Israel Matzav

The difference between 2008 and 2010

There were talks between Israel and the 'Palestinians' in 2008 and there are 'talks' between Israel and the 'Palestinians' in 2010. There are differences and there is more to the differences than the fact that in 2008 the talks were direct and in 2010 they are through an American intermediary. Jonathan Tobin explains.

But then, at least, the parties were speaking directly to each other. Not passing messages to each other via intermediaries as bored middle-school students do. And as much as the United States made it very clear to the Israelis that America wanted them to make even more concessions to the Arabs than ever before (a wish that was readily granted by Olmert), the United States did not offer the Palestinians a veto over the existence of the talks. Neither did it take a stand on a critical final-status issue that prejudiced Israel’s negotiating position in such a way as to render any discussions on the matter largely moot.

But that’s exactly what the United States has done by allowing the Palestinians to avoid talks until a building freeze was put into place on Jewish housing in existing Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem. By treating these neighborhoods, most of which are nearly 40 years old, as indistinguishable from “settlements” in outlying areas of the West Bank, the Obama administration has signaled that it views the more than 200,000 Jews who live in those neighborhoods with the same contempt as it views the settlers in the West Bank. By making an issue out of building in these areas, Obama has made it impossible for the Palestinians to concede them to Israel even in a theoretical final-status agreement. Thus any house, even privately built in one of those neighborhoods, now becomes a U.S.-endorsed rationale for the Palestinians to pull out of talks that they had no interest in to begin with.

The ultimate fate of these negotiations is no mystery. Just as was the case in 2008, even if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu conceded everything that his American and domestic critics demand, there is virtually no chance that Abbas will sign any paper that recognizes the legitimacy of a Jewish state. In that sense, the 2010 talks are no different from the 2008 version. But the administration’s undermining of Israel’s position will make it easier for the Palestinians to blame their refusal to make peace on the Israelis. And for that, they have Barack Obama to thank.

There's another issue here, although it was probably as true in 2008 as it is today. No one outside of Israel has really considered the consequences of the Gaza expulsion in 2005. Israelis were so disgusted with what happened to Gaza after they pulled out - both in terms of Hamas taking over the territory and turning it into a launching pad and in terms of watching people being dragged out of the Jewish towns there, that I don't believe a referendum approving a deal with the 'Palestinians' (and I don't believe any Prime Minister will do a deal without one) could pass today. Israelis don't believe there's a partner on the other side, and even if Abu Bluff or Fayyad sign a deal, they cannot enforce it and I doubt most Israelis will take it seriously or be willing to expel Jews from their homes to make it work.

What could go wrong?

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 6:30 PM