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.
.

A Hint On The Future of Obama "Peace Process" Policy

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
16 December '10

George Mitchell, the U.S. envoy to the Middle East, has given the first hint about the Obama Administration's future strategy. He said that he will now take six weeks to talk to Israel and the Palestinian Authority to find out what they want. One idea he will present is that the two sides carry out indirect talks through the United States--essentially what has been going on for the last two years with no progress.

Note the six weeks' timeline. Presumably, Mitchell will make a report around February 1 which will then be considered and debated in the Obama Administration. This would mean that the administration will take its time and come up with something new around April.

Of course, that's speculation but it seems about the best guess one can make at present. According to other statements, the U.S. government opposes a unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence and will try to discourage (how effectively remains to be seen) other countries from recognizing a Palestinian state. I also doubt, from what I'm finding, that this administration will try an imposed solution in 2011. But we shall see.

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.
.

Mitchell’s Back: The Fool Returns to His Errand

Jonathan S. Tobin
Contentions/Commentary
14 December '10

After two years of failure, George Mitchell is back in the Middle East to resume his fruitless negotiating between Israel and the Palestinians. In theory, Mitchell might have a better chance of achieving at least the semblance of progress now that the administration has dropped its obsession with forcing Israel to adopt a building freeze in the West Bank. Such a freeze was meaningless, since the question of where the borders would be in the event of a peace accord would not be affected by whether or not another Jewish home went up in the West Bank. As Israel showed in 2005 with its withdrawal from Gaza, the presence of settlements will not stop it from abandoning territory if a domestic consensus exists for such a policy.

But even without the burden of pushing Israel to freeze building before talks even begin, it’s not clear that there is any purpose to Mitchell’s visit other than a symbolic gesture of America’s continued interest in peace. Despite attempts by left-wing critics of Israel to demonize Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his coalition partners, the blame for this impasse remains with the Palestinians, who have more than once refused Israel’s offer of a state in the West Bank, Gaza, and a share of Jerusalem. But it is useful to review the past two years of failed American diplomacy during which Mitchell and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have done a great deal to make a bad situation worse.

(Read full "Mitchell’s Back: The Fool Returns to His Errand")

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.
.

The Middle East Is Not Ireland

Obama’s special envoy to the Middle East doesn’t understand the problem.

Elliot Abrams
National Review Online
07 December '10

The 700 days are almost up.

On Jan. 22, 2009, his second full day in office, President Obama signed orders to close the Guantanamo Bay prison and announced former Senate majority leader George Mitchell as his special envoy to the Middle East. These two moves have been about equally successful.

In May 2010, Senator Mitchell explained that a year of frustration and failure had not daunted him. He told a reporter, “You can’t take the first ‘no.’ I had 700 days of ‘no’ in Northern Ireland, and one ‘yes.’” By my calculation, on Christmas Day, the 700 days will be up, and perhaps Mitchell will acknowledge that it’s time for a change.

Even reporters long ago became tired of Mitchell’s Northern Ireland analogies, for that situation is as similar to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as it is to, say, Sri Lanka. Sure, there are parties, there are mediators, there are negotiating rules such as “don’t lie” and “keep your word” and “prevent outside spoilers from ruining everything.” But at bottom, the situations are different.

(Read the full "The Middle East Is Not Ireland")

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.
.

The Non-Direct, Non-Peace Talks

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
04 October '10

This report is emblematic of the double-talk that now passes for the “peace process”:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Sunday that he was holding Israel responsible for the impasse in direct negotiations, but vowed to continue to search for solutions that could yield to progress in the recently renewed peace process.

Speaking to reporters after his meeting with Jordanian King Abdullah II, Abbas said “there is an impasse, because we cannot carry on with the negotiations, and we have to follow up this impasse with the Arab side.”

“Of course, we are not going to sever ties with the Americans, and we will continue to have contacts with them to search for solutions, but the settlement building should stop and then we will return to the negotiating table,” Abbas said.

So Abbas will go back to talking to Mitchell but not to the Israelis? No, no, both sides really want to keep talking to each other, Mitchell assures us:

(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.
.

Reactivating the Syrian track

Tony Badran
NOW Lebanon
23 September '10

Last week, US officials came out with statements assuring that the Obama administration is committed to achieving “comprehensive peace,” which means at some point reactivating the Syrian track (and presumably the Lebanese one as well). However, there are questions regarding the prospects for such talks, and the assumptions behind them are equally shaky, fraught with problems and potential traps.

