. Abbas is branded “moderate” while Netanyahu is always called hardline.
Exactly what has Abbas done as the PA leader to be considered moderate, or at least moderate except in comparison to Hamas? If he had his way, he would make a deal with Hamas which would make him behave a lot more like Hamas rather than having Hamas become moderate.
At least, the Times added on this occasion: “That’s no excuse, however, for the depressing passivity that Mr. Abbas displayed” in calling for the United States to wait until Hamas joined his government or Netanyahu made concessions for nothing in return.
It is somewhat humorous that while Netanyahu has been unfairly and inaccurately blasted for supposedly refusing to talk with the Palestinians it is the Palestinians who openly refuse to talk to Israel.
At any rate, there's nothing funnier than a newspaper editorial writer telling a dictator that he "must" do something. But why, why is Abbas so passive? Why doesn’t Abbas do what the Times wants:
“He must keep improving those forces. He must redouble efforts to halt the constant spewing of hatred against Israel in schools, mosques and media. He must work harder to weed out corruption. Unless Mr. Abbas’s government does more to improve the lives of Palestinians it will surely lose again to Hamas in elections scheduled for January.”
Those elections won’t be held at all, of course, for precisely that reason. But suppose Israel gives up land and authority to Abbas, he doesn't mend his ways, and then Hamas--as the Times warns could well happen--takes over an independent state so as to wage warfare against Israel all the more effectively and on two fronts?
The Times might spare a moment to consider that possibility. Israeli leaders must do so: U.S. leaders should do so.
But the real reason Abbas doesn't obey the Times is that he likes the spewing of hatred--which conforms in part with his own views--and has nothing personally against corruption. In many future editorials, the Times will no doubt never equate such behavior with Israel's refusal to risk its existence on the good intentions of Mr. Abbas. In fact, if the newspaper were serious it would say: we know that he won't change his behavior and that's why Israel can't bet its survival on his leading a peace-loving Palestinian state at the present time.
It is also interesting that the Times views Abbas’s weakness as largely due to Israel and the previous U.S. president. The real factors include his own character, his lack of political skills, his own hardline views, his failure in making any effort to prepare his people for a compromise peace, and the radicalism of Fatah itself. Indeed, to a large degree Abbas—and his prime minister Salam Fayyad—are merely “moderate” fronts which allows Fatah to seek continued Western support and funding.
The Times analysis cries out for a simple answer to the following question as well: What could or should Israel and Bush have done to strengthen Abbas? After all, a previous view of the Times was the need to help Arafat by rushing ahead with negotiations. Then when Arafat destroyed the Camp David meeting in 2000 it was explained that this was a terrible mistake and that he needed infinite time. Does it bear any responsibility for the thousands of lives lost due to the mistaken pushing and naivete about the process in the 1990s?
The Bush administration did hurt Abbas in one way, which was to encourage relatively fair elections to be held in the Gaza Strip which Hamas won. If this is what bothers the Times, however, it should say so. Or perhaps Israel hurt Abbas by not staying in the Gaza Strip and keeping settlements there since its pullout unintentionally emboldened Hamas. One would like to see the Times explain that it is now advocating Israel should do the same thing in the West Bank, followed by a roughly similar outcome.
But the Times does hold true to the belief that the Palestinians don’t really exist. They have no ideology or goals or doctrines or views of their own. It is only Netanyahu’s “refusal…to commit to a two-state solution or halt settlement activity [which] is feeding militancy and strengthening Mr. Abbas’s Hamas rivals.”
Again, the slightest reflection on this claim would show that Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, and Ehud Olmert all did endorse a two-state solution with the result that militancy certainly didn’t decrease and Hamas got stronger any way.
Please remember this: since all of Hamas and much of Fatah opposes a permanent two-state solution which accepts Israel's existence, the prospect of this outcome doesn't make them more quiet and moderate but rather more active and etremist in a bid to block such a solution. The same applies to Iran, Syria, Hizballah, the Muslim Brotherhoods, and others, including millions of Arabs and Muslims.
They are not going to say: Obama is wonderful! He's helping us get a Palestinian state. They are going to say: Obama is evil and those cooperating with him are traitors. They are giving away most of our rightful land and ensuring the survival of Israel. Let's kill those who are selling us out. Failing to understand this reality is a major and dangerous fallacy on the part of Western policymakers today.
