Heh. (And spot-on by the way).Labels: 1949 armistice lines, Barack Hussein Obama, settlement freeze, settlement freeze extension
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:47 AM
0 comments
We all know that Prime Minister Netanyahu was under enormous pressure to extend the 'settlement freeze' in October. We also know that Netanyahu normally doesn't stand up to pressure like that. So what happened this time? The short answer is that there was enormous pressure the other way by the Yesha Council. How did the Council stave off a seemingly good opportunity toward what many believe is the only path to peace? Not by amassing messianic-looking armed men wearing sandals and kippas—the dominant image of the Yesha Council in the past and the most persistent picture of the Jewish settler movement in the eyes of the world—but with a high-pressure campaign that included thousands of pre-recorded, computerized phone calls targeting members of the Knesset, central figures in Netanyahu’s Likud Party, and other political movers and shakers.Read it all.
This new approach is the influence of Dayan, a former IDF major and secular high-tech tycoon who sold his software company in 2004 and threw himself full time into settlement politics. Since becoming chair in 2007, he has worked to transform the council into a Washington-style lobby armed with the latest marketing tools. “We carefully timed a surgical campaign,” says Dayan of the Council’s efforts to prevent the freeze extension. “It was very effective and quite unprecedented. I know for sure that it influenced the prime minister. We showed that we still have political leverage and capabilities.”
Coupled with the phone campaign—albeit to a government that is sympathetic to its cause—is a public relations effort targeted at everyday secular Israelis, most of whom live on the other side of the Green Line and have few ties, personal or otherwise, to the settlements or historic sites such as the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron. More importantly, they have come to accept the inevitability of a two-state solution. “I wouldn’t call it PR,” Dayan says hesitantly. “It’s more like hasbara,” the Hebrew word that has come to mean public diplomacy. “We’ve shifted our focus,” he says. “We’re working to negate stereotypes. The Yesha Council was traditionally involved in promoting the interests of our communities, but we neglected the educational component of our task and failed to reach the Israeli public. The Israeli public needs to understand the historical link we have to the territories.”
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, Dani Dayan, settlement freeze extension, Yesha Council
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 6:49 PM
0 comments
I'm pretty sure we've heard this before, but on Monday, Prime Minister Netanyahu told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that he had agreed to the 'settlement freeze' extension, but the Americans suddenly backed out of the deal (Hat Tip: Daily Alert). Netanyahu said that contrary to what was reported, Israel did not refuse extending the freeze on West Bank settlements by three months, saying it was eventually the "United States who decided against that direction, rightfully, in my opinion."Something here doesn't fit. If Netanyahu knew that the 'settlement freeze' was such a bad idea, why didn't he try convincing Obama of that?
In early December, the Obama administration announced that Washington was "ending the contacts to try to achieve another moratorium" after months of heavy negotiations to offer Israel a series of U.S. guarantees in exchange for the freeze.
"I told Obama that I am prepared to go with this to the cabinet and that I will be able to enforce the move, but then I received the surprising phone call from the Americans who said they no longer demand that Israel extends the freeze," Netanyahu explained.
"The Americans were right in saying that the settlement freeze will lead to a dead end, in which we would have entered an endless path of settlement freezes, but despite it all I agreed to go through with it," he emphasized.
Labels: Barack Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Hillary Clinton, Mahmoud Abbas, settlement freeze extension
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:23 PM
2 comments
I wrote on Tuesday that “Jerusalem’s refusal to accept a U.S. deal, including military and diplomatic perks, in return for a 90-day extension of the freeze on building in the settlements has soured the administration on Netanyahu lately.”That fits right in with this report, which I blogged last week.
But the next day a senior Israeli official contacted me to say that “contrary to widespread conventional wisdom Jerusalem did not refuse Washington’s offer.” The official said Netanyahu was “willing and ready to bring it to a vote” when “the U.S. informed us, much to our surprise, that they did not want to move forward on that path.”
Sources in Washington confirm that scenario, noting that the administration, after much bargaining, concluded that extending the freeze on building in the settlements for another 90 days was not likely to produce any diplomatic results. Some add that the U.S. was upset that details of the offer were leaked in Jerusalem, and not all accurately. Netanyahu is not a favorite these days in D.C.
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, Mahmoud Abbas, Middle East peace process, settlement freeze extension
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:58 AM
1 comments
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
There's a premium on friends in Washington these days, and Barack Obama has apparently lost another one. The meetings are being held amid deep disappointment in Ramallah with the US administration for failing to pressure Israel to halt construction in West Bank settlements and east Jerusalem.I can't recall the US ever committing itself to do something when it was so obvious at the outset that it would be incapable of doing it.
