Blame game on the horizon
Abbas is no Arafat; once this becomes apparent to all, the finger-pointing-fest will begin.
By Moshe ArensThis time it's not going to be deja vu. The negotiations between Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas, promoted and orchestrated by Barack Obama, will not be anything like the negotiations that took place during sixteen years, successively, between Yitzhak Rabin, Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, on the Israeli side, and Yasser Arafat. Arafat had the support of almost all Palestinians, and had every right to represent them.
 |
Arafat had the power to reach a peace agreement with Israel, but that was not his goal. |
| Photo by: Eyal Warshavsky / BauBau |
But no less important, Arafat had the power to enforce any agreements that he made. There was only the question of whether he truly was seeking to arrive at a peace agreement with Israel. By now, thanks to the concessions egregiously offered by Barak at Camp David 10 years ago, concessions that were rejected by Arafat, we know that although he had the power to reach a peace agreement with Israel, that was not his goal.
With Mahmoud Abbas, it is an entirely different story. He does not have the backing of all Palestinians, not even of most of them. As far as Hamas is concerned, he has no right to represent the Palestinians in the upcoming negotiations. Even in Judea and Samaria, the extent of the support he enjoys among Palestinians is questionable. But most important, he does not have the authority to carry out any agreement he might arrive at with Netanyahu. He is fully aware of this, and that is probably the explanation for his reluctance to enter the negotiations, to which he has been dragged, kicking and screaming every inch of the way, by the president of the United States.
The Palestinians know this. The Israelis, who know the Palestinian scene well, understand this. It is hard to believe that the Americans do not know this. Maybe Obama thinks that money will be the answer - that enough financial support for Abbas will eventually provide him with both the legitimacy and authority he lacks.
Money already fills the pockets of the Palestinians in Abbas' court, but it is no substitute for the support that he does not have among his people. Arafat could have made peace with Israel, but he did not want to. Abbas may or might not want to conclude a peace with Israel, but he cannot.
So what is happening here? Is this an oriental version of "The Emperor's New Clothes"? How far will these negotiations proceed before someone declares that "the emperor is naked!"? Actually, it seems pretty clear that before that occurs, the negotiations will turn into a blame game. No one will want to accept the blame for the talks' failure. Everyone will try to lay the blame at someone else's door. And it won't be a children's game. Getting stuck with the blame for the failure of such highly advertised negotiations can have serious political consequences.
Should Obama end up with the blame, it would be a blow just at a time when his popularity is in decline. To top off a series of mistaken moves vis-a-vis the Middle East with negotiations that he in effect forced on the participants, which in turn led to no more than anger and frustration, could be seen as a serious error of judgment on his part.
Abbas was advised by many Palestinians not to enter these negotiations. The American largesse and American pressure that have brought him to the negotiating table have made him look like an American puppet. And a failure at that same table is not going to improve his stature in the eyes of his people.
As for Netanyahu, his critics are only waiting to pounce on him and accuse of him of never having been sincere in his talk about reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians. His coalition may get shaken up a bit. And those throughout the world who engage in Israel-bashing will find in a failure of the talks grist for the mill.
Making sure they don't get stuck with the blame for the failure and coming out ahead in the "blame game" may be the primary goal of the participants in the negotiations. It looks like, in addition to the preparations for the negotiations that are presently under way in Jerusalem, serious thought must be given to the tactics to be employed in the "blame game" that, no doubt, will accompany every step of the negotiations. As Netanyahu assembles his team for the Washington talks, he might do worse than to ask Prof. Robert Aumann, Israel's world renowned expert in game theory, to join the team.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
Regerdless of the reasons Obama has to pursure such an illegitimate peace, it remains a very stupid move on his part. He deserves all of the responsibility for their certain failure. I will work harder against Obama than I did for him at the last election. There are many more people with the same thoughts.
Does Arens believe Israel wanted a peace deal and Arafat did not? Then why did Israel double the settler population during negotations? This guy is either clueless or dishonest...take your pick.
President Obama threw himself into the rink and gambled his entire political capital in making the upcoming direct negotiations result in a historic success. Mr, President, you heard the gentlemen, let them agree to disagree, give them what they need and tell them what to do. They would know exactly how to explain it to their people\ http://bit.ly/a4oFLs
But Bibi is still Bibi.