The Times’ strategic blindness is especially visible in a passage that doesn’t quite make sense unless one takes that kind of thinking into account:
“When Mr. Obama visits Saudi Arabia and Egypt next week he must urge leaders to do more. They could help ratchet up pressure on Mr. Netanyahu with preliminary — but symbolically important — steps like opening commercial offices in Tel Aviv and holding publicly acknowledged meetings with Israeli officials.”
But how does that rachet up pressure on Netanyahu? It’s the exact opposite, as the Arab leaders understand very well. The truth is the Times refuses to say what is essential here: if Israel is going to be called on to make sacrifices, take risks, and give concessions, the Arabs have to prove their positive intentions. If Netanyahu saw such things happening, he wouldn't feel "pressured," he'd simply respond with compromises of his own.
The newspaper simply cannot admit that Israel has just security concerns and real reasons to doubt the other side's reliability (not to mention the fact that even if one favors a Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem, Israel's capital is West Jerusalem, not Tel Aviv).
The editorial ends by saying:
“For eight years, Arab leaders and the Palestinians complained bitterly because President George W. Bush wasn’t willing to invest in Middle East peace. Now that they have an American president who is willing, they finally have to do their part.”
This is disingenuous. It is the Times--far more than Arab leaders--which has been complaining. Why didn't it have "sympathy" for Bush's obvious problem: how and why should he put the emphasis on a peace process when the Palestinians and Arab states--who supposedly are the ones desperately demanding it--won't cooperate.
Indeed, why should Obama do so now?
So here is what’s really important:
Suppose the Arab states do little or nothing, suppose the PA doesn’t stifle incitement, remains corrupt, continues to be intransigent. Will there ever come a time when the Times concludes that this isn’t working because the PA, Fatah, and most Arab states don’t want to make peace?
Will they ever write “We have sympathy for Mr. Netanyahu” (or even if there is a prime minister more to their liking by then) because he has to deal with an intransigent PA which doesn’t meet its commitments and spews hatred, Arab regimes which prefer to keep the conflict going, and radical Islamist forces hoping to have the chance to commit genocide?
Will this U.S. government do so?
Let's wait and see.
---------
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. See the GLORIA/MERIA site at www.gloria-center.org.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Diehl: Abbas playing a waiting game.
In our meeting Wednesday, Abbas acknowledged that Olmert [unbeknownst to the public, made a peace offer.] In all, [according to the details revealed by Abbas] Olmert's peace offer was more generous to the Palestinians than either that of Bush or Bill Clinton; ... Abbas turned it down [flat]. --Jackson Diehl
By Jackson Diehl, Deputy Editorial Page Editor, Washington Post
Friday, May 29, 2009
Mahmoud Abbas says there is nothing for him to do.
True, the Palestinian president walked into his meeting with Barack Obama yesterday as the pivotal player in any Middle East peace process. If there is to be a deal, Abbas must (1) agree on all the details of a two-state settlement with the new Israeli government of Binyamin Netanyahu, which hasn't yet accepted Palestinian statehood, and (2) somehow overcome the huge split in Palestinian governance between his Fatah movement, which controls the West Bank, and Hamas, which rules Gaza and hasn't yet accepted Israel's right to exist.
Yet on Wednesday afternoon, as he prepared for the White House meeting in a suite at the Ritz-Carlton in Pentagon City, Abbas insisted that his only role was to wait. He will wait for Hamas to capitulate to his demand that any Palestinian unity government recognize Israel and swear off violence. And he will wait for the Obama administration to force a recalcitrant Netanyahu to freeze Israeli settlement construction and publicly accept the two-state formula.
Until Israel meets his demands, the Palestinian president says, he will refuse to begin negotiations. He won't even agree to help Obama's envoy, George J. Mitchell, persuade Arab states to take small confidence-building measures. "We can't talk to the Arabs until Israel agrees to freeze settlements and recognize the two-state solution," he insisted in an interview. "Until then we can't talk to anyone."
For veterans of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, Abbas's bargaining position will be bone-wearyingly familiar: Both sides invariably begin by arguing that they cannot act until the other side offers far-reaching concessions. Netanyahu suggested during his own visit to Washington last week that the Palestinians should start by recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, though he didn't make it a precondition for meeting with Abbas.
What's interesting about Abbas's hardline position, however, is what it says about the message that Obama's first Middle East steps have sent to Palestinians and Arab governments. From its first days the Bush administration made it clear that the onus for change in the Middle East was on the Palestinians: Until they put an end to terrorism, established a democratic government and accepted the basic parameters for a settlement, the United States was not going to expect major concessions from Israel.