The statements came during a visit to Damascus by Special Envoy George Mitchell, barely two weeks after the resumption of direct talks on the Palestinian track. After meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Mitchell laid down the administration’s line that the “effort to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in no way contradicts or conflicts with our goal of comprehensive peace, including peace between Israel and Syria.” However, he added, the foundation that supports this “comprehensive peace” was “good faith” negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis, which had to be established first. Absent that, “anything that we would try to build with others in the region would not stand.”

The idea, therefore, seems to be to protect the fragile Palestinian track from outside sabotage by elements known for their spoiler role, namely Syria. This was made explicit by an anonymous US official who told the Christian Science Monitor: “If Hamas succeeds [in scuttling the talks], the prospects for eventual Syria-Israel talks are zero.”

This was not the first time that such a demand was made of the Syrians. When the Arab League follow-up committee met to support a Palestinian return to direct talks, the Syrians were asked to go along, but they have consistently refused to do so.

(Read full story)

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.
.

The Consequences of Clinton’s Expectations Game

Jonathan Tobin
Commentary
14 September '10

Hillary Clinton’s happy talk about Middle East peace has become part of the soundtrack of the peace talks the administration has orchestrated. Both before and during her drop-in at Sharm el-Sheik, the secretary of state has exuded optimism about the American push for a renewal of a Jewish settlement freeze and the continuance of the negotiations between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

The rhetoric from the Americans has been largely devoted, as Jennifer noted, to direct pressure on the Israelis to make concessions, while demands on the Palestinians remain amorphous. But this imbalance in pressure is just part of the problem. The raising of expectations about peace arriving within another year (as Obama’s envoy George Mitchell keeps telling the press) may have negative consequences that neither Obama nor Clinton is prepared to face.

Given the realities of Palestinian politics, both parties to the talks know very well that the chances of an agreement on final-status issues are slim and none. With his Hamas rivals in control of Gaza and threatening him in the West Bank (where he maintains control only with the help of Israel), Abbas is in no position to make any move to advance peace. Meanwhile Netanyahu is getting beat up by the Israeli right for being weak in the face of American pressure. He may not wish to make concessions on settlements or borders that will compromise his country’s security and be considered irretrievably ceded to the Arabs no matter the outcome of the talks if there is little likelihood that the Palestinians will declare a complete end to their 62-year-old war to destroy Israel. But he also doesn’t want to be blamed for the collapse of the talks when he knows that sooner or later Abbas will bolt.

(Read full article)

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.
.

These Talks Will Not Satisfy Either Side

JINSA
Report #: 1,020
03 September '10

The current Washington "peace talks" have less chance of producing either a Palestinian state or legitimacy and security for Israel than even their previous editions.

-Mahmoud Abbas isn't Arafat.

-Hamas rules Gaza with an iron fist with political support from Turkey and weapons from Iran. Hamas and Iran are willing to mix Sunni and Shiite fundamentalist orthodoxies in the name of their greater enemies - Israel and Fatah. Turkey is stirring the pot.

-The Arab states are not interested in Palestine and want Israel to do something about their priority - Iran.

-Egypt's ailing President Hosni Mubarak did not drag himself to Washington on behalf of a Palestinian state, but on behalf of his son Gamal.

-King Abdullah's already minority position in his kingdom shrinks daily and there are calls to oust Palestinians lest they build a mini-State in Jordan as they did in Lebanon.

-Prime Minister Netanyahu isn't Prime Minister Barak.

Senator Mitchell said there is a "window of opportunity" now. With due respect, it is not a window but trompe l'oeil - the French decorating trick that "fools the eye" by drawing outdoor scenery on solid walls. Which is not to say nothing interesting is happening.

Prime Minister Netanyahu spent an hour-and-a-half in private with Mahmoud Abbas yesterday. A fly on the wall might have heard the following:

(Read full report)

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.
.

Talking Peace, Injuring Infants

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
26 August '10

Mahmoud Abbas wants to talk about a settlement freeze at the peace talks. But the settlement freeze isn’t happening. And there can’t be peace, no matter how many times George Mitchell shuffles between the parties and no matter what ludicrous deadline he sets so long as this goes on:

An Israeli infant was injured when Palestinians hurled rocks at a car traveling in the West Bank. The baby was treated at the scene of Tuesday afternoon’s attack near Karne Zur, south of Hebron, and then taken to a hospital in Jerusalem. Later Tuesday another car was damaged in the same area by rocks thrown by Palestinians, according to the IDF. Also Tuesday afternoon, Palestinians threw a firebomb at an Israeli car traveling near Maale Shomron in the northern West Bank.

