ANALYSIS / PA fury over U.S. policy on settlements paid off

Abbas has rightfully turned down a farce. The only way in which Netanyahu has imposed unprecedented restrictions will be if he is telling the truth. Israel has promised to stop settlement expansion many times (e.g., Bush Roadmap), but has never done so. Even if he is telling the truth now, his supposed committment will allow massive construction to continue, much of which has been started in the last month or so, during this debate, to circumvent any restrictions. The Palestinian claim on all WB land is beyond reasonable question, as indicated by the fact that not one nation on earth recognizes any Israeli claim to this land (except Israel). That land may not be taken by war is one of the fundamental principles of the UN. SC Res 242 clearly states that Israel shall withdraw from lands taken during the 1967 war. Fellow lawyer, this is the equivalent of a judgment that has never been reversed or overruled. All israel has on its side is might, not law.

Clinton said: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements" Take out the word "continued" from her statement and see how drastically the position changes.

"The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," she said. But accepts the legitimacy of current Israeli settlements?

the United States are correct to support Israel. U.S politicians know it is political suicide to go hard on israel, so it is in their interest to keep the israeli government happy. But don't ask the Palestinians to join in on this travesty. Abbas is right, no negotiations until a freeze and no peace until a return to the 67 borders. the united states ought to apply pressure to the israelis to reach this goal before the next mandate OR support israel fully in their colonization of the west bank. There is no middle ground here. Stop wasting everyone's time!

Under Barak, Sharon, Olmert, Netanyahu, many words were spoken, amny agreements rerached.....,or so we all thought. But all the time under all these leaders of Israel, whatever they agreed to in regard to settlements, the settlements continued through new development, expansionism and permission for the zealots to set up their illegal outpiosts, many of which then grew into sanctioned settlements. Clinto surely is aware of this consistent pattern, so it is hard to believe that she has the slightest confidence in netanyahu in a conversation mentioning how heis government would "express a willingness to restrain settlement activity". The how, to whom, where and from when, are unanswered. One thing Clinto can be sure of is that bibi has more exemptions in mind than does Obama. Abbas knows that too well, from experience.

Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is not a precondition, but a subject which the Israelis would like to see recognised after negociation in a future peace treaty.

..I couldn't understand her much too positive response to Netanyahu's phony policy proposals. Good for her that she clarified her response. False tolerance for the rampant land grab by the settlers isn't helpful now. The US have to take a clear stance against this obstacle to any two state solution.

"Abbas has already given Israel most of what it wanted out of peace talks, that is, a cessation of terrorism." [Michael] Sorry Michael, but cessation of terrorism flows from the Separation Barrier, checkpoints, and measured retaliation. As long as these techniques are in place, things remain relatively calm. A few weeks back, checkpoints were relaxed, and bingo! wheelbarrows of rocks at Al Aqsa were unleashed in response to the rantings of some insane imam, who misjudged the gesture.

As I remarked in my Post re: Clinton and the Iranian Stand Off, this current American Administration with all Nobel Price Winner, the French, Sweedish Celebrity Status and the various make-up of its representatives: Like sending an Asian to deal with China's dismal commercial attitude, Sending to Africa Afro-American reps, all that is very good and admirable, but it does not cover for the luck of a comprehensive and GLOBAL American strategy. All we are left is with each her own and his own interpretation as to what the Reigning Monarch in White House's wishes. Its closer to Carter than its to Clinton or our "beloved" GH.W. Bush. And we still are not even talking about the ME, Afganistan, the Balkan, Turkey with its demands to partake for a ray in the Sunsine, Iran with its imperial ambition to the Turkish Lands.... And all you mentioning the PA, bravo, you got it. The King is Naked, throw all the "habits"..

One of the matters to be discussed at a peace negotiation was how far Israel was to return to '67 borders and what land swaps would be made. Now, apparently, Abbas has made it clear that ALL of the West Bank is to be returned and therefore no construction at all will be permitted. Abbas has also made it clear that the right of return for palestinian refugees - not to a new Palestinian state but to pre 67 is nonnegotiable and the Arabs will insist on that. So why is are negotiations necessary? Just have the Arabs list their demands and have Israel obey! But of course Israel - like it did in 1967 when the Arab states were about to attack and Israel was told to take the first blow did what it had ot in order to survive - will not give in to those that care little for the lives of its citizens.

The PLO rattled it's cage once again and it's care takers came to take a look and concluded that they needed a sedative.

Didn't Bibi drop the new pre-condition of adding "Jewish state" to the definition of Israel? Or what did he mean by no pre-conditions?

And frankly, they've lost patience w/ Abbas stalling and making pre talk demands that wont happen. If the Pals really wanted peace, you'd think that 61 years of trying might have included some measures for reason instead of empty demands that make the Pals eternal losers due to their refusal to recognize Israel and her right to exist in peace. Abbas makes it easy to dismiss him. no talks, no chance of peace, just what they wanted as their making far too much money in welfare from others who are tired of supporting terrorists who never learn. Best way to deal w/ Abbas, cut off the money.

It's hard for you to realize this (zionists KNOW Israel is always right in every situation), but it just might be that they want peace, just not on YOUR terms.

Why can't the world be as frank and insightful as Gideon Levy? Abbas has already given Israel most of what it wanted out of peace talks, that is, a cessation of terrorism. Normalization of relations with the Arab world is a big prize but one that the Israeli public and politicians have never had and therefore don't really understand the value of. In this situation Israel can see all the things it might lose from peace talks, and can't see much it will gain. It would be perfectly happy for the Occupation and Pal serfdom to continue forever, as long as there is no terrorism. In that context Israel will, as Gideon has pointed out need to be forced to make the concessions necessary for peace. 1000 lawyer Clintons talking out of both sides of their mouths won't achieve that.