Arens cannot give up control on anything he has acquired. To wit: 1. Arens voted against peace with Egypt (1979). Why give up Sinai? 2. Arens voted (1985) against Peres' withdrawal from Lebanon (up to the security strip), years after all the Israeli goals of the war were achieved. 3. Arens was against Barak's withdrawal from Lebanon (2000). Arens is no analyst but a standing clock who always has the same message. His only contribution is to come up with new excuses for his opinions. Yes, Abbas has weaknesses, but also some strengths. Of course, that does not fit with Arens' fixed views, so don't expect to hear it from him.
There is no way Obama will be reelected. All we can do is hold on until then and try to minimize the number of people killed in the third intifada which will be the inevitable result of these "negotiations".
political leaders have way too much to loose, i think the only people who do not want peace are the ones in the direct talks....
The Blame Game and the purpose of the talks is a good question. I have been asking the purpose of negotiating with Abbas since he can not commit to anyuthing. The question has not only not been not answered but it has never been acknowledged.
I think you are manepulating your your words here to suit your people arafat was offered 60% of whats left of the west bank .Abbas if he has no support he can take it to the people let them vote very imple solution
Robert Malley wrote in the NY Review of Books about his experience at Camp David and how the Americans and Israelis also played a part in Camp David's failure and there was no generous offer. Clayton Swisher wrote in his book The Truth About Camp David explains just how messed up the whole process was and that there was no "generous offer" from Barak. Allison Weir from ifamericaknew.org wrote about how the Taba negotions are ignored and explains how Israel wanted to chop the West Bank up into small cantons. Uri Avnery of Gush Shalom and even the more pro-Israel Ami Issarof from Mideastweb.org say that the Barak's offer was to chop the West Bank into pieces. Barak 's recent admittance that he never believe Arafat would make a deal gives credence to Malley's opinion that Barak wanted to unmask Arafat. Spending more time on trying to discredit someone doesn't sound like a true peace partner. Maybe Abbas is not dumb enough to get set up by the Israelis.
Then why didn't you negotiate with him, when you were Minister of Defense in the Shamir government? Why did you refuse to recognize the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people?
At some point during the negotiations, some settler will make a small addition to, or fix, his home. At that point Abbas will throw a hissy fit and walk out, blaming Israel.
it is the surest way toward failure . Of course , as in any other situations , Israel will be squarely blamed regardless of the above reality . Only generational changes over many years can produce any tangible results in this complicated part of the world .
This is getting old. Obviously, no one will do for you.
There is one thing i remember. Yitzhak Rabin made some great steps towards peace. He was close to a solution. Then sth happened and ruined it all. What is it? An Israeli terrorist (not a Palestinian) assassinated Rabin.
At camp David Israel offered all of Gaza 96% of WB + Israeli land for the 4%, capital in East Jerusalem for the Arabs and Arafat refused. At least Israeli leaders showed courage and died for peace. Arab leaders do not have the courage to do the same for peace.
Rabin was no closer to peace making than Abbas & Bibi. He was killed before he had to make any hard choices. He was giving away towns like Jericho and other concessions that were not hard to sell to anybody. Also at the time of his death the peace camp was at its peak with everybody full of hope and ideals Rabin never dealt with any hard issues and if he had lived he would have eventually retired probably without a deal because he would have had to deal with the difficult issues and he would have been another one of the PMs who tried but failed. Peres, Bibi ( first time ), Barak, Sharon, Olmert all tried ( even Sharon ) and all failed and had he lived Rabin would have probably been just another name on that list. This issue cannot be compared to Begin in 1979. That was mostly about Egypt all Sadat was really after territory wise was Sinai and he was able to speak for all Egyptians. Jimmy Carter wanted to make it about palestinians as well but then realized it was to hard so he dropped that got the Israel Egypt. Palestinians we are talking about a state, alot of settlements, Jerusalem, so called refugees and we are not dealing with a single strong central government we are instead dealing with a lots of terrorist groups and politicians all with their own agendas.