A PA official said that Abbas informed the Fatah committee that he would reject the American call for holding indirect talks with Israel.
Abbas is also expected to seek the backing of Arab League foreign ministers for his position. The ministers have decided to hold a meeting on Wednesday at the request of Abbas to discuss the repercussions of Washington’s failure to convince Israel to renew a moratorium on settlement construction.
Mohammed Shtayyeh, member of the PA negotiating team with Israel, was quoted by AFP as saying that Washington has suggested that the Palestinians resume indirect negotiations with Israel – an indication that the Americans have “nothing to offer.” He also ruled out the possibility that such negotiations would succeed.
Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior PLO official and close adviser to Abbas, said he expected the PA leadership to reject Washington’s demand to resume the peace talks.
“We don’t want to return to indirect talks to once again discuss agendas for the negotiations because we will then waste another year,” he said.
Abed Rabbo warned that the interests of the superpowers in the region would be affected if an independent Palestinian state is not established. He added that Washington’s credibility has already been undermined as a result of its announcement that it has failed to stop settlement construction.
“This is the first time since the Vietnam War that the US declares its failure,” Abed Rabbo told the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper.
Labels: Barack Obama, Mahmoud Abbas, settlement freeze extension, Yasser Abed Rabbo
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:48 AM
2 comments
There's a pretty balanced summary of the collapse of the 'settlement freeze' extension negotiations here. I urge you all to read it.Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, Hillary Clinton, settlement freeze extension
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:03 PM
2 comments
It goes without saying that the 'Palestinians' are blaming Israel for the collapse of the non-existent 'peace talks.' It seems to me that if talks between Israel and the 'Palestinians' are ever to lead to an agreement, attitudes like this are going to have to change. Yasser Abed Rabbo, a top PLO official closely associated with Abbas, said that the US decision [to stop trying to convince/force Israel to agree to a 'settlement freeze' CiJ] harmed Washington’s credibility as an honest broker.The 'Palestinians' still don't understand that peace - real peace - is made between combatants or imposed by the victor over the vanquished. It is not and cannot be forced upon unwilling parties by outside forces. It's not that the United States has to force Israel to stop 'settlement construction' or to 'accept a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders.' Israel - and only Israel - can decide to do those things if it believes that taking those actions is in our best interest. Obviously, we have decided that those things are not in our best interest right now and that they may never be - at least in the form presented by Abed Rabbo. There are two ways to change that decision: persuade Israel that it's in our best interest by showing us the advantages of peace with the 'Palestinians' on that basis, or go to war and totally defeat us. Neither of those scenarios seems likely (thank God with respect to the second one) in the foreseeable future.
“If they can’t convince Israel or force it to stop settlement construction for a specified period of time, how will they make Israel accept a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders?” Abed Rabbo asked in an interview with the PA’s Voice of Palestine radio station.
“Instead of announcing that Israel is responsible for the failure of the negotiations, the US Administration is giving the Israelis an opportunity to waste more time. The US policy has failed because of the blow it has received from Israel.”
Labels: negotiations without preconditions, Palestinian intransigence, settlement freeze extension
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:29 PM
2 comments
The New York Times' Ethan Bronner reports on what seems obvious: Why the US finally gave up on a 'settlement freeze' extension.Israeli officials indicated that with a settlement freeze off the table, they could be more forthcoming on other issues, including changes in their occupation on the ground in the West Bank. A new Palestinian city waiting to be built needs Israeli agreement for a key access road, and that will probably now come, they said; more roadblocks and checkpoints can be removed and more responsibility handed over to Palestinian security forces.So does this mean that Israel is trying to hunker down for the long run by minimizing contact with the 'Palestinians' while retaining overall control? Or does it mean that we're going to come up with another proposal for a 'Palestinian state' that will be rejected anyway? Maybe we'll get another hint from Hillary Clinton on Friday.
Of course, these steps have been promised several times in the past, and Palestinians are highly skeptical of Israeli sincerity.
But Mr. Netanyahu’s aides say it will be easier to get such steps through his cabinet and security establishment if the threat of talks ending is removed. Because in the coming weeks there will be no direct talks, just indirect ones through American officials, the threat is gone for now.
Ron Dermer, a top aide to Mr. Netanyahu, said Wednesday on Israel Radio that the Americans did not blame the prime minister for the need to refashion the policy, that relations were in fact very good.
