03 September '10
The New York Times features an analysis, Mideast expert fear peace talks are too ambitious. The headline is probably correct as Abbas has no real standing to make any deal. But this paragraph struck me:
But those urging a more modest approach argue that Mr. Netanyahu, the most conservative Israeli prime minister to have embarked on final status talks, is unlikely to offer more than his more centrist predecessor, Ehud Olmert. In late 2008, Mr. Olmert proposed an Israeli withdrawal from about 93 percent of the West Bank and compensatory land swaps. Mr. Abbas, who did not accept that offer, is unlikely to settle for less.
"[U]nilikely to settle for less?" So if having a state is so important why did Abbas reject the 93 percent? Or better yet, if Abbas rejected such a deal, why should he expect better?
(Read full post)
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.