Obama, in contrast, has repeatedly and publicly stressed the need for a West Bank settlement freeze, with no exceptions. In so doing he has shifted the focus to Israel. He has revived a long-dormant Palestinian fantasy: that the United States will simply force Israel to make critical concessions, whether or not its democratic government agrees, while Arabs passively watch and applaud. "The Americans are the leaders of the world," Abbas told me and Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt. "They can use their weight with anyone around the world. Two years ago they used their weight on us. Now they should tell the Israelis, 'You have to comply with the conditions.' "
It's true, of course, that if Obama is to broker a Middle East settlement he will have to overcome the recalcitrance of Netanyahu and his Likud party, which has not yet reconciled itself to the idea that Israel will have to give up most of the West Bank and evacuate tens of thousands of settlers. But Palestinians remain a long way from swallowing reality as well. Setting aside Hamas and its insistence that Israel must be liquidated, Abbas -- usually described as the most moderate of Palestinian leaders -- last year helped doom Netanyahu's predecessor, Ehud Olmert, by rejecting a generous outline for Palestinian statehood.
In our meeting Wednesday, Abbas acknowledged that Olmert had shown him a map proposing a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank -- though he complained that the Israeli leader refused to give him a copy of the plan. He confirmed that Olmert "accepted the principle" of the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees -- something no previous Israeli prime minister had done -- and offered to resettle thousands in Israel. In all, Olmert's peace offer was more generous to the Palestinians than either that of Bush or Bill Clinton; it's almost impossible to imagine Obama, or any Israeli government, going further.
Abbas turned it down. "The gaps were wide," he said.
Abbas and his team fully expect that Netanyahu will never agree to the full settlement freeze -- if he did, his center-right coalition would almost certainly collapse. So they plan to sit back and watch while U.S. pressure slowly squeezes the Israeli prime minister from office. "It will take a couple of years," one official breezily predicted. Abbas rejects the notion that he should make any comparable concession -- such as recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, which would imply renunciation of any large-scale resettlement of refugees.
Instead, he says, he will remain passive. "I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements," he said. "Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life." In the Obama administration, so far, it's easy being Palestinian.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Peace isn't Arab goal
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | May 20, 2009
WHO FAVORS a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict?
President Obama does, of course, as he made clear in welcoming Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House on Monday. So does former president George W. Bush, who began advocating Palestinian statehood in 2002 and continued until his final days in office. The Democratic Party's national platform endorses a two-state solution; the Republican platform does, too. The UN Security Council unanimously reaffirmed its support a few days ago, and the European Union is strongly in favor as well.
Pope Benedict XVI called for a Palestinian state during his recent visit to the Holy Land, thereby aligning himself - on this issue, at least - with the editorial boards of The Boston Globe, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times. And, for that matter, with most Israelis. A new poll shows 58 percent of the Israeli public backing a two-state solution; prominent supporters include Netanyahu's three predecessors - former prime ministers Ehud Olmert, Ariel Sharon, and Ehud Barak - as well as president Shimon Peres.
The consensus, it would seem, is overwhelming. As Henri Guaino, a senior adviser to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, put it on Sunday: "Everyone wants peace. The whole world wants a Palestinian state."
It isn't going to happen.
International consensus or no, the two-state solution is a chimera. Peace will not be achieved by granting sovereignty to the Palestinians, because Palestinian sovereignty has never been the Arabs' goal. Time and time again, a two-state solution has been proposed. Time and time again, the Arabs have turned it down.
In 1936, when Palestine was still under British rule, a royal commission headed by Lord Peel was sent to investigate the steadily worsening Arab violence. After a detailed inquiry, the Peel Commission concluded that "an irrepressible conflict has arisen between two national communities within the narrow bounds of one small country." It recommended a two-state solution - a partition of the land into separate Arab and Jewish states. "Partition offers a chance of ultimate peace," the commission reported. "No other plan does."
But the Arab leaders, more intent on preventing Jewish sovereignty in Palestine than in achieving a state for themselves, rejected the Peel plan out of hand. The foremost Palestinian leader, Haj Amin al-Husseini, actively supported the Nazi regime in Germany. In return, Husseini wrote in his memoirs, Hitler promised him "a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world."
In 1947, the Palestinians were again presented with a two-state proposal. Again they spurned it. Like the Peel Commission, the United Nations concluded that only a division of the land into adjacent states, one Arab and one Jewish, could put an end to the conflict. On Nov. 29, 1947, by a vote of 33-13, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181, partitioning Palestine on the basis of population. Had the Arabs accepted the UN decision, the Palestinian state that "the whole world wants" would today be 61 years old. Instead, the Arab League vowed to block Jewish sovereignty by waging "a war of extermination and a momentous massacre."