The calls for a milion marters on Jerusalem, the second intifada, etc. etc. A very selective memory. PS: I am very much for peace, just not blindness.
Is that good or bad?
"As far as Hamas is concerned, he has no right to represent the Palestinians in the upcoming negotiations." It's not just Hamas. Most Palestinians don't want Abbas to represent them anywhere! He was elected and his term has expired long time ago. His dictatorial talents and his suspicious behavior has cost him dearly when it comes to trust. He never bothered to take the court's decision on the separation wall to the security councel. His decision to pull out of the vote on the Goldstone report, and his latest oppression of opposition rallies speak volumes about his unholy alliances. Add to this the financial corruption that is wide-spread throughout the PA and the money that seems to go straight to his, and his cohorts', pockets while some poor Palestinian people can't find food to eat! Abbas is no good and he knows it! I wouldn't hire him as a taxi driver let alone as president. He's simply a puppet that will soon disappear in the trash bins of Palestine!
And what is to goal?
Agree with you 100%... And I would add that Abbas is a corrupt traitor and collaborator as well
And was Arafat any better.His own people say that he stole over Four Billion Shkls,& transferred it all to Suha.. Can you extract food from a hungry tiger ? Same with Suha.. The PA authorities won't see a single sou.
HIH ?
Netanyahu neither has no tacit approval of his coalition nor of his electorate to agree to anything. So your decision to hang the failure on Abbas' lack of anything is truly hypocritical for the same reasons and excuses are branded inside Israel against Netanyahu. So please spare us the demagoguery for it is unbecoming of a learned individual such as you.
America had to wait for 8 years to have a president who was willing to pressure both sides. Abbas had to wait for Hamas to be isolated, as it currently is. Israel, while not governed by the most peace-friendly regime, has a history of making real compromises only under Right-Wing leadership, i.e. Begin-Sadaat, Ariel Sharon-Gaza, etc. If we can't get something concrete done here now, I don't know when the next opportunity will come.
Start with the formation of the modern Jewish State, it has all the elements necessary .... Independent Sovereign Statehood can only be declared by a non-political body. For example, the Jewish People's Council, (representing the world's Jewish population, be they in the region or not) ... Independent Sovereign Statehood can only be declared if the declaring entity has sole control over all of the territories to be declared. Which is why the Declaration of a Jewish State came into effect at "..one minute after six o'clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time" AFTER the British Mandate (occupation) ended. ... BTW by 14th May 1948, Jewish forces under Plan Dalet, were already in control of territories OUTSIDE of Israel, making it impossible for a declaration of Independent Sovereignty on behalf of the new Arab State) .... Whatever the negotiations bring, Israel will HAVE to end occupation in all the Palestinian territories not GIVEN to Israel, BEFORE the Palestinian declaration becomes effective ... Only after the Palestinians declare a state can a Palestinian State Government be formed (a state must come first) .... Israel is already a Sovereign State. It will HAVE TO legally annex any territories gained in negotiations, BILATERALLY, i.e., with the consent of the Palestinians.
Arabs could have accepted partition in 1947 and they would have had a normal state. They decided to reject and following that decision, they launched a civil war with the assistance of full equipped Arab armies that threaten to invade and squeeze the projected new state of Israel. The Daleth plan was a defensive plan and the war of 1948 was the heroic resistance of the jewish comminity to the threat of extermination. In present times if there is agreement between the parts a Palestinian state could be created before Israel withdrowal. Moreover, it could even be reached an agreement between the parts that an Israel military presence/or a international force will be maintained in the newly Palestine state for a period of time. The palestinian never wanted a state and dont want it now. We know that because they never accepted it when proposed it to them. What it is most likely is that the palestinians want the end of the jewish state rather than a state of themselves..