Obama keeps saying he’s very concerned about Palestinian incitement, very much determined to have Abbas prove his mettle.

(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.
.

Competing World Views Tear A "Peace Process" to Pieces

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
21 August '10


The U.S. announcement inviting Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) for direct talks shows quite clearly, though unintentionally, why the talks will fail.

Special Envoy George Mitchell explains:

“We are all well aware that there remains mistrust between the parties, a residue of hostility developed over many decades of conflict, many previous efforts that have been made to resolve the conflict that had not succeeded, all of which takes a very heavy toll on both societies and their leaders. In addition, we all know that, as with all societies, there are differences of opinion on both sides on how best to proceed, and as a result, this conflict has remained unresolved over many decades and through many efforts. We don’t expect all of those differences to disappear when talks begin. Indeed, we expect that they will be presented, debated, discussed, and that differences are not going to be resolved immediately.”

This is a good explanation that the administration knows how hard it is to bring peace, though it does not jibe well with his saying a few minutes later: “We believe that if those negotiations are conducted seriously and in good faith, they can produce such an agreement within 12 months. And that is our objective.”

Of course, Mitchell is right that the task's difficulty shouldn't preclude an attempt to negotiate and that understanding the difficulty is essential to doing a decent job. The one-year thing, though, is nonsense. If negotiations would be conducted seriously an agreement could be reached in a month but there are reasons this has never happened and won’t happen for a long time.

As an analyst not a diplomat, I can point out that the problem is not just “mistrust,” “residue of hostility,” and “differences of opinion,” but rather structural impediments to success. Western media and leaders are all too eager to point out alleged problems on the Israeli side—domestic politics—but never really discuss the same thing on the Palestinian side.

(Read full article)

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.
.

Is the Palestinian Authority in Violation of American Law?

The PA’s attempt to block Israel’s economic achievement could theoretically backfire and endanger American military assistance to the would-be state of Palestine.


Lenny Ben-David
pajamasmedia.com
26 May '10

On Thursday, May 27, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will travel to Paris to formally accept the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s invitation to Israel to join the ranks of the world’s leading economies.

But Israel’s accession to the OECD would not have happened if the Palestinian Authority had its way, and the PA’s attempt to block Israel’s economic achievement could theoretically backfire and endanger American military assistance to the would-be state of Palestine. What’s at stake? Approximately $100 million that was appropriated for 2010 to train and equip the PA’s elite presidential guard and security forces.

During the deliberations of the 31 OECD members earlier this year, Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki lobbied all the foreign ministers of the OECD countries, calling for the vote to be delayed because, he charged, Israel infringed on Palestinians’ human rights and violated OECD values, Ha’aretz reported.

Israel complained that Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad also called many of the leaders of OECD countries to argue against Israel’s acceptance, the Ha’aretz report continued. “Fayyad’s efforts to thwart Israel’s participation in the organization,” said Industry, Trade and Labor Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer (Labor Party), “are extremely grave, and even more so during a time when Israel wants to begin proximity talks in order to reach an agreement and a reconciliation between the nations.”

The formal Palestinian leadership, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), was also mobilized to block Israel’s joining the OECD, according to the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee (BNC). “In the run-up to the OECD decision,” a press release stated, “the BNC coordinated with the PLO, unions and other civil society actors in all thirty OECD member states as part of an intensive campaign to oppose Israel’s membership for its persistent and systematic violations of the rights of the Palestinians.”

On a basic level, the Palestinian attack on the Israel-OECD deal just doesn’t jive with the peace negotiations U.S. mediator George Mitchell is attempting to kickstart.

(Read full article)

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.
.

Middle East Peace Talks: What Changed in the Last Two Years?

Jonathan Tobin
Contentions/Commentary
10 May '10

The announcement that the so-called “proximity” talks started up today is, as Noah wrote earlier today, a “victory” of some sort for President Obama because the existence of such talks allows the president to pretend that he is advancing the cause of peace.