Even with the Israeli exceptions, the settlement issue is part of the Roadmap that Israel agreed to. It's time for Israel to actually keep a bargain it made with George Bush.

Oh sure the Arabs were miffed with Hilary, but reality always seems to do that for them. So she changed her tune a little but the song remains the same. Abbas' "fury" paid off like a 16 year old teenage boy incensed that his parents won't let him use the car for a date. The only problem is the kid doesn't have a license and he doesn't have a girl to take on the date. If the Palestinians get real and accept that the Nation State of the Jewish People -Israel- is here to stay and most of the Jews living their lives in the territories aren't going anywhere, they could have a just peace and begin to have rich fulfilling lives living symbiotically with Israel in a New York minute. Or, they can keep on raging into the night achieving nothing while morons watching from afar are filled with glee.

"obama has singlehandily torpedoed the peace process!!"~chappa

but Abbas is turning his nose up at it. He has made a new demand and even gotten a positive Israeli response but still plays the downtrodden and offended hoping to get it all by sympathy what he can't get by negotiation. One may suspect that he knows that his legal position is weak, having no legal basis to obtain the land upon which the settlements exist.

Everyone is distracted by PA's insistence on preconditions. For WHAT?? Negotiations to create Gaza X10? I honestly can't see much point in this exercise until the PA rolls up its sleeves and commmits to something besides following its stated purpose - its insane charter of resistance. Until that happens there will be no prospect of state-building. An independent Palestinian state in its present form will do its one trick: resist, but with a vengeance this time, drunk on its hoped-for 'vistory'. The ball is not in Israel's court at all, it is more like an involved spectator in this melodrama.

If the United States does not accept the legitimacy of the settlement everything flow from there. No 'restraining', 'limiting', 'freezing' or other euphemisms for breaking the law. The settlement ought to be evacuated when all is said and done. But freezing it must be before negotiations take place, otherwise it is a mockery and a slap in the face of the Palestinians.

Big deal. The Secretary of State says a few words here or there. It changes nothing. The truth is the Palestinians do not want Peace with Israel. This is the heart of the conflict. The Americans should not be wasting their time on this. They should be dealing with Iran.

That's the reason why: the foreign policy towards israel to permanently criticize us. The UN administration became a huge officin of the HRC.

What does "allow no new construction, or approvals" means in Bibi-speak? Does it allow: - continuation of now ongoing projects, many just started in the last few months in a massive effort to create a form of "ongoing facts on the ground" before this agreement? - ongoing construction in which minimal work has been done, perhaps even the laying of a single brick? - major construction barely begun in small areas meant to cover large areas, for which land has already been expropriated? In Bibi-speak, all of the above and more will arise as exceptions. He's been preparing for this for months. Many new construction projects have been started in just the last few weeks. He has promised nothing that will interfere with a rigorous construction program throughout the WB. He very carefully avoids categorical obligations such as settlement freeze so he can explot loop-holes. The settlements will continue to expand under this formula.

... nothing has happened on-the-ground... ... except occasional increase of semi-cladestine activity...

When I read Clinton's statement, I concluded that Obama had completely sold out to the Israelis, become just another us-president-Israeli lapdog. I'm not yet convinced that this is not the case, but I have hope again. Now it seems Clinton just screwed up. I thought she was sharper than that. Or maybe she took Israeli language seriously and forgot that srael has agreed to stop expaning settlements many times but has never done so. The US needsa a categorical freeze on settlment construction, the Israelis have no reasonable excuse to refuse it and the Palestinians deserve it. The pledge here has a lot of holes, all of which will be massively exploited by Israel in a way that maintains de facto settlement expansion.

Since our politicians apparently lack any independent sense of moral direction, they will respond to whoever puts the most pressure on them. It would seem that the Israelis don't have a monopoly on the ability to apply it. As to Clinton in particular, her main concern seems to be that she emerge as 'Israel's friend' in 2012/2016. She could care less about what's actually right, constructive, or even practical. So she makes her ridiculous statement and then backtracks. So what? She's still 'Israel's friend.'

The seriousness of all US foreign policy was called into question on Sunday when Clinton appeared to pull a 180 on decades of US foreign policy - and with no advance hint to anybody. Iran and North Korea have called for more negotiations when issues may have seemed settled. And the Foreign Ministers on Morocco likely gave her more than an ear full, especially after Obama's overtures to the Arab and Muslim world. It's not just the Palestinians who were taken by surprise on Sunday. And the White House probably heard from lots of people about the Clinton gaff.

My neighbor Hilary is trying to mend fences. I like her but she seems to be talking out of both sides of her mouth. She is covering up for her boss(no not Bill). Who, unfortunately spoke to soon and firmly about a settlement freeze. Now their both backpedaling and losing face in both the Arab and Israeli world. It seems the old adage is true, leave domestic policy to the Democrats and foreign policy to the Republicans. Obama has singlehandily torpedoed the peace process!!

Obama's desire to go slow on Israel is understandable, but Abbas is unwilling and unable to pick the tab.

Hillary fell over herself in spinning the USA's cravel surrender to Netanyahu on settlements. That's what politicians do when they are forced to eat a Shit Sandwich i.e. they spin the story in an attempt to show that they are really eating a delicious entree. However, someone must have taken her aside and pointed out just exactly what her spin means in DIPLOMATIC (rather than political) terms. At which point her face would have turned white as she realized her shit has just hit the fan. No wonder she is trying to back-pedal. Hard to do, of course, when you have your foot firmly shoved in your mouth.....