Powered by WebAds

Monday, March 22, 2010

How to conduct negotiations between Israel and the 'Palestinians'

While I would never suggest offering anything even remotely close to what Ehud Olmert offered the 'Palestinians,' Jackson Diehl has a good point about how 'negotiations' should be conducted.
As Rice might have told the current White House, lesson No. 1 from history is that there will always be a provocation that threatens to derail peace talks -- before they start, when they start and regularly thereafter. Israeli settlement announcements are among the most common, along with the orchestration by West Bank Palestinians of violent demonstrations and attacks from Gaza by Hamas. The Obama administration saw all three in the past 10 days: It went ballistic over one and barely registered the other two.

The trick is not to let the provocation become the center of attention but instead to insist on proceeding with the negotiations. That is what Rice did when news of the Jerusalem settlement of Har Homa broke. In public, she delivered a clear but relatively mild statement saying the United States had opposed the settlement "from the very beginning." In private, she told Olmert: Don't let that happen again. For Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, the message was equally blunt: You can come to the table and negotiate a border for a Palestinian state, making settlements irrelevant. Or you can boycott and let the building continue.

Not surprisingly, Abbas -- who has taken Obama's public assault on Israel as a cue to boycott -- showed up for Rice's negotiations. The Bush administration privately offered him an assurance: Any Israeli settlement construction that took place during the talks would not be accepted by the United States when it came time to draw a final Israeli border. On settlements, Rice adopted a pragmatic guideline she called the "Google Earth test": A settlement that visibly expanded was a problem; one that remained within its existing territorial boundary was not.

The virtue of all this is that Rice got the Israelis and Palestinians talking not about settlements but what they really needed to be discussing -- the future Palestine. Olmert and Abbas went over everything: the border, the future of Jerusalem and its holy sites, security arrangements, how to handle the millions of Palestinian refugees still living in camps. Privately, they agreed on a lot. Eventually, Olmert presented Abbas with a detailed plan for a final settlement -- one that, in its concessions to Palestinian demands, went beyond anything either Israel or the United States had ever put forward. Among other things it mandated a Palestinian state with a capital in Jerusalem and would have allowed 10,000 refugees to return to Israel.

That's when Rice learned another lesson the new administration seems not to have picked up: This Palestinian leadership has trouble saying "yes." Confronted with a draft deal that would have been cheered by most of the world, Abbas balked. He refused to sign on; he refused to present a counteroffer. Rice and Bush implored him to join Olmert at the White House for a summit. Olmert would present his plan to Bush, and Abbas would say only that he found it worth discussing. The Palestinian president refused.
I wonder what would have happened in late 2008 had Abu Mazen not been so confident that Obama would force the Israelis to give him what he wants. Hmmm.

3 Comments:

At 10:00 PM, Blogger NormanF said...

Carl - the reason the Palestinians reject a state is because they want to destroy Israel. Having to make a deal terminating the conflict and accepting Israel's right to exist would get in the way of that objective. The world, the Obami and the Israeli Left know exactly why Abu Bluff won't talk directly to Israel but they've already come to a conclusion that could come only straight out of Alice In Wonderland - that the holdup is all Israel's fault.

And no one will ever hold the Palestinians responsible for rejecting peace with Israel.

 
At 11:54 PM, Blogger Chrysler 300M said...

I am less pessimistic, the Palis will never decline form their maximalistic demands.....


so, no stress for Bibi & Israel

 
At 7:41 AM, Blogger mrzee said...

"the reason the Palestinians reject a state is because they want to destroy Israel. Having to make a deal terminating the conflict and accepting Israel's right to exist would get in the way of that objective"

Of course they're not interested in a state without destroying Israel first. That's no reason they shouldn't want to make a deal though. It isn't as if there's any chance they'd honour any agreement or that they'd suffer any consequences for not honouring it.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google