Arabs could have accepted partition in 1947 and they would have had a normal state. They decided to reject and following that decision, they launched a civil war with the assistance of full equipped Arab armies that threaten to invade and squeeze the projected new state of Israel. The Daleth plan was a defensive plan and the war of 1948 was the heroic resistance of the jewish comminity to the threat of extermination. In present times if there is agreement between the parts a Palestinian state could be created before Israel withdrowal. Moreover Israel should not end his presence in Judea and Samaria if a sovereign Palestinian state is NOT CREATED by bilateral negotiations. There are reasons to believe that the palestinians never wanted a state and dont want it now. We know that because they never accepted it when proposed it to them. What it is most likely is that the palestinians want the end of the jewish state rather than a state of themselves.
the piece of land between Jordan and the Med. We have just had the Ghedaffi circus in town here in Italy,he embarrassed the Italian government by saying that Islam is the religion for Europe and he wants the Europeans to give him 5 billion dollars a year to keep the illegal African immigrants out of europe.He had an Italian agency hire 500 girls so that he could preach Islam,not all turned up.
All you do is steal land and settle. Not on our land though, and not for ever. Only a matter of time luvyyyyyyyyyyy
Now you know with what clowns Israel is dealing !?. All are the same. They only change their clothes & make-up !
No permanent two state-solution will come so long Obama’s current policy towards palestinians is one of exploitation. The majority of palestinian and arab people ask Abbas to save the last drop of dignity . He must insist upon our justified rights , otherwise an open Intefadha must be declared which will unite all ME -resistance movements against israel and its supporters.
I hope Abbas doesnt know about Arafat's intent . Arafat was questioned upon receiving the Nobel peace prize: -Do you feel sometimes that you made a mistake in agreeing to Oslo? Arafat: No... no. Allah's messenger Mohammad accepted the al-Hudaibiya peace treaty and Salah a-Din accepted the peace agreement with Richard the Lion-Hearted." (Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat in a newspaper interview.) What Yasser Arafat was referring to is the permission by Allah to break treaties and agreements made with any enemy since the ten-year pact was broken by Muhammad within two years, when the Islamic forces, having strengthened during the cease-fire, conquered the Koreish. Salah a-Din was a Muslim leader who, after a cease-fire, declared a jihad against the Crusaders and captured Jerusalem. This is the idea and the plan behind the peace accord with Israel the enemy of Allah. On Changing the PLO Covenant, which calls for the total destruction of Israel: "We have no intention of changing or nullifying the Covenant, rather, we will adhere to it until our last breath since it embodies the essence of our demands." --- Tayseer Qaba, deputy chairman of the PLO's Palestine National Council (A-Nahar, 19 September 1995, page 16) "Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Palestine whether someone likes it or not, and whoever does not like it, let him drink from the sea of Gaza." --- P.L.O. Chairman Yasser Arafat, in a speech given at a party to celebrate the birth of his daughter (Palestine Broadcasting Corporation, 6 August 1995)
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22whoever+does+not+like+it%2C+let+him+drink+from+the+sea+of+Gaza%22 The only actual source is ... courtesy of MEMRI. Their translation has not been corroborated ANYWHERE.
Abbas is not Arafat and Netanyahu is not Rabin...!USA and Israeli leaders know very well who is who and this is the cause why they don't agree to open any dialogue with HAMAS which in fact represents the great majority of palestinian people and is able for serious negotiations leading to a final and permanent peace.
"state" WITHOUT water resources, free movement, contact with external world, contact between separate "bantustans", possibility of defense. He had no other option, than go away from "negotiations". Because, in "Camp David", it was no negotiations, but only dictate of USA and Israel. Arafat was old and complicated man, but he was proud as well - that´s why he had so big support among Palestinians and that´s why he was so hated from USA and Israel.
Arafat was offered almost all of what he demanded but wasn't leader enough to bring his people along. An honest look at the maps and the resources issues would show your bantustan comment is nonsense. Arafat apologists like Jane need to grasp at something to explain why Arafat blew a great opportunity. And let's be honest that "pride" is a poor reason to blow a peace deal. Especially since "pride" is the usual excuse cowards offer to avoid what they know they should do.
There were no maps presented at Camp David. The only parameters were Clintons and these were dictadet to him by Barak.