However, American friends of Israel might well note the difference between the current negotiations and the last round of (unsuccessful) talks held between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority in 2008. Like the current talks, those negotiations were also strongly backed by the United States, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice seemed to sincerely believe that the process started in Annapolis in the fall of 2007 had a reasonable chance of success. The Palestinians proved her wrong. At that time, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered the PA a state in Gaza, the West Bank, and part of Jerusalem and even agreed, to the dismay of most Israelis, to take back some Palestinian refugees into Israel as well as to share sovereignty over the Old City of Jerusalem. But the answer from the moderate Mahmoud Abbas and his likeable Prime Minister Salam Fayyad was no different from that given to Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton by Yasser Arafat when they offered a similar package in 2000 and 2001: no!

But then, at least, the parties were speaking directly to each other. Not passing messages to each other via intermediaries as bored middle-school students do. And as much as the United States made it very clear to the Israelis that America wanted them to make even more concessions to the Arabs than ever before (a wish that was readily granted by Olmert), the United States did not offer the Palestinians a veto over the existence of the talks. Neither did it take a stand on a critical final-status issue that prejudiced Israel’s negotiating position in such a way as to render any discussions on the matter largely moot.

(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.
.

The Time for Talk is Over

Daniel Friedman
Sultan Knish
10 May '10

The hard and fast rule is that if the terrorists can't manage to kill you with their bombs, they'll kill you at the negotiating table. If they can't even win the dirtiest war that their most perverse leaders can conceive of, they can still talk you out of a country by promising to make peace once you meet all their demands. And once they realize that they can get more by changing out of their khakis and into a nice Armani suit, and shifting the regularly scheduled bombings to days when the negotiations aren't in session-- then the real killing begins.

And so now right on schedule, the Obama Administration is feverishly looking for ways to get the Israelis and the Fatah terrorists back to the negotiating table to create a Palestinian state. This is the sort of thing that was breaking news back in 1991. Today it's a sad and sick farce being perpetuated not in the name of peace, but in the name of appeasement. The Israeli left has staked its political fortunes on destroying the country. The European left has rediscovered the joys of openly hating Jews. The American left has discovered that with a cultural Muslim at the top, sticking the knife into one of America's closest allies just got a lot easier.

Peace is of course a good thing. Which is why you usually don't have to negotiate it. Most people naturally live at peace with each other. But when you have to spend the better part of a century negotiating peace, clearly one side isn't all that enthusiastic about peace. For the better part of the 20th century and the crumbs of the 21st , Israel's various representatives, pre and post state have been doing their best to negotiate peace. Yet oddly enough, each time war resulted. Today Israel holds a fraction of the land remaining from the Palestine Mandate, but its friendly neighborhood Muslims chorus that it's still too much. If only they had a few more miles here and there. And Jerusalem and the strategic high ground of the Golan Heights, then maybe there would be peace. Maybe. Double maybe.

Israel's critics insist that a Jewish state in the Arab Muslim Middle East is a mistake. Which it of course it is from the Muslim point of view, which insists that there can be no infidel states in the region. But isn't that a working definition of Apartheid? The critics wail over the fate of Hamas blockaded Gaza, but not over that of Islamic blockaded Israel. Not even when the combined Arab Muslim powers of the Middle East did their best to try and push the Jewish refugees from Islam and the Holocaust into the sea.

But since they didn't succeed, as a result the conflict was prolonged. Which is a fancy way of saying, "Those Damned Jews Are Still Around." In 1948, quite a lot were hoping that the matter would be settled once and for all. They were hoping that again in 1967. They were crossing their fingers for it in 1973. Their frustration has reached a boiling point in 2010. And it's not hard to see why. They've armed terrorists and placed them inside Israel's borders. They've encouraged the terrorists to run wild, to kill and bomb. And they made sure to restrain Israel from responding. They've orchestrated phony negotiations in which Israel has turned over land and gotten bodies back in return. And yet still Israel lives.

(Read full article)

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.
.

Thoughts on the Start of Israeli-Palestinian "Proximity Talks"

Daniel Pipes
10 May '10
Cross-posted from
National Review Online

U.S.Middle East Special Envoy George Mitchell issued a statement confirming that the first round of "proximity talks" began yesterday between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority. Here follow some reflections on what Mitchell calls "serious and wide-ranging" discussions and I call a counterproductive but important development:

Counterproductive because not only will these talks fail to achieve any of Mitchell's three goals – "to enable the parties to move to direct negotiations," that "will result in a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," and lead to "a comprehensive peace in the Middle East" – but they render a resolution of the conflict more difficult and more distant.