“I have to tell you, the coordination between us and the Americans is perhaps at the best since Netanyahu entered office,” he said. Asked what would happen now, he made clear that in the near term there would be indirect talks: “In my opinion, there will be contacts between us and the Americans. The Americans will also talk to the Palestinians.”
He added: “I think it is better to be on a sure path that will bring some kind of result than continue on a path that will lead in the end to failure. I think we have to wait a little more, maybe a few weeks, and in my opinion, with coordination with the Americans, we will be on a new path.”
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, Palestinian state, settlement freeze extension
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 3:20 PM
2 comments
For more than 40 years, the 'international community,' with the help of delusional Leftist Israelis, has maintained the illusion that Israel holds the key to peace and that the conflict between us and the 'Palestinians' is about land, and not about our very existence. Israel Harel explains. The essence of the entrenched campaign of illusions is that the Arabs want a state in the 1967 borders that will exist in peace alongside Israel. Israel is responsible for the failure to achieve the peace the Palestinians yearn for. Most of the leaders of this extended illusion campaign, which has claimed thousands of lives, are Israelis who have infected the world with their messianic illusion.Read the whole thing. While Harel correctly identifies the problem, he is short on solutions. Maybe that's because there is no hope of a solution, at least so long as the delusional Barack Obama remains in power in the United States. The real hope on the horizon is that one of the United States' new conservatives becomes President in 2012 or 2016 and lowers the 'Palestinians' expectations to a rational level. But even that seems a longshot for now.
U.S. President Barack Obama, who should have learned something from the Palestinians' refusal to return to direct talks even after the 10-month freeze he brokered, also persists in the illusion. His emissary, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, could well announce tomorrow what "alternative" gesture Israel will be requested - or, more precisely, compelled - to make to the Palestinians to get them to back down.
At the upcoming Saban Forum, where Clinton will speak, any hint that Israel is to blame for the freeze will be welcomed. A substantial proportion of the participants, Israeli and American Jews, share the idea - which has been repeatedly refuted by reality - that the Arabs long for peace within the 1967 boundaries and that Israel holds the key to peace.
Labels: Middle East peace process, Peace Now, settlement freeze extension
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:34 PM
1 comments
You will recall that Secretary of State Clinton ran against President Obama for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency in 2008. It was a bitter fight, with Clinton not conceding the nomination without talk of a floor fight after the primary season had ended.Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is due to make a statement Wednesday on the Middle East peace process. On Friday, Clinton will speak to the Saban forum, which will also be addressed by Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak.But the 'total settlement freeze' was an Obama concept - not Clinton's. Clinton was sent out to support it at a time when the Israeli government thought it could drive a wedge between Obama and Clinton on the issue, because Israel felt more comfortable with Clinton from the get-go than it did with either Obama or Mitchell. (Significantly, Clinton is the only senior member of the Obama administration to meet with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, and she has done so twice). It was Clinton who was asked to do Obama's dirty work in March by 'dressing down' Netanyahu for 43 minutes over the Ramat Shlomo construction permit after the issue had seemingly been resolved by Netanyahu and Vice President Biden. And it was Clinton who was sent to meet with Netanyahu during Obama's failed tour of the Far East so that when the 'settlement freeze extension' failed - as it inevitably would - it would be Clinton's deal and not Obama's.
There will be "no dramatic change" in policy that Clinton announces, a second U.S. official said Tuesday on condition of anonymity.
"The tug of war inside the administration is [over] whether to make [Clinton's] pitch strong and determined but without saying anything of substance, or whether she needs to say something about U.S. views to bring the Palestinians back to the table following the settlements business," a senior American Middle East hand said Tuesday.
"What seems to be lost thus far in the debate is how her remarks will impact her own credibility: she's the one who originally called for a total freeze and then had to call the partial freeze 'unprecedented;' and she's the one who spent seven plus hours with Netanyahu trying to hammer out a deal that ultimately failed. If she doesn't say something substantive -- however determined ... the words -- will she continue to be taken seriously," the senior American Middle East hand continued.