Over and over, the pattern has been repeated. Following its stunning victory in the 1967 Six Day War, Israel offered to exchange the land it had won for permanent peace with its neighbors. From their summit in Khartoum came the Arabs' notorious response: "No peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel."
At Camp David in 2000, Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians virtually everything they claimed to be seeking - a sovereign state with its capital in East Jerusalem, 97 percent of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, tens of billions of dollars in "compensation" for the plight of Palestinian refugees. Yasser Arafat refused the offer, and launched the bloodiest wave of terrorism in Israel's history.
To this day, the charters of Hamas and Fatah, the two main Palestinian factions, call for Israel's liquidation. "The whole world" may want peace and a Palestinian state, but the Palestinians want something very different. Until that changes, there is no two-state solution.
Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | May 20, 2009
WHO FAVORS a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict?
President Obama does, of course, as he made clear in welcoming Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House on Monday. So does former president George W. Bush, who began advocating Palestinian statehood in 2002 and continued until his final days in office. The Democratic Party's national platform endorses a two-state solution; the Republican platform does, too. The UN Security Council unanimously reaffirmed its support a few days ago, and the European Union is strongly in favor as well.
Pope Benedict XVI called for a Palestinian state during his recent visit to the Holy Land, thereby aligning himself - on this issue, at least - with the editorial boards of The Boston Globe, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times. And, for that matter, with most Israelis. A new poll shows 58 percent of the Israeli public backing a two-state solution; prominent supporters include Netanyahu's three predecessors - former prime ministers Ehud Olmert, Ariel Sharon, and Ehud Barak - as well as president Shimon Peres.
The consensus, it would seem, is overwhelming. As Henri Guaino, a senior adviser to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, put it on Sunday: "Everyone wants peace. The whole world wants a Palestinian state."
It isn't going to happen.
International consensus or no, the two-state solution is a chimera. Peace will not be achieved by granting sovereignty to the Palestinians, because Palestinian sovereignty has never been the Arabs' goal. Time and time again, a two-state solution has been proposed. Time and time again, the Arabs have turned it down.
In 1936, when Palestine was still under British rule, a royal commission headed by Lord Peel was sent to investigate the steadily worsening Arab violence. After a detailed inquiry, the Peel Commission concluded that "an irrepressible conflict has arisen between two national communities within the narrow bounds of one small country." It recommended a two-state solution - a partition of the land into separate Arab and Jewish states. "Partition offers a chance of ultimate peace," the commission reported. "No other plan does."
But the Arab leaders, more intent on preventing Jewish sovereignty in Palestine than in achieving a state for themselves, rejected the Peel plan out of hand. The foremost Palestinian leader, Haj Amin al-Husseini, actively supported the Nazi regime in Germany. In return, Husseini wrote in his memoirs, Hitler promised him "a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world."
In 1947, the Palestinians were again presented with a two-state proposal. Again they spurned it. Like the Peel Commission, the United Nations concluded that only a division of the land into adjacent states, one Arab and one Jewish, could put an end to the conflict. On Nov. 29, 1947, by a vote of 33-13, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181, partitioning Palestine on the basis of population. Had the Arabs accepted the UN decision, the Palestinian state that "the whole world wants" would today be 61 years old. Instead, the Arab League vowed to block Jewish sovereignty by waging "a war of extermination and a momentous massacre."
Over and over, the pattern has been repeated. Following its stunning victory in the 1967 Six Day War, Israel offered to exchange the land it had won for permanent peace with its neighbors. From their summit in Khartoum came the Arabs' notorious response: "No peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel."
At Camp David in 2000, Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians virtually everything they claimed to be seeking - a sovereign state with its capital in East Jerusalem, 97 percent of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, tens of billions of dollars in "compensation" for the plight of Palestinian refugees. Yasser Arafat refused the offer, and launched the bloodiest wave of terrorism in Israel's history.
To this day, the charters of Hamas and Fatah, the two main Palestinian factions, call for Israel's liquidation. "The whole world" may want peace and a Palestinian state, but the Palestinians want something very different. Until that changes, there is no two-state solution.
Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Predictions favor positive meeting btw Obama, Netanyahu
Yogi Berra said it best: "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."
