Palestinians More Willing Than Israelis To Accept Obama's Guidelines For Talks

[shaayecanaan]

Putting the onus on the Israeli side, a senior Obama adviser told Jewish leaders on Friday that the U.S. would like to see Israel re-enter peace talks based on parameters recently set forward by President Obama.

Steve Simon, senior director for Middle East and North Africa at the National Security Council, indicated in a conference call with leaders of Jewish organizations that the response so far from the Palestinian side has been more positive than from the Israelis.

“The Palestinians have been fairly forthcoming on this score. So we are kind of comfortable with that, but not completely, and now we are working with the Israeli government to see whether or not they can accept these principles as a basis for negotiations,” he said.

Simon made clear that adopting Obama’s guidelines for resuming peace talks would present the best chance for convincing the Palestinians to withdraw their bid for statehood in September at the United Nations Security Council.

Read more: http://forward.com/articles/138572/#ixzz1P45OYNEl

[vi5]

1. Why would Israelis feel they had to give anything?

They saw quite clearly that most in the American government (Republicans and Democrats) support the Israeli government and it's leader over their own government and their own President. If I was on one side of an argument and looked behind me to see the support of about 75% of the government officials of another country supporting me not only just over my opponent but over their own leader? I'm not sure I'd feel that I had to give anything up or accept anything I didn't want either.

[Igel]

2. And why should the Palestinians?

The US position is that their borders are those from '67, with any mutually agreed upon land swaps. Negotiations could take 20 seconds.

Netanyahu: "We propose this swap here."

Abbas: "We will agree to no swaps whatsoever. You can't offer us Jerusalem and you can't offer us compromise on the RoR. So since we agree to no swaps, the borders are those from '67. Next week we'll discuss the RoR. It's assumed that you'll have to agree to it, unless we cede some point in exchange for some concession on your side. Let's see, Jerusalem's status is still off the table, and the borders will be settled. So I really don't see what you can concede. Week after that, the status of Jerusalem. Well, given the '67 borders give us all we want, there's nothing really to negotiate except how quickly we can set up a falalel stand at the western retaining wall."

The only thing left would be resources and trade. The Jordan Valley's status, the business about overflights, pretty much every thing else can be easily squeezed into the borders issue, which is easily "negotiated."

Perhaps if the Palestinians want to trade through or with Israel that could be a concession?

Any problem? Go to the UN, be declared a sovereign country, then ask that under R2P they be protected from the hostile oppressors occupying their country. If it's really <b>R</b>2P and not just "whim to protect" or "maybe we'll protect if we think it's something we can wing this weekend" it'll be embarrassing as NATO or the UN reduces Israel's infrastructure to that of progressive Arab regimes such as that of Syria or even Yemen, as R2Pers applaud. The alternative will be to abandon R2P, only to have Arab public opinion say that it's true the Jews rule in Washington.

Still, it's a victory: Allied against one side with 180 supporters and a half dozen neutral, unbiased "participants for peace", Israel would be left with no supporters. Apparently that seems to be a fair fight--if we assume that the Jews are somehow superhumanly cunning and manipulative, absurdly ruthless, and possess of great wealth and the ability to use it. But that assumption can't be true--it's a horribly racist stereotype often presented in the Arab media as an object lesson on how bad such stereotypes are.

As with everything else in the I/P universe, any simple solution is too simplistic to lead to anything but either violence and genocide, hypocrisy through action or hypocrisy through indifference, or a self-serving "I'm not a hypocrite, I just reserve the right to ignore about 40% of the facts on this issue."

Advocacy and objectivity are pretty much mutually exclusive.

[shira]

3. This time, Israel would be sitting across the table from Hamas.

I wonder how those negotiations would go? Maybe 10 seconds?

Israel: So, what do you guys have in mind for peace?

Hamas: No peace ever. We will destroy you.

END OF NEGOTIATIONS.

:eyes:

[oberliner]

4. Interesting title change

Original was:

Obama Not Budging on 1967 Borders With Land Swaps

[shaayecanaan]

5. I find it extraordinary that that is even an issue...

"Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice Lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity on the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today; it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations."

George W Bush, May 2005.

"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps."

Barrack Obama, May 2011.

[oberliner]

6. I find it extraordinary that you would quote George W Bush...

But there we are.

In any case, the odds of this resulting in an actual peace agreement you would put at around, what?

[shaayecanaan]

7. Why, exactly?

There is nothing in either his quote or Obama's that you would disagree with, surely?

"In any case, the odds of this resulting in an actual peace agreement you would put at around, what?"

Low, I would have thought.

[TomClash]

8. It's the same position

The odds are zero.

Israeli is not swapping arable land for the current settlements. And between now and the end of any negotiations (circa 2050) there will be more and larger settlements over more and more of the West Bank. This has always been Israeli policy and it will continue indefinitely.

[shira]

9. The settlement areas weren't used prior to '67, so what makes you think that's prime real estate?

There's no question it's strategical, for defense purposes, being on high land overlooking major population centers.

[shaayecanaan]

11. Gosh, it almost sounds like you support the settlements (nt)

[shira]

12. Gosh, it does? Well I'll be...

Just responding to the canard that the settlement areas are prime real estate within the W.Bank. If that's the case, those areas would have been built up b/w 1949-67.

[shaayecanaan]

13. moreover...

"There's no question it's strategical, for defense purposes, being on high land overlooking major population centers."