Important because the "peace process" will drive everything else, even the Iranian nuclear bomb buildup, to the sidelines and it has major implications for everyone involved.

(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.
.

Farcical Proximity Talks

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
10 May '10

The “peace process” is underway, George Mitchell boasts. But the first “achievement” reveals how inane the entire exercise is. This report explains that the State Department crows that “Israel had pledged not to build in the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood of East Jerusalem for two years.” But wait:

Sources close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded to the American announcement later Sunday, confirming that the housing project intended for the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood would not be built in the coming two years. The sources added that even when the Ramat Shlomo crisis first erupted, when the housing project was announced just as U.S. Vice President Joe Biden was visiting Israel, Israel told the U.S. administration that the project was only in very initial stages and construction would not begin for at least two years.

So what was the cause of an international incident is now touted as a success. That’s the Orwellian world of peace talks. And the PA’s contribution? They promise not to incite violence. Hmm. Will they rename Dalal Mughrabi square after someone who did not slaughter 38 Israeli civilians? Will we hear a call to end the days of rage? For now, each party pretends something is happening. Meanwhile, the “achievements” remain ephemeral, their only purpose being to secure further employment for George Mitchell.

(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.
.

Observation: Defining “Trust Undermining” Palestinian Action

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
09 May '10

“As both parties know, if either takes significant actions during the proximity talks that we judge would seriously undermine trust, we will respond to hold them accountable and ensure that negotiations continue.”

Statement on Special Envoy George Mitchell's Trip
The State Department
Washington, DC
May 9, 2010
www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/05/141637.htm

What constitutes Palestinian serious "trust undermining?

Just the amorphous "incitement"?

Well, what confidence can Israel have of Palestinian intentions when they continue taking a leading role in:

1. Efforts to keep Israel out of various international bodies such as the OECD.

2. Initiatives to condemn Israel in various international forums.

3. Promoting various economic sanctions against Israel.

4. Supporting and encouraging the harassment of Israeli official on campuses around the world.

And here’s one that the United States itself is guilty in aiding, abetting and encouraging: the absolutely stunning and appalling official Palestinian demand that every Palestinian held by Israel for terror activities – regardless of what they did (e.g. no matter how heinous the crime) or when they did it (including a minute ago) should be set free. That’s “set free”. Not handed over to the PA justice system. Set free. Period.

And the list goes on.

Question: Will the United States consider any of the above “trust undermining” or will President Obama’s and Secretary of State Clinton’s determination to give the Palestinians a passing grade come what may cause them to ignore all of this?

Better question: Will Prime Minister Netanyahu’s team limit its complaints regarding Palestinian behavior to Palestinian incitement and essentially give the Palestinians a free pass for everything else that they do that undermines trust?

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.
.

Peace Process “Starts”?

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
05 May '10

This report tells you just how unserious — and unrelated to “peace” — is the process that supposedly started today: “United States special envoy George Mitchell met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday, as Israelis and Palestinians readied themselves for the start of long-awaited indirect peace negotiations.” Yes, after 15 months George Mitchell has gotten the Palestinians and the Israelis to do exactly what they have been doing — talking to him and not each other. Yes, they came up with a fancy name — “proximity talks” — but that’s not exactly truth in advertising. There is no talking between the parties, in contrast to what happened during the Bush and Clinton administrations, which at least got the two sides in the same room. It’s not even clear what authority the PA has to negotiate:

Despite media reports that Mitchell’s meetings with Netanyahu would kick off the talks, the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization has still to convene to give the go-ahead to Palestinian participation in the negotiations. The Arab League gave its backing to the talks on Saturday.

It is unclear when the Committee will meet. Abbas, the PLO head, was in Cairo and Amman on Wednesday for talks with President Hosni Mubarak and King Abdullah II, and was not expected to return to Ramallah before Friday.

But just as the title of the talks signals that nothing much is going on, so does the pablum put out to the media after the first session: “A spokesman for the Prime Minister’s Office said that the two met for three hours and described the atmosphere as good. Mitchell and Netanyahu are scheduled to meet again on Thursday.

(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.
.

