Israel Matzav

What makes a 'concession' meaningful?

The JPost is reporting that the 'Palestinians' have made what might be considered an important concession in the lead-up to Annapolis:

Late Wednesday, Israeli sources said, Palestinian negotiators accepted Israeli security demands. These assert that progress following the conference will depend on the Palestinians fulfilling obligations set down in the first stage of the road map peace plan, namely the disarming and disbanding of all terror groups.

The breakthrough was reportedly achieved during a late-night meeting between chief Israeli and Palestinian negotiators Tzipi Livni and Ahmed Qurei.

But does it mean anything? No one else seems to think so:

In response to the reports of progress in the talks, a member of the Palestinian negotiating team who claimed he had attended the said meeting between Qurei and Livni, told Israel radio that the "breakthrough" was being trumpeted for more than it was worth.

"I did not sense that there was any progress in the talks with the Israeli side," the negotiator said. He then laughed and further retorted, "What's new about the principle stating that the implementation of commitments depends upon [the Palestinians] fighting terror? Indeed, it appears in the road map, and we of course agreed to the road map."

Israeli MK Aryeh Eldad agrees with the 'Palestinian' negotiator:

"Abu Mazen, who cannot fight car thieves in his neighborhood of Ramallah, promises to fight terror effectively and in exchange [Prime Minister] Olmert is willing to give him Judea and Samaria, Jerusalem, and allow refugees in," said Eldad.

"There is nothing cheaper than empty words," said Eldad. "It is too bad that Israel is willing to pay for them with land and blood."

A 'concession' is only meaningful if there is a real commitment and an ability to follow through on it. No concession from the 'Palestinians' fulfills either of those criteria.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:11 PM