Israeli and Palestinian leaders agree to 'peace within a year'
Israeli and Palestinian leaders to meet face-to-face fortnightly to try to get peace within a year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-meetings.html
Believe it when it happens. Would be amusing if Netanyahu was the one who got peace, but not entirely out of the realms of possibility. Certainly no holding of breath though. I like the idea of fortnightly face-to-face meetings between the two leaders though, but again I wouldn't expect them to continue for a year.
Even if they "get peace" for awhile, it'll just break again in short order. The situation is not resolvable without mass relocations or mass murder. Sorry, liquidation
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
*yawns* Nothing to see here, move along.
Seriously, even though I have no doubt Netanyahu is capable of carrying out a big peace deal (Begin did, after all, which means anyone can), this isn't going to amount to anything. Why?
1. Abbas is still Abbas. A very similar format was tried in the Annapolis process back under GWB and didn't get anywhere. The main reason what that Abbas' hands were tied - he has zero credibility with both his people at Israel. Can he do anything to stop terrorist attacks? No - not in Gaza, and not even in the West Bank, where his influence and money are concentrated. (e.g. the shooting attacks this week that left 4 Israelis dead and 2 wounded - they were particularly egregious this time in keeping with Hamas' desire to make a point, but things like this happen every week in the WB despite the 'relative calm' and 'security cooperation') Can he make any real concessions? No, or he'll look like an American patsy or worse, an Israeli pawn. Hell, even if Israel can forgive a few dead citizens in the name of peace, Abbas doesn't even have the political mojo to deal with building in some major settlement blocs without cutting off negotiations.
Absent a united Palestinian government under a real leader, nothing lasting can happen.
2. Netanyahu's coalition. I honestly believe Netanyahu is willing to settle with something similar to Barak's hints this week if he is guaranteed a peace (though it might help if his father were to give it his blessing or pass away - I know, it's awful but true). The basic outline Barak said is well known, and hews closely to Clinton's bridging proposal at Camp David: Israel annexes large settlement blocs and Jewish areas of E. Jerusalem and its suburbs. Palestinians get a demilitarized state and the rest of E. Jerusalem, and Israel evacuates the non-major settlements. The Old City has some sort of dual 'special arrangement' to keep everyone happy (not so unprecedented - the Waqf has had theoretically control over the Temple Mount for decades). Palestinian refugees get resettled in the new state of Palestine or Arab lands, effectively ending the 'right of return' mess, though possibly with some token Israeli renumeration or apology. Security arrangements might be a bit tricky (particularly some small IDF presence in the Jordan Valley, perhaps?), but doable. More open borders, democratic elections, the whole shebang.
I think Netanyahu can do it. But I don't think his coalition can. Avigdor Lieberman has been effectively excluded from the negotiations, despite the fact that he's the foreign minister, and his party is restive over the negotiations, settlement stuff, and some domestic politics dealing with a new conversion bill. Hardliners in Likud might try to splinter, though it seems like Netanyahu might have the balls to keep them in line. Lastly, Shas is always a wild card, though they and UTJ might be bought with domestic concessions. Even so, he needs Yisrael Beiteinu to keep a majority (the coalition has 74 seats; YB has 15). I don't see a way he can keep the coalition together, and I find it unlikely he'll be able to persuade Kadima to join. Begin had it much easier - his party had a commanding number of seats, and could pick and choose coalition partners.
3. Obama isn't cut out for this. He got seriously burned earlier when trying to deal with the Israelis, and I don't think he knows how to handle them any better now. The controversy over the settlement freeze got him a lot of black marks, and his parallel Cairo speech without any sort of reciprocal gesture to Israel (e.g. they snubbed Netanyahu on his last visit to the White House) was taken very poorly. There's a deftness required here - a combination of sweet talking and arm twisting - that Obama clearly hasn't mastered. He doesn't know how to pick his battles, and is likely going to get bruised in this one.
I'm not sure I have a handle on how he interacts with Abbas, though. That's a bit of a wild card. If he (or more likely, Mitchell) can forge a good relationship there and convince Abbas to stay in the negotiations and work towards their bridging proposal, they have a chance to at least avoid the rejectionism of Arafat. I'm a bit skeptical, though.
Perhaps more importantly - Netanyahu knows that Obama can be cowed if the Israelis push back hard enough. Does Obama have the domestic backing coming up to election season to place real pressure on the Israelis? I doubt it.
the second that happens you can expect lawsuits from Israelis demanding renumeration and apologies for their eviction and their lack of a right to return.Originally Posted by wiggin
This has been brought up, though to conflate the Palestinian issue with the Arab world is somewhat disingenuous. That being said, even in the Palestinian territories there are many sites that used to be Jewish villages/settlements that were depopulated by Arabs during the '47-49 war - most famous being Jerusalem and Gush Etzion. Nevertheless, that's why I said it would be 'token' - Israel has no interest in repatriating Palestinian refugees (especially since their numbers are dwindling in the original definition of refugee), and they have no interest in paying reparations when millions of Jews fleeing to Israel were stripped of all of their property. It is likely a bilateral 'oops, sorry about that' is the most likely we're going to see (possibly with some international assistance for resettlement of Palestinian refugees).