[Will Israel be smart or stupid?] Indirect talks will cover core issues

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
02 May '10

Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA:

What does it mean that the indirect talks will cover core issues - this at the same time that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says that the core issues will be resolved in direct talks?

Possibility A: The indirect talks focus on defining the parameters of the core issues rather than resolving them. For example, in the case of the "refugee" issue there would be a discussion of how one defines a "refugee" - something that in and of itself is hardly a minor issue given that one normally defines a refugee as someone who himself left a geographical area as of a certain time and had a certain status in that geographical area at the time he left. In contrast we have Palestinians claiming that if one of someone's 8 great grandfathers was present in Mandatory Palestine for any period of time under any circumstance then the person qualifies as a refugee. Defining what "Jerusalem" is no less complicated. And there's more on the list.

Defining the parameters while important, can be pretty monotonous. It can be boringly technical and thus a challenge for both media coverage and overt third party pressure.

It would take more than four months to resolve the above definitional issues even if there was 100% good faith negotiations between the parties.

Possibility B: Some idiot presents a working paper that, instead of discussing the definition of parameters actually presents Israel's opening positions. And "idiot" is a generous term. Because once the ball is in play everybody and his brother will present counter proposals. It doesn't take a crystal ball to predict this one. Various organizations are already putting their foreign funding to work in the preparation and promotion of counter proposals in media events and other actions planned to coincide with the talks.

So which will it be?

Will we be smart or stupid?

==============

Indirect talks will cover core issues
By TOVAH LAZAROFF, HILARY LEILA KRIEGER AND KHALED The Jerusalem Post
02/05/2010 02:49
www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=174450

Arab League endorses process; Mitchell returns early this week.

Israel has agreed to discuss all core issues, including Jerusalem and refugees, when the proximity talks begin this week, a government official told The Jerusalem Post on Saturday night.

(Continue to JPost article)

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.
.

How About a Proximity Speech?

Rick Richman
Contentions/Commentary
25 April '10

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas — currently in the 64th month of his 48-month term; unable since 2007 to set foot in half his putative state; rejecting in 2008 an offer of a state from the most pliant prime minister in Israeli history; unwilling throughout 2009 to consider negotiations without a pre-negotiation concession he knew no Israeli government could accept; currently considering a proposal for “proximity talks” (better described as nearby non-talks) to obviate the need to talk to Israelis — will be coming to the White House. He will probably get a better reception than Gordon Brown, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the Dalai Lama.

Yesterday Abbas gave a speech that undoubtedly previews the message he will bring:

“Mr. President (Barack Obama) and members of the American administration, since you believe in this (an independent Palestinian state), it is your duty to take steps toward a solution and to impose this solution,” Abbas said in a speech. …

“We’ve asked them (the Obama administration) more than once: ‘Impose a solution’,” Abbas said.

Jerusalem Post editor in chief David Horovitz has a more modest suggestion, writing that Abbas should give a speech comparable to the “two-state” address Netanyahu made last year — one that would indicate a Palestinian acceptance of a Jewish state:

Let Abbas speak in Arabic, to his own people — with his leadership colleagues on hand to publicly support and applaud him — and let him tell them that the Jews, too, have historic rights to Palestine. …

(Read full post)

Please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Abbas Gets a White House Visit

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
25 April '10

Fox News reports:

President Barack Obama’s Middle East envoy wrapped up his latest diplomatic mission Sunday without getting the Palestinians to agree to indirect peace talks with Israel, but there were signs the impasse could be broken soon.George Mitchell said he would return to the region next week, signaling he is making progress.

Palestinian officials said President Mahmoud Abbas plans to consult with Arab countries at the end of the week and could soon be heading to the White House for talks with Obama. Abbas needs to decide whether to engage with Israel, with Mitchell as a go-between, even though Israel has rejected his demands to freeze new construction for Jews in east Jerusalem, the Palestinians’ hoped-for capital.

A senior Palestinian official said Abbas was inclined to agree to the talks, in large part because of personal appeals in recent days from Obama, Mitchell and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was discussing internal Palestinian deliberations.

Wait. Abbas is meeting with Obama at the White House after the multiple snubs to Netanyahu? Yup. And it’s not hard to figure out why. The Obami are rewarding intransigence and bribing Abbas not to embarrass George Mitchell and crew by wrecking the proximity talks. Fox notes that the Obami hve been “trying to coax Abbas back to the table”:

(Read full post)

Please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.