There is a meeting scheduled for Monday between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. All sorts of dire speculation is circulating about the meeting, given the differences in approach between the two participants. There are in fact parties that would enjoy nothing better than to see a clash between Obama and Netanyahu, mirrored by a clash between the US and Israel.
But most speculation, as of today, seems to be that no head-on collision will occur. Here are three indicators supporting that more positive prediction:
Obama won't be throwing Israel under the bus. (Part I)by Meryl Yourish
And DebkaFile's Washington infighting mutes Netanyahu-Obama differences
Most of all, the following from Cong. Robert Wexler
Wexler: Obama, Netanyahu not headed for clash
May. 10, 2009 Herb Keinon , THE JERUSALEM POST
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama are not headed for a "train wreck," but rather will "figure out how to work collaboratively" during their meeting next week, US Congressman Robert Wexler, a close political ally of Obama and a stalwart Israel supporter, told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday.
Wexler, who in March 2007 was the first Jewish politician outside of Obama's home state of Illinois to endorse his presidential campaign, said after emerging from a meeting with Netanyahu that both the prime minister and Obama understand that "cooperatively we can enhance each other's strategic interest, better than we can separately."
Wexler, a liberal Democrat from South Florida, dismissed concern that has been reflected in the media in recent weeks that Israeli-US ties are headed for a crisis.
"I can say unequivocally that the anxiety is not warranted," said Wexler, who has spoken to the US president about Middle East issues, and speaks regularly with top White House staffers dealing with the matter, including National Security Adviser Gen. (ret.) James Jones.
He arrived in Israel on Friday for a series of meetings in Jerusalem and in the Palestinian Authority, and will return to Washington on Monday.
"I am in constant contact with those in the administration responsible for policy in this region, and nothing could be further from the truth," he said, regarding reports that the US and Israel are on a collision course.
"As someone who was with Barack Obama from the very beginning of his campaign, I am not going to be surprised or fall prey to the too often false representation of now President Obama; and likewise I think the degree of angst also misrepresents Prime Minister Netanyahu's policies as well," said Wexler, who spoke of Obama's pro-Israeli credentials as one of the featured speakers at the Democratic National Convention in Denver last summer.
"These two men are not headed for a train wreck," he said. "They are not. Both men want the relationship to be as strong, if not stronger - if that is possible - than it has been in the past."
Wexler, who has been in Congress since 1997, has a long-standing relationship with Netanyahu, as well as with Obama.
Wexler said that while he did not expect Obama to pressure Netanyahu in their meeting next Monday, but rather to lay out his view of US policy toward Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian track, he did expect the US under Obama to get considerably tougher with the Saudis.
"The Saudis have had a bit of a free ride in Washington of late," Wexler said. "They get to argue that they proposed the Arab peace initiative. I think that most Israelis have issues, exceptions, to the Arab peace initiative, and so do I, and we, in America. But it is time to test them."
He said it was time to say to Saudi King Abdullah, "You have provided an outline to normalization and how we get there. Israel has put forth some idea in terms of what they can do. What are you willing to do, King Abdullah? We are not going to only hear from you only at the end of the process, that is not how you build trust on the Israel and American sides. What, King Abdullah, are you willing to do next week?"
Wexler said that, rather inexplicably, the Saudis had not made good on financial pledges and commitments to bolster the PA and the government of Fuad Saniora in Lebanon. While the Saudi failure to help the moderates in the PA and in Lebanon was counterintuitive and counterproductive, that was exactly what was happening on the ground, he said.
"Some people have suggested that the Saudis are entertaining a new dynamic or relationship with Syria that would result in Syria being less attached to Iran. But as laudable as that goal may be, it is a bizarre way to try to achieve it," Wexler said.
"People say very loosely that Israelis must take risks for peace," he added. "Well, what risk is the king of Saudi Arabia willing to take? And if he is not willing to take any risk for peace, then what does he bring to the table?" he asked.
The US would not only call out the Saudis about this, but "insist" on the Saudis taking immediate action to show their commitment to the diplomatic process. The Obama administration, he said, "will insist upon it to the point where if it is not met with a satisfactory response, then we will find out once and for all what value Saudi Arabia and the Arab League present to this process. And it is better to learn that early, not late."
Despite linkage some key Obama administration figures have made in recent weeks between progress on the Israeli-Palestinian track and stopping Iran's nuclear march, Wexler said there was no "package."
"There is no quid pro quo, there is no package," he said. "However, it would be absurd to conclude that progress or lack of progress on the Israeli-Palestinian track does not have ramifications or impact upon the ability to be successful in thwarting Iran's nuclear program."
