Israel Matzav

Olmert negotiator: 'Full peace is impossible, so let's just give them a state'

There was a conference on Thursday on the Geneva Initiative, a plan under which Israel would place itself inexorably on the road to national suicide. One of the speakers at the conference was Udi Dekel, who headed something called the 'negotiations task force' under former Prime Minister Ehud K. Olmert. This is what Dekel regards as 'progress.'

"I do not believe that in the foreseeable future there is a possibility of an agreement with the Palestinians on all the issues, especially on the problematic core issues," says Udi Dekel, who headed the negotiations task force in the previous government.

...

Dekel said at Thursday's conference that in spite of the difficulty in achieving a settlement the need for a change in the situation was urgent.

He proposed adoption of a plan floated by Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad under which the focus would be the swift establishment of a Palestinian state, with borders and security the first issues to be negotiated.

"The rest would be discussed in parallel but the establishment of a state would not be conditional on an overall agreement," Dekel said. "The two sides are not ready for this at the moment and we should not believe that there is a way to get the sides to understand that this is the only relevant solution in this time frame."

That has to be one of the stupidest ideas I have heard. It's completely based on wishful thinking. You GIVE them a 'state' and THEN you think they're going to 'negotiate' with you on 'refugees' and Jerusalem?

The idea looks even more stupid when you consider the way in which Dekel describes his experience negotiating with Abu Bluff and Abu Bald (Ahmad Qrei Abu Ala).

"The biggest mistake was that everything was based on the premise that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed," Dekel said. "We thought at the time that this could provide the necessary flexibility in the negotiations, but in practice, every time someone showed flexibility, the other side tried to pin him down. Therefore, I suggest that the model be changed and that whatever is agreed is implemented."

According to Dekel the Palestinians refused to show any flexibility in their positions during the talks, preferring to remain stalemated rather than lower their aspirations.

"The Palestinian approach was in principle the demand of 100 percent of their rights from 1967. The practical aspect interested them less. They are not willing to discuss any further compromise," he said. "We tried to build scenarios, some of them were imaginary, about specific compromises, but we found the Palestinians taking an approach of 'all or nothing.'"

And giving them a 'state' on a silver platter is going to change that approach?

I also mentioned recently that Israel has shifted its position on borders from being secure to expelling as few revenants as possible from their homes. That one shows up here.

"On the issue of security we are talking, first and foremost, on defensible borders. And when we look at the maps, in the end we evaluate the borders on the basis of how many residents we will not have to move from their homes and the defensible borders issue becomes of secondary importance."

Now I know that many of you are probably thinking, "Who cares? They're just a bunch of Leftists. Olmert's no longer in power," and other such thoughts. But consider this.

Dekel spoke on Thursday at a conference on the unofficial "Geneva Initiative" peace plan. Other participants included many members of the diplomatic corps.

Probably all of the holdovers from Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's predecessors, but very much still part of the diplomatic corps.

What could go wrong?

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:22 PM