The whole world is in illusion. Many believe that negotiations would end the conflict between Israel and Arabs. Reality is simply different and that is the obvious fact that everyone loves to ignore. Rgeardless of any peace agreement, past or future, this question is inherently about Islam vs the Western Imperialism. Both cannot survive and one must vankish and eliminate the other, period. Arafat, Abbas, Sadat, etc. are nothing but small players that have played with the devils and lost. History would rank them ungloriously. Obama like many others is trying, like many before him, to ignore big and trivial facts and would be doomed. He should remember the legacies of his prdecessors, like Carter, Clinton, etc.
must be vanquished and eliminated! ther will be no peace until it is !!!!
It seems someone forgot Arafat couldn't sign the peace agreement with Barak because in the "concessions egregiously offered by Barak at Camp David 10 years ago" it wasn't included the right to return for Palestinians. Someone could say this is not important, but it is. Try to think to a Palestinian who could claim ownership for half the land on which Ben Gurion Airport has been built and then tell me if it's not important....
Given the hubris of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and the support he enjoys from the Obama administration, I am surprised the Israeli settlement freeze was not extended to Tel Aviv and Haifa If Mr. Abbas is really interested in achieving a viable Palestinian Arab state, he has to be willing to move from the disastrous stance of the late Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat to a realization that his bargaining position becomes weaker every day that he fails to curb extremism - and will be weaker still when Israeli construction bans are lifted. If Mr. Abbas thinks threats of a new intifada will work, he is mistaken. Force will be met by force that will again completely derail the peace process.
You don't even know what is Sovereign to Israel do you. http://wp.me/pDB7k-tM
sovereign israel was set down at san remo in 1920 it is still extant!
As for a sovereign Israel in the mandate, care to cite the article.....thx....meanwhile... Article 7 The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
I appreciate Arens viewpoint, he always has a unique perspective that is refreshing in Israel. Thank you Moshe for this article that clearly shows the root of the problem of peace negotiations and why it wont work!
Who does Moshe Arens want as Palestinian negotiator? The PA cannot have elections without Israeli consent and guarantees of the outcome. That was proven in 2006 when Israel & Bush annulled the results. So who would Arens want to have at the other side of the table, Shas? or Labour? or Kadima? Abbas is what is left for the Palestinians. Fortunately, there will be a plebiscite for the ratification of any agreement reached. So any agreement just has to be such that the Palestinian people will approve. What is unclear is how Israelis will ratify, unless the treaty specifies that too.
ther are no palestine people . none in 1948 none in 1967 none in 1973 none in 1979 none in 1995 there are only arabs of the ottoman empire who werent palestinians for 500 years before then !
Whatever you call them, they aren't going to disappear. Your desires are not going to make that happen. So deal with that or never get peace. Are you happy with status quo? Would you be happier with double the taxes to pay for all the costs of their government?
"ther are no palestine people . none in 1948 none in ..." So why is it that in 1992 the UN established a Mandate for Palestine? Did they invent the new name? See Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine "The British Mandate for Palestine, also known as the Palestine Mandate and the British Mandate of Palestine, was a legal commission for the administration of Palestine, the draft of which was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 and which came into effect on 26 September 1923." Your denial of the existance of the Palestinian people does not make them non-existant - just like denying the Holocaust does not erase it from history.
the jewish state was set down in san remo in 1920. the name palestina comes from a roman colony set up in 137 ad. no muslim ever called the land palestina or palestine it is a christian invention to name judea and samaria paaaaalestine although jesus never ever knew palestine !
golda maeir said that once and she eventually had to eat her words mr. warpedman
aziz do tell us all how many arabs had mandate palestinian birth ceritificates? the term at that time was reserved for jews living in the mandate .
Get this concept through your skull: Israel is the OCCUPIER, not the SOVEREIGN. Therefore nothing that Barak "offered" to Arafat actually involved a "concession" on the part of Israel. The concept is actually easy to understand, even for a zionist: if property comes into your possession because you SEIZED it then you *can* *not* claim it for yourself. That means that insisting that you simply must be allowed to keep *this* bit and *that* part is not a "concession", it is a "demand". Your arrogance makes you think that because you seized this territory then it belongs to you, and so "offering" to hand it over is a massive concession on your part. You. Are. Wrong.
hence, any agreement that israel makes, will involve concessions. the territory is undoubtedly disputed. were it not disputed, we would not need negotiations.
havent you known the game of the past? if you live with the islamic calendar, we are still in the age of conquering to own.. they just happen to be weaker this time.. whatever happened to the christian lands of north africa? are they not muslims lands now? how did they do it?
