Sunday, December 19, 2010

Why Is It So Urgent to Try--and Keep Failing--To Resolve the Israel-Palestinian Conflict?

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
17 December '10

After meeting U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell, EU Foreign Policy chief Catherine Ashton (whose last great idea was Western unilateral disarmament during the Cold War) said: "We believe that urgent progress is needed towards a two-state solution... that ends the occupation that began in 1967.”

Why? Of course, it would make sense to move ahead if it was clear that both sides wanted a deal and an agreement could easily be achieved. But in fact the Palestinian Authority (PA) doesn't even want to negotiate.

"There will not be any negotiations with Israel, in any form--direct, indirect or parallel--without an end to settlement," said Azzam al-Ahmad, a senior member of the Fatah Central Committee, the PA's ruling party. But in fact Israel froze construction for ten months and the PA didn't show any eagerness to negotiate then either.

Maybe the PA doesn't feel "urgent progress is needed" unless it gets everything it wants in return for nothing in exchange. Maybe it believes that its best strategy is NOT to negotiate and wait for the West--which believes that "urgent progress is needed"--to recognize a Palestinian state without needing to negotiate with Israel at all. Maybe this is precisely what the West is leading the PA to believe by statements like the one made by Ashton.

(Read full "Why Is It So Urgent to Try--and Keep Failing--To Resolve the Israel-Palestinian Conflict?")

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.
.

No comments:

Post a Comment