A 'settlement freeze' extension would not have mattered
I'm sure you'll all be shocked - just shocked - to hear definitively that even if Israel had agreed to extend the 'settlement freeze,' nothing would have come of it. The negotiations took place in Washington, Jerusalem, and Sharm al-Sheikh, Egypt—with more meetings between advisers. A Palestinian official involved in the talks and an Israeli source familiar with the details say the gaps were wide. The sources, who didn’t want to be named discussing private negotiations, say Netanyahu told the Palestinians they had to accept Israel’s “security concept” before he would discuss other issues, including borders. The concept involved keeping Israeli troops stationed along territory on the Palestinian side of the barrier Israel has built in the West Bank to protect what Israel calls its “narrow waistline.” That strip would be several kilometers wide at some points, says the Palestinian negotiator, and run along much of the seam line. Also, to protect itself against the possible rise of a hostile Islamic state in Jordan, say both sources, Netanyahu insisted Israeli troops would remain posted in the Jordan Valley for years. Though Netanyahu didn’t present maps, Abbas and his negotiators calculated that Palestinians would be left with just 60 percent of the West Bank. (The Israeli source describes 60 percent as a “subjective Palestinian view,” not necessarily an accurate summary of Netanyahu’s position. Israeli and U.S. government spokesmen declined to comment.)Netanyahu obviously doesn't feel bound by what was agreed by previous Prime Ministers. It's about time. And no, this is not surprising.
Abbas found the proposal offensive. Previous Israeli leaders had offered 90 to 95 percent of the West Bank and land from within Israel to compensate for the annexation of some Jewish settlements. Abbas countered in a position paper that Israel cede 98.2 percent of the West Bank, say the sources. He also offered to allow U.S. or other third-party troops to be stationed on Palestinian territory after Israel withdrew. But Netanyahu refused to read the paper. “He told [Abbas], ‘I don’t have a mandate to negotiate anything until you accept the Israeli security concept,’” the Palestinian official says. The discussions broke off when Israel’s moratorium on settlement expansion ended days later.
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, Mahmoud Abbas, Middle East peace process, settlement freeze extension
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:23 PM
3 Comments:
Carl, I don't know who's feeding you information, but read this quote from SamsonBlinded Blog.
"Palestinian police began patrolling Zone C of the West Bank, previously an area under Israeli control. This is were most settlements are located.
Just as we predicted, Israeli government recognized its inability to expel settlers, and passed the job to Palestinian thugs. When the roads are flooded with armed Fatah guerrillas, many settlers will choose to move into the Smaller Israel – which rapidly comes under Arab control, too."
I don't believe that either the media or the loose lips who are feeding propoganda are telling the truth. I think a deal has been struck and we are about to face our worst period since the Shoah, G-d forbid.
Impressive!
It makes no sense at all to use the word "peace" in all this (as if signing a paper of any kind with the "Palestinians" is anything remotely like an actual peace deal).
There is no peace in any of this. This is about getting the "Palestinians" to stop screaming about their plight somehow no matter what it does to the region or to the world.
Although I would love it if Netanyahu were speaking up strongly about Jewish rights and our real ownership of the land - I'm very relieved to hear that he's putting his foot down about Israel remaining in a position to defend herself and the lives of the 5.7 million Jews in Israel.
If there were such a thing as real international law (and not a popularity contest that most nations CALL "international law"), Israel has the only legal claim to the land in question. Israel would win in a real international court if there were such a thing.
International Kangaroos don't make proper or just legal decisions - thus, they don't qualify as a real court.
The Palestinians are not willing to compromise on anything or accept the fact that no future Israeli leader will give them as much Olmert did. If that's the boat they're in today, for that they have only themselves to blame.
Post a Comment
<< Home