According to International Law, that dispute is nulll and void since the area behind the Green Line is Palestinian. It is occupied by Israel and she intends to keep it through lies, games and profound injustice. Dispute is your justification for the enormous injustice and immoral conduct of Israel and Israeli policies.
Even if you insist (incorrectly) that there was no "prior sovereign" your rebuttal is immaterial. IT WASN'T ISRAEL'S WHEN IT WAS SEIZED, therefore Israel can not claim sovereignty over it by dint of seizing it. CJK: "the territory is undoubtedly disputed" Nooooo, it indisputably isn't. The Partition Plan very clearly spells out how state succession is to take place in THIS territory i.e. THIS territory is to become part of the "Arab state". That Israel wants to "dispute" that is about as relevant as Iraq "disputing" wether or not Kuwait is a sovereign state or a province of Iraq.
Non-state entities, such as Palestine are not obliged to declare Independent Sovereign Statehood. (Look up the word INDEPENDENT) Nor could they May 14th 1948, because Jewish forces inherited by Israel the moment it declared, were already in control of territories slated for the Arab State. (OUTSIDE of the newly Declared State of Israel) ... What was a civil war preempted by Jewish forces under Plan Dalet in the months preceding Israel's Declaration, became a war between a State and the non-state entity of Palestine. (what remained of Palestine after Israel was Declared Independent of Palestine) .... As such, under the UN Charter, the Arab States, as regional powers had every right, if not a duty, to protect the territories of the non-state entity of Palestine from Israel. Which is why there is no UNSC resolution against the 'Invasion of Palestine' http://wp.me/pDB7k-ki
http://wp.me/pDB7k-tM
Israel's Supreme Court has ruled more than once that the Territories are under "belligerent occupation" by Israel and not "disputed."
Arabs could have accepted partition in 1947 and they would have had a normal state. They decided to reject and following that decision, they launched a civil war with the assistance of full equipped Arab armies that threaten to invade and squeeze the projected new state of Israel. The Daleth plan was a defensive plan and the war of 1948 was the heroic resistance of the jewish comminity to the threat of extermination. In present times if there is agreement between the parts a Palestinian state could be created before Israel withdrowal. Moreover Israel should not end his presence in Judea and Samaria if a sovereign Palestinian state is NOT CREATED by bilateral negotiations. There are reasons to believe that the palestinians never wanted a state and dont want it now. We know that because they never accepted it when proposed it to them. What it is most likely is that the palestinians want the end of the jewish state rather than a state of themselves.
it means the lands are not owned by any sovereign state other than the occupier
No, your definition is not correct. A simple definition is "Belligerent military occupation occurs when the control and authority over a territory passes to a hostile army." If you Google "belligerent occupation" you will find many discussions of what it means in legal terms. (For what it's worth, I support Israel's occupation of the West Bank.)
What are negotiations for? What are we debating if not about Israel withdrawal from "territories" not "the territories". If Israel was illegally occupaying ..then there is no need for negotiations about territory. It might be said that Israel settlements are illegitimate. However, the term illegitimate and illegal are different concepts as everybody knows. In any case, the conquest of Judea and Samaria is not similar to the conquest of Kuwait by Iraq. That is NONSENSE, and the world reaction to these two types of conquests is and has been quite different. Iraq was kicked out of Kuwait by America and the International Community. Regarding the West Bank the International Community and America are suggesting Israel that for the sake of peace it should withdraw. That is a very different thing. I accept that suggestion and would add...for the sake of the Jewish state Israel should do its best to withdraw. However, Israel does not owe the palestinians anything, indeed.