Labels: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, settlement freeze extension
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 3:20 PM
1 comments
Tuesday night's report that the United States is dropping its effort to convince Israel to agree to a 'settlement freeze' extension has now been confirmed by the New York Times (Hat Tip: Memeorandum). Israel Radio reported in its 9:00 am news on Wednesday that Secretary of State Clinton will make an official announcement regarding the US decision on Thursday in an address to the Saban Center of the Brookings Institute. This is from the Times. The administration decided to pull the plug, officials said, because it concluded that even if Mr. Netanyahu persuaded his cabinet to accept a freeze — which he had not yet been able to do — the 90-day negotiating period would not have produced the progress on core issues that the United States originally had sought.The most incredible thing about this story is that it took them this long to figure that out when everyone and his kid brother understood it immediately. Did they really think that there were any circumstances under which they could make a deal on borders within three months? For that matter, does anyone really believe that a final status deal could be negotiated within a year? It could be if everyone shared the same goals, but in this case the parties do not share the same goals and placing a deadline on negotiations is simply a guarantee that the negotiations will fail.
“We made a strong effort, and everyone tried in good faith to resume direct negotiations in a way that would be meaningful and sustainable,” said a senior American official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the administration’s internal deliberations, which are continuing. “But the extension wasn’t actually going to do that.”
A preview of the administration’s next move could come in an address on Middle East policy that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is scheduled to deliver on Friday at the Brookings Institution. But the administration’s strategy appeared to be unsettled.And if Rob Malley - who is not known as a friend of Israel - is saying that they had to bow to reality, they really had to bow to reality.
“Wisely, in my view, the administration is bending to reality,” said Robert Malley, a peace negotiator in the Clinton administration. “The most likely scenario is that this moratorium was going to buy them a short reprieve, and was then going to plunge them into the same crisis they were in before.”
Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians issued a response to the news. But administration officials said the United States made the decision after consultations between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Netanyahu. The two had hammered out the agreement on a 90-day freeze, which Mr. Netanyahu later said he could not sell to his cabinet without written security assurances from the Americans.After the way that this administration callously dumped the 2004 Bush letter of assurances, did they really think that any Israeli government wasn't going to at least insist on getting these kinds of promises in writing? Do they really think we're that foolish?
Those assurances, which included 20 F-35 stealth airplanes and an American pledge to veto anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations, were never delivered to the Israelis. While that package is now off the table, an official said, he reiterated that the United States would continue to protect Israel’s security and fight efforts to challenge its legitimacy in international organizations.
In the short run, analysts said the failure raised questions about Mr. Netanyahu’s capacity to negotiate a final deal.Actually, it doesn't indicate a weakness in the coalition. It indicates the strength of Israelis who are not going to sell out their homeland, their state and their security for a bowl of porridge. That's not weakness - it's strength. We have acknowledged the reality that there is no 'fierce moral urgency' to make 'peace' and that - as Mrs. Clinton herself admitted a few months ago - we can live with the status quo for quite some time to come.
“It revealed a degree of weakness in his coalition,” said Daniel C. Kurtzer, a former American ambassador to Israel. “This was such an attractive deal for him, but he still couldn’t get his cabinet to buy into it without attaching conditions to it that were unacceptable to Washington.”
But the Palestinians also shifted their position, insisting that a settlement freeze must include East Jerusalem as well as the West Bank. Israel’s initial 10-month moratorium included only the West Bank. The United States never asked Mr. Netanyahu to expand it to Jerusalem, and analysts said Mr. Netanyahu would never have been able to persuade his right-wing cabinet to go along with it.That's the only intelligent move this administration has made up to the decision on Tuesday night to drop the 'settlement freeze' extension altogether.
Labels: Barack Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, direct talks, Hillary Clinton, Robert Malley, settlement freeze extension
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:00 AM
2 comments
Ehud Barak said it's because of Wikileaks and PJ Crowley says it's because of the Haifa forest fire. Whatever the reason, this much seems to be clear: The US and Israel have been unable to reach an agreement on an extension of the 'settlement freeze,' and on Tuesday night, according to Israel's Channel 2, they are finally going to acknowledge it. The US and Israel will announce on Tuesday night that negotiations to renew the moratorium on building in West Bank settlements have failed, Channel Two reported.The bottom line is that the 'agreement' reached between Prime Minister Netanyahu and Secretary of State Clinton last month was a 'gentleman's agreement, which needed Congressional approval. The letter setting out the terms never arrived from the United States. The Obama administration cannot bring itself to request any benefits from Congress for Israel. But Israel will undoubtedly be blamed.
According to the report, Israel will not receive F-35 fighter jets or other benefits from the US in exchange for a freeze, and peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians will, in the mean time, not be renewed.
