16 Hours in September

[Ken Burch]

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/12/11/exclusive-details-on-mideast-peace-negotiations.html#

Washington’s decision to stop pushing Israel for a settlement freeze could well mean no direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians for months, even years; a stalemate is likely at least until Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reconfigures his coalition or leaves office in 2013. But would face-to-face talks between Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas have made a difference? Details NEWSWEEK has learned about three negotiating sessions the men held in September—16 hours of talks—suggest not.

The negotiations took place in Washington, Jerusalem, and Sharm al-Sheikh, Egypt—with more meetings between advisers. A Palestinian official involved in the talks and an Israeli source familiar with the details say the gaps were wide. The sources, who didn’t want to be named discussing private negotiations, say Netanyahu told the Palestinians they had to accept Israel’s “security concept” before he would discuss other issues, including borders.

The concept involved keeping Israeli troops stationed along territory on the Palestinian side of the barrier Israel has built in the West Bank to protect what Israel calls its “narrow waistline.” That strip would be several kilometers wide at some points, says the Palestinian negotiator, and run along much of the seam line. Also, to protect itself against the possible rise of a hostile Islamic state in Jordan, say both sources, Netanyahu insisted Israeli troops would remain posted in the Jordan Valley for years. Though Netanyahu didn’t present maps, Abbas and his negotiators calculated that Palestinians would be left with just 60 percent of the West Bank.

________________________________

Yeah, right...the problem is the "Palestinian leadership".

As if any OTHER country would accept those terms as part of a "peace" deal.

[Ken Burch]

1. I'm posting this, in part, because I believe it may help explain the "No Israeli presence" comments

made by Abbas that others have twisted into a false accusation that Fatah seeks a Judenrein Palestine. This article also supports the theory that Netanyahu made what he knew was an inflammatory and unacceptable demand on troop presence in part because he hoped in might provoke the Palestinian side into saying something that could be twisted in the way THAT comment has been twisted.

[azurnoir]

2. Fayyad stated that the Settlers could stay as Palestinian citizens

this is an excerpt from am interview that Tom Segev took with Fayyad published 12/22/10 in Newsweek, Segev's questions and comments are bolded, it is an informing read


You once stated that Israeli settlers can be Palestinian citizens. Do you still believe that? Yes, as equal citizens with equal rights.

But you know the settlers won’t agree to it. The Palestinian state will be open and based on full nondiscrimination on any basis whatsoever, whether religious, gender, ethnic, or whatever, respectful of the rights, aspirations, and concerns of others, where there is democracy and the rights of minorities are protected by a constitution.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/12/22/salam-fayyad-palestine-s-pm-on-building-a-state.html

[Ken Burch]

3. Well, he's probably right that they wouldn't agree to it.

After all, if they stayed in an indendent Palestinian state, they wouldn't have hegemony anymore-they wouldn't have the IDF backing them up as they stole land and olive trees. They'd have to live as equals with everyone else and lose the arrogance. The ideological settlers wouldn't be able to stand that.

The ones who were just there for the housing subsidies would probably leave as well, especially since those subsidies would vanish.

I think it is likely that descendants of the Mizrahi who were displaced in the 1948-1967 period would be allowed to return, since they would behave differently than the settlers.

Having said that, what is your view on the reasonableness of Netanyahu's "security concept"? Do you honestly think it was EVER going to be realistic to expect any Palestinian leadership to accept what would amount to a permanent IDF presence on Palestinian soil?

[azurnoir]

4. IMO Netanyahu's statement about IDF presence in the WB was just another 'showstopper'

The statement's and opinions of those supporting or justifying Netanyahu's statement were to be expected another part of the landscape in this 'war of words' that is going on

[Ken Burch]

5. I've also heard that Bibi is obsessed with not saying anything that his ancient and hardline dad

BenZion, would consider to be "too soft" on the Palestinians.

The old guy is 100 and still ranting on.

These quotes(in a 2009 interview the the man that is excerpted in his Wikipedia entry)give a pretty good view of his father's, well, REALLY scary wackjob perspective on the situation(Benzion's word's are the answers to the questions, and I've put them in boldface):



Benzion(answering an question not quoted in the Wikipedia entry): “The Jews and the Arabs are like two goats facing each other on a narrow bridge. One must jump to the river – but that involves a danger of death. The strong goat will make the weaker one jump… and I believe the Jewish power will prevail.”

Q: What does the Arabs' jump mean?

A: “That they won’t be able to face the war with us , which will include withholding food from Arab cities, preventing education, terminating electrical power and more. They won’t be able to exist, and they will run away from here. But it all depends on the war, and whether we will win the battles with them.”

* Q: I suppose you don't believe in the peace process.

A: "I don't see any signs that the Arabs want peace. We will face fierce attacks from the Arabs, and we must react firmly. If we don't, they will go on, and Jews will start leaving the country. We just handed them a strong blow in Gaza and they still bargain with us over one hostage. If we gave them a blow that would really hurt them, they would have given us Gilad Shalit back".

* Q: Operation Cast Lead was one of the worst blows we handed on a civilian population.

A: "That's not enough. Its possible that we should have hit harder".

* Q: You don’t like the Arabs, to say the least.

A: “The bible finds no worse image than this of the man from the desert. And why? Because he has no respect for any law. Because in the desert he can do as he pleases. The tendency towards conflict is in the essence of the Arab. He is an enemy by essence. His personality won’t allow him any compromise or agreement. It doesn’t matter what kind of resistance he will meet, what price he will pay. His existence is one of perpetuate war.”

Q: So what's the solution?

A: “No solution but force… strong military rule. Any outbreak will bring upon the Arabs enormous suffering. We shouldn’t wait for a big mutiny to start, but rather act immediately with great force to prevent them from going on…

If it’s possible, we should conquer any disputed territory in the land of Israel. Conquer and hold it, even if it brings us years of war. We should conquer Gaza, and parts of the Galil, and the Golan. This will bring upon us a bloody war, since war is difficult for us – we don’t have a lot of territory, while the Arabs have lots of space to retreat to. But that’s the only way to survive here.”

If you hear insanity like that everyday while you're growing up(as Bibi undoubtably did)it's going to do a MAJOR number on your head, wouldn't you agree?