"plans" by the general assembly are not legally binding. at this point, the dispute is purely political, just as the dispute over kashmir is political.
war. It became a war by a State, against a non-state entity the moment Israel declared and inherited Jewish forces OUTSIDE of Israel's newly declared Sovereignty. .... The Arab states were not obliged to accept UNGA res 181 ... They did not supply full equipped Arab armies" to the Palestinians until AFTER declaration, when the civil war, which had been raging for some 30 years prior to 1947 At wars end, 1949/50, warring states are obliged to withdraw to their sovereign territories PRIOR to peaceful relations resuming. Read the Israeli Egypt Peace Agreement. If not withdraw or sign a peace agreement they must either LEGALLY annex or be the occupying power. The occupying power has obligations that Israel has failed to keep and it has NEVER legally annexed ANY territory.
"Iraq was kicked out of Kuwait" by the International Community because the US did not veto the resolution. Israel has dissed some 223 UNSC resolutions calling for pacific solutions. Only action has been avoided by the US veto vote. The laws and Israel's breaches still stand. "However, Israel does not owe the palestinians anything" Israel is illegally claiming some 50% of the Palestinians rightful territories. Territories it has never legally annexed.
possible success has nothing to do with these forced negotiations. iran and obama are the major players. obama came to power with a single minded obsession to settle this conflict and to give the palestinians a state. in this, he is supported by many members of the foreign policy establishment who wrongly are convinced that solving this conflict would solve the problem of islamic terror. the threat from iran has wrongly convinced many in the arab world that solving this conflict would lessen the threat from iran. hence, abbas has been pushed to negotiate. netanyahu has been threatened and cajoled with important weapons deals. faced with the iran threat, he could not decline. under these circumstances, the negotiations will most likely fail.
Get this plan finished and demonstrate to the Palestinians that the agreement can work and then maybe you can get bulldozing surplus settlements and pay some of the back rents due, and then maybe you can get your war with Iran Step 1 - Free the Palestinians then Step 2 - take over Iran's government. You can use IDF troops from Step 1 to deploy on Step 2.
Obama has been sold the lie that the conflict is a Palestinian/Israel conflict and not an Arab/Israeli conflict. In truth it is a conflict between 6 million Israeli Jews against 120 million Muslims. The fact that Israel has survived and has accomplished so much in its short modern history should be praised by Obama. Instead he chooses to forget that the 100+ million Arabs wagged multiple wars on a small country. Now he wants to punish Israel for defying the odds. Obama is too caught up in the struggle that black US citizens are going through. The blacks in the US attacked no one. The same cannot be said of the 100 million Muslims.
What nonsense. Arafat didn't want peace, didn't accept concessions? What has stalled the process for years is the power swings in the Knesset. Arafat didn't capitulate is what you mean , yes? The stalling is a ploy to grab as much of the West Bank as possible then Israel can claim the dangers to national security from the inside!
and you've really neglected to mention the Quartet's importance in their support for a comprehensive resolution to the Middle East conflict. It's not about this leader, or that party, or this group, or the past agreements - it's about global peace and unexpected threats as well. It's imperative that the Israelis and the Palestinians come to an arrangement for two viable states alongside one another, and recognizing that both people need their own homelands. It's not really complicated as Mr. Arens suggests if there's a will to resolve the conflict and not all of us believe in eternal conflict. PM Netanyahu has come to the realization and hopefully other members of his coalition will support his commitment to peace.
there is no conflict ! never has been a conflict !
Every Palestinian poll I've seen shows Fateh with about a 2/1 margin over Hamas, the only other organization of any substance. Polls also show him with more support than any other viable(and available), candidate; Fateh OR Hamas. What he doesn't have maybe, is the mandate given by the elections that have been postponed, but even then, without Hamas participation there'd still be those questioning his mandate. But "support" in general, he DOES have, with well over 50% fully in favor of 2 states, and over 60% favoring talks - although opinions split over direct or indirect. And what I personally find very interesting, is that - although numbers are high for Fateh and Abbas/Fayyad in both territories - the numbers from Gaza have been consistently higher - indicating a stronger dissatisfaction with Hamas. Any way you look at it, if Abbas can secure a peace that guarantees the viable state along the borders he(and the international community), envision...there's very little question that it'll be supported by a Palestinian majority. And the way to get around Hamas is to finalize it by referendum vote - which no doubt will be done in Israel - in both Gaza and the WB. Hamas would be committing political suicide if it refused, and what support it has would plummet.