Labels: Barack Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Hillary Clinton, settlement freeze extension
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:15 PM
3 comments
'Moderate' 'Palestinian' President In a television interview, Abbas said that if Israel failed to halt settlement building and U.S.-backed peace negotiations broke down, he would press for an end to the limited Palestinian self-rule in occupied territory.That's pretty funny given that he's been okay with remaining in office for nearly two years since his term expired. In fact, he's insisted on it.
"I cannot accept to remain the president of an authority that doesn't exist," Abbas said, referring to Israel's continued occupation of the West Bank.
Pressed by his questioner if he meant he would dissolve the Palestinian Authority, he replied: "I am telling them so. I say to them welcome ... you are occupiers. You are here, stay here, I cannot accept the situation will remain as is."
By suggesting he might seek to dissolve the self-rule arrangement if settlement building didn't stop, Abbas seemed to be trying to press for world recognition of a state, to bypass the negotiating process.I don't think those 'negotiations' are going to start anytime soon. Unless Secretary of State Clinton has a ladder to get Abu Bluff down from the settlements tree that President Obama so wisely chased him up. What could go wrong?
He said that, if Israel would not freeze settlements for three months, as Washington had proposed, he would ask the United States and the United Nations to recognize Palestinian statehood.
If such recognition were not forthcoming, Abbas said he would consider dissolving the Palestinian Authority.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dismissed talk that Israeli-Palestinian talks were near collapse, as a senior Palestinian official said this week, and said Washington was working intensively to relaunch negotiations.
In a television interview during a visit to Bahrain, Clinton said Washington planned to make new announcements as early as next week on the next steps in the peace process.
"We're going to have some additional consultations with both the Israelis and the Palestinians. But there are a number of ways that we're going to move forward," Clinton told Al Hurra television.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Hillary Clinton, Palestinian Authority, settlement freeze extension
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 5:36 AM
1 comments
Maybe the 'peace process' isn't so important to President Obama after all. At least it's apparently not important enough to release Jonathan Pollard. Before the first freeze ended the Obama administration was advised that they could literally force Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to agree to extend the freeze for three additional months by offering Mr. Netanyahu to free Jonathan Pollard in exchange for the freeze extension.Read the whole thing.
This proposal, that was first raised in my weekly commentary and then expanded on in an 18 September item (repeated below) quickly took on a life of its own - being discussed at length in the Israeli media and then around the world.
The underlying veracity of the observation that such an exchange, if offered by President Obama, would readily pass in the Netanyahu Cabinet, was confirmed and reconfirmed by the Israeli media.
The Obama administration was aware of all of this. And I can personally attest to the fact that they were also aware of assessments that, as bizarre as it may sound, Prime Minister Netanyahu had absolutely no intention for Israel to present the idea, but that he would have no choice but to accept such an offer if it came from the White House (in part because if he rejected it the rejection would undoubtedly ultimately be leaked and used against him).
It would have been an easy move for President Obama.
A move made even easier by a flurry of developments that dramatically transformed the release of Jonathan Pollard from a humanitarian issue to a question of justice.
But President Obama opted not to extend the freeze.
Labels: Barack Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Jonathan Pollard, settlement freeze extension
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:29 PM
1 comments
Labels: Barack Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, settlement freeze extension, Wikileaks
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:15 PM
1 comments
Labels: Israel Radio, settlement freeze extension
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 3:15 PM
1 comments
Here's a side benefit to the preoccupation of the United States State Department with damage control from Wikileaks: The freeze has thawed. Minister of Industry, Trade and Labor Binyamin Ben-Eliezer (Labor) said Wednesday in an interview with Israel Radio that the United States has stopped pressuring Israel to freeze Jewish building in Judea and Samaria because Washington is busy with controlling damage caused by secret diplomatic documents released by the WikiLeaks website.Heh.
Labels: settlement freeze extension, Wikileaks
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:41 AM
2 comments
In the immediate aftermath of the Six Day War, Israel hoped to trade much of its newly liberated territory for peace with the Arab world. Instead it was met with what is known as the 3 no's of Khartoum. Finally, the leaders of thirteen Arab states gathered at a summit conference in Khartoum, Sudan from August 29 to September 1. There they pledged to continue their struggle against Israel. Influenced by Nasser, "their conditions were quite specific: no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and 'maintenance of the rights of the Palestinian people in their nation.' The Khartoum Declaration was the first serious warning to the Israelis that their expectation of an imminent 'phone call' from the Arab world might be a pipe dream" (Sachar).The three no's of Khartoum remained in effect until the Egyptians broke ranks more than twenty years later and signed a treaty with Israel. For that 'crime,' Egypt was expelled from the Arab League and its President, Anwar Sadat, was murdered. Israel has (foolishly) been trying to trade 'land for peace' ever since.