Israel is using civilian centres for defence purposes?

So the settlers are military assets, in other words?

[shira]

14. Uhh...nope. n/t

[shaayecanaan]

15. You said: ""There's no question it's strategical, for defense purposes"

Another revealing statement from you to go alongside the revelations that you read far right websites "for the facts, not the opinions", that you believe that the settlements are a legitimate enterprise, that Jewish terrorists are nowhere near as bad as Arab terrorists, and that you think that the Palestinian state should be built in Jordan.

Yeah, you're a blue ribbon liberal, all right.

[shira]

16. Holding onto them now is strategical and for defense but the settlers there aren't human shields

the revelations that you read far right websites "for the facts, not the opinions"

Facts are facts. Even neo-nazis sometimes get the facts straight. There's no reason to reject straight facts, no matter what the source is.

that you believe that the settlements are a legitimate enterprise,

They're not illegal.

that Jewish terrorists are nowhere near as bad as Arab terrorists,

I'm not aware of Jewish terrorists who deliberately target school buses, daycares, or religious centers, incite, glorify or reward such vileness, or use children as human shields.

and that you think that the Palestinian state should be built in Jordan.

if Jordan is majority Palestinian then Jordan, along with Gaza and about 90% of the W.Bank, should be Palestine. That gives Palestinians nearly 90% of the original territory that was Palestine during Turkish rule with only 10% going to the Jews. You really have a problem with that?

Yeah, you're a blue ribbon liberal, all right.

Says the avid al-Manar reader who has no problem with Hezbollah and Iran taking over Lebanon. I'm not sure it gets more rightwing than that so it's odd you keep questioning how liberal your opponents are....

[shaayecanaan]

17. I like how you revert to desperate haymakers such as this:

"Says the avid al-Manar reader who has no problem with Hezbollah and Iran taking over Lebanon."

whenever someone points out the absurdity of your positions.


Al-Manar is a turgid propaganda outlet for Hezbollah and by extension the Syrian regime. I personally think that the stories that they have been putting out defending Assad have been deplorable.

[shira]

18. How do you feel about Hezbollah's influence in Lebanon? Or Iran's influence there?

You're cool with that?

[shaayecanaan]

19. No, I am not

to put your febrile distraction to rest, I am neither a fan of Hezbollah nor Iran.

"There's no question it's strategical, for defense purposes"

Why do you think that the settlements have military value?

[shira]

20. Are there any Lebanese liberal reform/resistance groups/orgs you support?

The hilltop areas overlooking major population centers have strategic value, not the settlements themselves - or the settlers within those settlement areas.

[shaayecanaan]

21. Then why have a settlement?

If the areas have military value, put a military base there and be done with it.

But thats not what Israel does. Why do you think Israel surrounds these "strategically valuable areas" with civilians?

"The hilltop areas overlooking major population centers have strategic value"

Only, of course, if the military operates out of them. You would concede that this is the case, that the settlements are only of strategic value if the Army operates out of the settlements?

Remember, you were the first one to mention human shields, not me.

*****

In relation to my personal politics, I have long been a strong supporter of Wajdi Mallat and also his son Chibli.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wajdi_Mallat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chibli_Mallat

[shira]

22. No, the settlements are not strategic only if the army operates out of them...

They are strategic in that they prevent Hamas and the militaristic PLO factions from operating from those areas.

I'll look into those links - thanks!

[shaayecanaan]

23. But you said: "The hilltop areas overlooking major population centers have strategic value"

Exactly what is the strategic value for Hamas in land that overlooks major Arab population centres?

You said yourself that no one was interested in this land prior to Israel taking it. If the PLO werent interested in the land in 1967, why would they be interested now?

[shira]

24. Right, in that they prevent Hamas from high land overlooking major ISRAELI population centers

I've repeatedly said that the settlement areas were NOT built up prior to '67, so why are the PA/Hamas and their supporters worried that any swap for that land wouldn't be a fair trade, as though inferior land would be swapped for prime real estate...

[shaayecanaan]

25. Does the Ariel settlement overlook any "major Israeli" population centre that you know of?

I can't think of any. It does overlook a bunch of Arabs though.

What strategic value do you think is served by Ariel, if it does not "overlook a major Israeli population centre", as you claim?

[shaayecanaan]

26. Nothing?

Well, in the alternative, may I suggest the following:-

In the eyes of the Israeli government, the settlers are:-

a) human shields
b) bargaining chips
c) pawns.

Feel free to choose the description that appeals to you.

[shira]

28. Neither of the 3. n/t

[shira]

27. No. Ariel should be in Palestine in a future peace deal. n/t

[shaayecanaan]

29. Not according to both the offers made by Barak at Camp David

and Olmert in 2008, both of which you suggest from time to time the Palestinians should have accepted.

Anyway, I agree with you. Ariel should certainly be given back to the Palestinians.

[aranthus]

10. Why wouldn't they?

For starters, the Obama parameters favor the Palestinians. Obama takes their side with regard to borders, and leaves on the table items such as RoR, that the Israelis consider drop dead deal breakers. He's given more cards to the Palestinians and taken some away from Israel. Then, there's the fact that the PA has to know that the Israelis won't agree to Obama's proposal. So what does it cost them to say they favor it? Absolutely nothing. They cozy up to Obama, and also know that there isn't any danger of having to engage in any substantive negotiations (at least not until after the UN votes to declare them a state, and maybe not even then). They're practicing good politics.