Wiggin, I think what you are overestimating is the resolve of the average Palestinian citizen.
I don't think there's any longer a feeling that if Abbas makes agreement with Israel he is seen as a pawn, as was the feeling before. Why? Because the Palestinians know he has no alternative.
They might hate Israel and/or the US, but any chance at serious armed fighting coming from either the West Bank or the Gaza Strip has been totally destroyed by perimeter fences, an extremely effective blockade, and the Israeli security agreement with Egypt*. The Palestinians have no bargaining chip whatsoever.
They are dirt poor because their own militants chose to fight the Israelis instead of to try to live together, those militants failed at their long-term objective, and they know it. They had a chance to elect a moderate government after Arafat died, and they, collectively, blew it: and they know it.
Given that the more "moderate" Palestinians have relocated to the West Bank, any Israeli concession given to Abbas will only raise confidence and/or popularity in him.
The flip side, however, is that any concession cannot include any sort of trust of the Palestinian people or security forces. (remember how the Abbas supporters fled Hamas-land and left the armored Israeli-donated APC to Hamas?)
What exists now is peace. What will exist if the Palestinians regain any sort of military equipment, or materials to make it, is not peace. The only road to a peace that is not enforced by Israeli perimeter fences, a blockade, 24/7 Israeli surveillance, snipers and tanks is a very careful partitioning program: partition Palestinian territories into hundreds of parcels, while electronic placing eyes and ears into every wall. Every few decades, each parcel, after careful observation, can be declared "clean" and combined into bigger parcels. Some parcels might not be declared "clean" so they will not be combined. Eventually the parcels will coalesce into two: the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Then, Israel can finally lift the curtain.
* Which was ironically put together only after Israel gave up most of the Sinai peninsula; ie: under threat that Israel would take it back in an instant if Egypt started neglecting its part of the deal -- not to mention the international aid reprecussions.
You're wrong. Palestinian public opinion is sharply divided on Fatah in general and Abbas in specific, and even among his supporters they're largely dubious. Furthermore, Hamas has an easy veto over the negotiations - the shootings this week in the WB are just the tip of the iceberg. I doubt regular suicide bombings are likely to restart any time soon since Israel has largely pacified the West Bank and Gaza is largely isolated. But that doesn't preclude a resumption of daily rocket attacks in the dozens, shooting attacks, stonings, IEDs, etc. Without effective control over the Palestinian people, Abbas is powerless.
You also have many of your facts wrong. The most important one, though, is describing the current situation as 'peace'. It is, perhaps, temporary stability - the conflict is 'managed' by Israel and the US. But it is not peace.
Furthermore, I would challenge your assertion that a viable Palestinian security force is likely to short-circuit the peace process. PA security forces have changed a lot from what they used to be 17 years ago, though they still have a long ways to go. In the West Bank, they have quite a bit of security cooperation with IDF forces and are generally becoming more competent. Certain cadres have been trained and equipped by the US in Jordan and approach a level of professionalism that might be useful. They are absolutely necessary in order to enforce PA rule on extremist elements who reject a peace agreement. They have been very useful already in amnesty programs with extremist factions of Fatah (e.g. Al-aqsa Martyr's Brigades) - while these programs are not without their controversy and issues, they do demonstrate the possibility of a peaceful resolution of terrorist groups without their liquidation.
The real issue with PA security forces is the leadership - they are heavily balkanized into little fiefdoms subject to the whims of the particular commander and his political connections. These have been partially resolved or dealt with in recent years (at least in the West Bank), but it is still a pressing issue.
Looks like peace, smells like peace, feels like peace. Just ignore the heavily militarized border and blockade, and it's peace.The most important one, though, is describing the current situation as 'peace'. It is, perhaps, temporary stability - the conflict is 'managed' by Israel and the US. But it is not peace.
By the media accounts, it seems that there's simply no ability to do that. Even if there was some small ability to do it, they know that if they try it then Israel would just blast the Palestinian territories not just back into stone age but into the dinosaur age, and that Israel has the resolve to do so.But that doesn't preclude a resumption of daily rocket attacks in the dozens, shooting attacks, stonings, IEDs, etc.
Under some circumstances -- those that exist now, it would.Furthermore, I would challenge your assertion that a viable Palestinian security force is likely to short-circuit the peace process. ...
What you mean is that the security forces are still loyal to no one in particular, and although theoretically they could be bought off by Israel or its agents, there's still no trust that they'll "do the right thing".The real issue with PA security forces is the leadership ...