It would be naïve, he said, "to think that issues that are happening at the same time do not impact on one another." But he did not think Obama would "pressure" Netanyahu.
"I think President Obama will present a compelling case as to the direction the US will take with regard to Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian track, and will listen to Prime Minister Netanyahu make his case, and the two leaders will figure out how we will work collaboratively. I don't think it is a question of pressure," Wexler said.
Alluding to the large number of US-Israeli meetings that have been taking place in recent weeks in preparation for the Obama-Netanyahu talks, Wexler said, "I think the communication between the parties has been open and clear enough that both principals understand the parameters in which they are operating, and will make certain at the end of their meeting and in their public statement that they are close enough to be able to demonstrate to the world that Israel and the US continue to have an unbreakable bond, and that collaboratively we will pursue on mutual interests."
Wexler said Obama would present Netanyahu with "an American policy with respect to Iran that is designed to thwart the Iranian nuclear program."
No one in Washington had come to terms with an Iranian nuclear weapon, and "there is no contingency plan that is being operated upon in Washington regarding acceptance of an Iranian nuclear program, just the opposite. America is implementing a process of carrots and sticks, of engagement with Iran that respects the urgency of the situation and which I believe will be time-limited," he said.
Obama would provide Netanyahu with "clarity" on the issue at their meeting, even if he didn't give a precise date as to when the engagement with Iran would end if the Iranians did not end their uranium enrichment, Wexler said.
"I think the president is going to lay out a strong policy of engagement that is rooted in realism, and predicated on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon is unacceptable to the United States," he said. "And I think he is going to outline a policy that has one design, and that is to provide both the incentives and consequences of continuing to pursue nuclear weapons."
Asked whether he thought Obama would give an okay for military action if his policy failed, Wexler said, "I don't think we need to address that hypothetical situation yet, other than to say that the president has said repeatedly that a military option with respect to an Iranian nuclear program is not off the table, and I don't know how more direct he could be in a responsible fashion than that."
This article can also be read at
[ Back to the Article ]
There is a meeting scheduled for Monday between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. All sorts of dire speculation is circulating about the meeting, given the differences in approach between the two participants. There are in fact parties that would enjoy nothing better than to see a clash between Obama and Netanyahu, mirrored by a clash between the US and Israel.
But most speculation, as of today, seems to be that no head-on collision will occur. Here are three indicators supporting that more positive prediction:
Obama won't be throwing Israel under the bus. (Part I)by Meryl Yourish
And DebkaFile's Washington infighting mutes Netanyahu-Obama differences
Most of all, the following from Cong. Robert Wexler
Wexler: Obama, Netanyahu not headed for clash
May. 10, 2009 Herb Keinon , THE JERUSALEM POST
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama are not headed for a "train wreck," but rather will "figure out how to work collaboratively" during their meeting next week, US Congressman Robert Wexler, a close political ally of Obama and a stalwart Israel supporter, told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday.
Wexler, who in March 2007 was the first Jewish politician outside of Obama's home state of Illinois to endorse his presidential campaign, said after emerging from a meeting with Netanyahu that both the prime minister and Obama understand that "cooperatively we can enhance each other's strategic interest, better than we can separately."
Wexler, a liberal Democrat from South Florida, dismissed concern that has been reflected in the media in recent weeks that Israeli-US ties are headed for a crisis.
"I can say unequivocally that the anxiety is not warranted," said Wexler, who has spoken to the US president about Middle East issues, and speaks regularly with top White House staffers dealing with the matter, including National Security Adviser Gen. (ret.) James Jones.
He arrived in Israel on Friday for a series of meetings in Jerusalem and in the Palestinian Authority, and will return to Washington on Monday.
"I am in constant contact with those in the administration responsible for policy in this region, and nothing could be further from the truth," he said, regarding reports that the US and Israel are on a collision course.
"As someone who was with Barack Obama from the very beginning of his campaign, I am not going to be surprised or fall prey to the too often false representation of now President Obama; and likewise I think the degree of angst also misrepresents Prime Minister Netanyahu's policies as well," said Wexler, who spoke of Obama's pro-Israeli credentials as one of the featured speakers at the Democratic National Convention in Denver last summer.
"These two men are not headed for a train wreck," he said. "They are not. Both men want the relationship to be as strong, if not stronger - if that is possible - than it has been in the past."
Wexler, who has been in Congress since 1997, has a long-standing relationship with Netanyahu, as well as with Obama.