The Fatah Revolutionary Council concluded its fifth convention in Ramallah over the weekend by declaring its refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.And the Israeli government response?
The council also urged the Palestinian Authority leadership to work toward foiling a new Israeli law requiring a referendum before any withdrawal from Jerusalem and the Golan Heights that has not been passed by two thirds of the Knesset.
The Palestinians are opposed to any understandings between Israel and the US that could harm their interests, the council said.
“The council affirms its rejection of the so-called Jewish state or any other formula that could achieve this goal,” said a statement issued by the council.
“The council also renews its refusal for the establishment of any racist state based on religion in accordance with international law and human rights conventions.”
...
In its statement Saturday, the Fatah council said it was categorically opposed to proposals for a land swap between Israel and the Palestinians under the pretext that “illegal settler gangs can’t be put on an equal footing with the owners of the lands and rights.”
Israel has long assumed that any final status agreement would include land swaps.
The Fatah leaders said they supported PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s policies, especially with regard to the peace process with Israel.
“The council salutes President Mahmoud Abbas for adhering to the basic rights, first and foremost the right of return for Palestinian refugees,” the statement said. “Also, the council salutes President Abbas for standing up against pressure aimed at resuming the peace talks without achieving the demands of the Palestinians.”
The council dismissed plans to supply Israel with weapons in return for reviving the stalled peace talks. It added that the Palestinians would not accept any understandings between Israel and the US which could “harm Palestinian rights and prolong occupation.”
The reported US package of incentives to Israel does not serve the cause of peace, the Fatah council cautioned.
...
In its sessions, the council also reiterated its opposition to the idea of creating a Palestinian state with temporary borders. A PA official said there was no change its position on this issue.
“The PA leadership dismisses the idea of a state with temporary borders, the official said.
“We insist that the issue of borders and security be the first to be discussed when the negotiations resume.”
An Israeli government official on Saturday night called on the Palestinians to resume direct negotiations without any preconditions.The blame for this state of affairs can be laid at the doorstep of the Obama White House. Before President Arrogant took office in January 2009, the 'Palestinians' were apparently on the verge of agreeing to an arrangement that included a land swap. Obama took office with a 'fierce moral urgency' to reach a solution, and promptly demanded an Israeli 'settlement freeze' that no Israeli government could give. Abu Mazen could not let Obama be more 'Palestinian' than he is, and so adopted Obama's position as his own. As Jennifer Rubin wrote on Friday,
“Let us meet and talk,” he said.
The official said he was disappointed by the council’s statement with respect to a Jewish state.
“I would ask the Palestinians the following question: If the Jewish state is fundamentally illegitimate in your eyes, what sort of peace are you offering us? “It is clear that their refusal to recognize the Jewish state’s legitimacy is the true obstacle to peace and reconciliation,” the official added.
Unlike the Bush team, which actually had the parties talking to each other, this crew can only bicker about what it is that they offered Israel in order to induce the PA to return to the table. If there has been a less competent Middle East negotiating team, I can’t recall it.Indeed. It's time for Israel to shut down the 'negotiations' altogether until there's regime change - in Washington.
Labels: interim borders, settlement freeze extension, territorial exchange, Three no's of Khartoum, Three no's of Ramallah
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:22 PM
3 comments
So much for that one shot 90-day freeze to which the Obama administration was asking Israel to agree. One of the issues reportedly holding up Washington’s letter to Jerusalem regarding US commitments in exchange for an additional 90-day settlement freeze is whether borders will be the focus of the first three months of negotiations.What could go wrong?
The Palestinians want the border issue to be the focus of the start of the talks, arguing that once the borders were set it would be clear where Israel could and could not build. But Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s position is that border issues cannot be divorced from other core issues such as security arrangements and Israel’s demands that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people – something that would be tantamount to their accepting that the descendents of Palestinian refugees would not be allowed to return to Israel.
Netanyahu is also apparently unwilling to pledge to wrap up an agreement on borders during the time of a settlement freeze. And the US, for its part, is reportedly unwilling to commit in writing that this would be the last settlement freeze it would request, apparently wanting to keep open the option of another freeze if the border issue is not wrapped up during one 90- day freeze.
Labels: Barack Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, settlement freeze extension
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:08 AM
4 comments
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
Like what you see? Please hit my tip box below!
Jerusalem |
 |
 |
