Powered by WebAds

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Fear of Romney to bring 'Palestinians' to the table?

World Jewish Congress President Ronald Lauder, who is close to Prime Minister Netanyahu, says Israel should use fear of Mitt Romney winning November's elections to bring the 'Palestinians' to the table.
“The election in November between President Obama and Mitt Romney could have important consequences for the peace process,” Lauder told The Jerusalem Post. “I believe that the uncertainty over who will win the election could and perhaps should convince the Palestinians that it would be in their own best interest to restart the peace process as soon as possible.”

Lauder noted that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had fallen off the international agenda, due to the increasing focus on other problems in the Middle East, such as preventing the nuclearization of Iran, the Syrian civil war and the Muslim Brotherhood’s takeover of Egypt. He said the Palestinian issue can become a top priority again if the PA agrees to restart negotiations without preconditions.

“There has never been a better time to make a peace treaty between the two peoples,” said Lauder, who recently met with Abbas in London. “If both sides can sit down, I think a deal could be made quickly. I fear that unless something happens to restart negotiations in the next several months, it could lead to another Palestinian intifada.”

Lauder said he was optimistic due to the widening of the coalition and the addition of the Kadima party to the government. Kadima’s leader, Vice Premier Shaul Mofaz, is expected to meet with Abbas on Sunday.

“The widening of the coalition helps dramatically,” Lauder said.

“With 94 seats in the coalition, if there was a deal done, I think it would pass.”

Asked why he thought the Palestinians would make a deal now after rejecting Olmert’s offer of 100 percent of the West Bank with land swaps, taking in thousands of Palestinian refugees and dividing and internationalizing Jerusalem, Lauder said that sometimes people refuse an offer for their house and later end up accepting a lower offer later on.

“Sometimes a good offer made at the wrong time does not go as well as a not as good offer made at the right time,” he said.
Why is this wrong? Let me count the ways:

1. There is no indication that the 'Palestinians' intend to come to the table without preconditions.

2. Most 'Palestinians' are quite happy with the status quo, are more interested in putting bread on their tables than in an intifada, and are leery of the prospect of living in a 'Palestinian state.'

3. It is doubtful that the 'Palestinians' will accept less than Olmert offered. It is likely that they will insist on more.

4. If Romney wins, that's good for the Jews, and if Obama - God forbid - wins, the 'Palestinians' are likely to drag out the negotiations until his second term begins.

5. It is doubtful that much of the coalition will vote with Netanyahu on a deal that even approaches the concessions made by Olmert. Much of the Likud won't. None of the parties to the right of the Likud will vote for such a deal. That leaves Ehud Barak's lame duck Atzmaut party and some or all of Kadima.

6. The 'Palestinians' are not the most urgent item on the World's agenda, and aren't even likely to become the most urgent item if Obama wins, although admittedly, they are Obama's special friends.

So, no, no and no.

Labels: , , , , , , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home