Wexler said that while he did not expect Obama to pressure Netanyahu in their meeting next Monday, but rather to lay out his view of US policy toward Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian track, he did expect the US under Obama to get considerably tougher with the Saudis.
"The Saudis have had a bit of a free ride in Washington of late," Wexler said. "They get to argue that they proposed the Arab peace initiative. I think that most Israelis have issues, exceptions, to the Arab peace initiative, and so do I, and we, in America. But it is time to test them."
He said it was time to say to Saudi King Abdullah, "You have provided an outline to normalization and how we get there. Israel has put forth some idea in terms of what they can do. What are you willing to do, King Abdullah? We are not going to only hear from you only at the end of the process, that is not how you build trust on the Israel and American sides. What, King Abdullah, are you willing to do next week?"
Wexler said that, rather inexplicably, the Saudis had not made good on financial pledges and commitments to bolster the PA and the government of Fuad Saniora in Lebanon. While the Saudi failure to help the moderates in the PA and in Lebanon was counterintuitive and counterproductive, that was exactly what was happening on the ground, he said.
"Some people have suggested that the Saudis are entertaining a new dynamic or relationship with Syria that would result in Syria being less attached to Iran. But as laudable as that goal may be, it is a bizarre way to try to achieve it," Wexler said.
"People say very loosely that Israelis must take risks for peace," he added. "Well, what risk is the king of Saudi Arabia willing to take? And if he is not willing to take any risk for peace, then what does he bring to the table?" he asked.
The US would not only call out the Saudis about this, but "insist" on the Saudis taking immediate action to show their commitment to the diplomatic process. The Obama administration, he said, "will insist upon it to the point where if it is not met with a satisfactory response, then we will find out once and for all what value Saudi Arabia and the Arab League present to this process. And it is better to learn that early, not late."
Despite linkage some key Obama administration figures have made in recent weeks between progress on the Israeli-Palestinian track and stopping Iran's nuclear march, Wexler said there was no "package."
"There is no quid pro quo, there is no package," he said. "However, it would be absurd to conclude that progress or lack of progress on the Israeli-Palestinian track does not have ramifications or impact upon the ability to be successful in thwarting Iran's nuclear program."
It would be naïve, he said, "to think that issues that are happening at the same time do not impact on one another." But he did not think Obama would "pressure" Netanyahu.
"I think President Obama will present a compelling case as to the direction the US will take with regard to Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian track, and will listen to Prime Minister Netanyahu make his case, and the two leaders will figure out how we will work collaboratively. I don't think it is a question of pressure," Wexler said.
Alluding to the large number of US-Israeli meetings that have been taking place in recent weeks in preparation for the Obama-Netanyahu talks, Wexler said, "I think the communication between the parties has been open and clear enough that both principals understand the parameters in which they are operating, and will make certain at the end of their meeting and in their public statement that they are close enough to be able to demonstrate to the world that Israel and the US continue to have an unbreakable bond, and that collaboratively we will pursue on mutual interests."
Wexler said Obama would present Netanyahu with "an American policy with respect to Iran that is designed to thwart the Iranian nuclear program."
No one in Washington had come to terms with an Iranian nuclear weapon, and "there is no contingency plan that is being operated upon in Washington regarding acceptance of an Iranian nuclear program, just the opposite. America is implementing a process of carrots and sticks, of engagement with Iran that respects the urgency of the situation and which I believe will be time-limited," he said.
Obama would provide Netanyahu with "clarity" on the issue at their meeting, even if he didn't give a precise date as to when the engagement with Iran would end if the Iranians did not end their uranium enrichment, Wexler said.
"I think the president is going to lay out a strong policy of engagement that is rooted in realism, and predicated on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon is unacceptable to the United States," he said. "And I think he is going to outline a policy that has one design, and that is to provide both the incentives and consequences of continuing to pursue nuclear weapons."
Asked whether he thought Obama would give an okay for military action if his policy failed, Wexler said, "I don't think we need to address that hypothetical situation yet, other than to say that the president has said repeatedly that a military option with respect to an Iranian nuclear program is not off the table, and I don't know how more direct he could be in a responsible fashion than that."
This article can also be read at
[ Back to the Article ]
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
What keeps the Israeli-Palestinian conflict going?
What keeps the Israeli-Palestinian conflict going?
Adapted from an article by Barry Rubin, February 26, 2009
This conflict is not continuing because there is a dispute about the precise boundary line between Israel and a Palestinian state.
Analyze the Fatah Central Committee's membership and the viewpoints expressed by the group’s top leaders. The number who can be called moderates ready to accept and implement a two-state solution stands at about 10 percent of them.
Are there [Palestinians] who voice a moderate two-state solution position and who advocate coexistence? Yes, there are some but they have no organization or power whatsoever [within Palestinian politics.] Moreover, they say so almost exclusively in English to Westerners and not to their own people. To express anything equivalent to Labor or Kadima, even Likud, positions is to risk your life.
-- Schools, mosques, media and other institutions controlled fully or partly by the PA daily preach that all Israel is Palestine, Israel is evil, and violence against it is good. Hardly the most minimal steps have been taken to prepare the Palestinian masses for peace. For example, no one dare suggest that a Palestinian nationalist movement might want to resettle Palestinian refugees in Palestine, not Israel; or that Israel and President Bill Clinton made a good offer in 2000 and it was a mistake to reject it. Or a dozen other points necessary as a basis for real peace.
-- Palestinian public opinion polls consistently show overwhelming support for hardline positions and for terrorism against Israeli civilians.
-- An unyielding historical narrative still predominates that the whole land between the Jordan River and the sea is and should be Arab Palestine.
-- Of course, Hamas governs about 40 percent of West Bank/Gaza Palestinians and opposes Israel’s existence explicitly. The PA and Fatah do not vigorously combat the Hamas world view, except perhaps for its idea of an Islamist state. -- On the contrary, Fatah and the PA put a higher priority on conciliation with Hamas rather than peace with Israel.
....
There’s nothing left or right wing about the above analysis. ... Equally, this analysis doesn’t mean Israel cannot work with the PA on such matters as stability, economic well-being for Palestinians, blocking terrorism, or keeping Hamas out of power on the West Bank.
[However,] as we learned in the 1990s with the peace process and more recently with disengagement, Israel’s actions—no matter how conciliatory and concessionary—cannot make peace when the other side is unwilling and unable to do so. It’s time for the rest of the world to learn this fact.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. Rubin's website is online
at http://www.gloria-center.org.
Adapted from an article by Barry Rubin, February 26, 2009
This conflict is not continuing because there is a dispute about the precise boundary line between Israel and a Palestinian state.
The conflict continues because the Palestinian leaders—all of them—are either unwilling or unable to accept Israel’s permanent existence, the end of the conflict, the abandonment of terrorism, and the settlement of Palestinian refugees in a Palestinian state.
Analyze the Fatah Central Committee's membership and the viewpoints expressed by the group’s top leaders. The number who can be called moderates ready to accept and implement a two-state solution stands at about 10 percent of them.
Are there [Palestinians] who voice a moderate two-state solution position and who advocate coexistence? Yes, there are some but they have no organization or power whatsoever [within Palestinian politics.] Moreover, they say so almost exclusively in English to Westerners and not to their own people. To express anything equivalent to Labor or Kadima, even Likud, positions is to risk your life.
-- Schools, mosques, media and other institutions controlled fully or partly by the PA daily preach that all Israel is Palestine, Israel is evil, and violence against it is good. Hardly the most minimal steps have been taken to prepare the Palestinian masses for peace. For example, no one dare suggest that a Palestinian nationalist movement might want to resettle Palestinian refugees in Palestine, not Israel; or that Israel and President Bill Clinton made a good offer in 2000 and it was a mistake to reject it. Or a dozen other points necessary as a basis for real peace.
-- Palestinian public opinion polls consistently show overwhelming support for hardline positions and for terrorism against Israeli civilians.
-- An unyielding historical narrative still predominates that the whole land between the Jordan River and the sea is and should be Arab Palestine.
-- Of course, Hamas governs about 40 percent of West Bank/Gaza Palestinians and opposes Israel’s existence explicitly. The PA and Fatah do not vigorously combat the Hamas world view, except perhaps for its idea of an Islamist state. -- On the contrary, Fatah and the PA put a higher priority on conciliation with Hamas rather than peace with Israel.
....
There’s nothing left or right wing about the above analysis. ... Equally, this analysis doesn’t mean Israel cannot work with the PA on such matters as stability, economic well-being for Palestinians, blocking terrorism, or keeping Hamas out of power on the West Bank.
[However,] as we learned in the 1990s with the peace process and more recently with disengagement, Israel’s actions—no matter how conciliatory and concessionary—cannot make peace when the other side is unwilling and unable to do so. It’s time for the rest of the world to learn this fact.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. Rubin's website is online
at http://www.gloria-center.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)