It seems very similar to what happened in Iraq, though the Palestinian security forces seem to adapt much slower. The idea of Iraqi security forces is that they will swear their allegiance to the nation/constitution (and the well-being of its people), not to any one individual or group -- just like US police and other law enforcement swear to uphold the law and the constitution.
I think that there's a lack of such a mindset in Palestinian territories because the institutions and things that usually foster them -- schools, stable governments, constitutions, and fair, legitimate, & non-corrupt courts, are simply missing in "Palestinian society", "such that it is".
Except for the occasional mortar, sniper fire, near-daily stonings, and violent protests, you mean. Just because it's not reported on in the US media doesn't mean it doesn't happen.Looks like peace, smells like peace, feels like peace. Just ignore the heavily militarized border and blockade, and it's peace.
There is an element of deterrence against Hamas' rocket-launching, yes. That doesn't preclude the ability to project sustained rocket fire out of Gaza - even during Cast Lead back in January 2009, Hamas rockets didn't end until the de facto ceasefire. They weren't stopped by Israeli troops, just pushed back. And Hamas has shown a remarkable amount of intransigence when it comes to actually being deterred by damage to infrastructure.By the media accounts, it seems that there's simply no ability to do that. Even if there was some small ability to do it, they know that if they try it then Israel would just blast the Palestinian territories not just back into stone age but into the dinosaur age, and that Israel has the resolve to do so.
Is there any list of hot issues at the moment? Because 'peace in a year' sounds all very nice, but not realistic if the two parties are having to compromise on things they will not compromise on.
Congratulations America
I'm not sure what you mean by 'at the moment'. The issues haven't changed. In no particular order:
1. Palestinian statehood/self determination/occupation
2. Terrorist attacks/security
3. Settlements and settlers
4. Jerusalem
5. Israel as a Jewish state
6. 'Right of return' of Palestinian refugees
7. Borders
8. Access to holy places
Hot-button issues include all of those, though obviously the settlement freeze (ending later this month) is going to be a very big one. If Hamas has their way, terrorism will also be a major timely topic.
That's all too big. What I mean is more like where the latest buildings went up where they absolutely should/ should not have been built and where there are irreconcilable differences. If you talk about big things like 'access to holy places' there always is a compromise ready.
Congratulations America
As far as the current rhetoric goes on the PA side, every inch of land captured in 1967 upon which an Israeli resides is an 'irreconcilable difference'.
And I'm surprised you think there's a compromise ready for access to holy places. Even though it's under Israeli sovereignty, the Temple Mount has been off limits for non-Muslim prayer for 43 years - just imagine what it will be like under PA rule or a joint arrangement. Not to mention the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, Kever Rachel in Bethlehem, Church of the Nativity, yadda yadda yadda.
I'm going to be Prime Minister of Yeman within a year, too.
It's about as likely
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
My main worry about this (besides the likelihood of failure) is that Palestinian institutions in the West Bank have gotten a lot more professional and serious of late. The economy is doing relatively well, the government has become relatively less corrupt and the place is becoming relatively more normal.
These are the best circumstances within which to negotiate. But it also makes it hard to build-up momentum. I worry that the high chance of failure will also impede the positive progress on the ground that the Palestinians (and Israelis, by means of less people blowing themselves up in the streets) have earned.
Over 10 years ago (13?), I remember watching on the news a report about the Palestinian economy. They interviewed some sort of dot-com company and explained how the Palestinian economy was getting back up and running with the help of the internet.
And then, it all went to nothing.
Edit: I'm not saying the times are the same, but just a thought on how things can quickly change when there is no underlying stability or security.
Not sure I agree. The only reason peace will ultimately happen is when people have something to lose from fighting.
Peace in Ireland seemed as intractable as Palestine but eventually people just became fed-up with fighting. People could gain more through productive means than through corrupt fighting. I think that Palestine has more catching up to do, but the biggest problem is the Gaza Strip. Peace in the West Bank I could imagine, peace in Gaza not necessarily.
It's going to get very difficult to convince the PA or the Palestinian people to accept a 'separate peace' for the WB as opposed to the whole shebang. That being said, I honestly don't believe that the relative functioning of the WB economy and institutions are such are necessarily detriments to the negotiations. The PA now has at least some credibility that they can deal effectively with security and governance, at least on a limited scale. Furthermore, the cooperation between Israeli and WB Palestinian security services is really quite unprecedented right now. That's a very good foundation for building on the 'technical' aspects of negotiations. My real concern has to do with political matters and the PA leadership.
Exactly. I find it hard to believe that functional governance can be a negative. I'd view it as a necessary but not sufficient condition for peace.
The lack of proper governance over Gaza and the fact the PA's remit in practice if not in theory is limited are the two greater concerns. If the PA's governance was better (and Hamas's influence negligible) I'd find a peace settlement now more likely than not. So I think Dread has his concerns wrong, they're backwards.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote