March 26, 2009
Netanyahu and the palestinian veto
Regarding Israel's incoming Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, the New York Times observes:
"I think that the Palestinians should understand that they have in our government a partner for peace, for security and for rapid development of the Palestinian economy," said Mr. Netanyahu.He added that peace is a "common and enduring goal for all Israelis and Israeli governments, mine included. This means I will negotiate with the Palestinian Authority for peace."
His remarks were relayed on Israel Radio. It remained unclear what terms Mr. Netanyahu was offering for peace.
Similarly The Washington Post reports:
"I will negotiate with the Palestinian Authority for peace," said Netanyahu, leader of the right-wing Likud party.There was no mention of creating an independent state, a goal that has formed the basis of U.S. and Western-sponsored peace talks. President Obama reaffirmed U.S. support for the idea in comments in Washington on Tuesday, calling progress toward a Palestinian state "critical" to ending an "unsustainable" situation in which Palestinians live under Israeli-imposed restrictions and Israelis worry about their security.
But as Barry Rubin points out, Israel isn't the main problem here.
Clearly, peace with Hamas is more important for Dahlan than peace with Israel. And make no mistake: these two alternatives are mutually exclusive.
Indeed, Dahlan is ready to do anything to cooperate with Hamas, as long as it accepts the PA and Fatah as leading partner. He explains the PA won't ask Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist. Fatah isn't bound either to any PA recognition of Israel and, "as a resistance organization," can continue attacking Israel whenever it chooses.
Why, then, has the PA agreed to accept Israel's existence? Dahlan says: only to get international aid money and support. If this is how Dahlan thinks, his comrades' views are more extreme. The inescapable implication is that if the PA ever signs a peace treaty with Israel--though don't hold your breath--and gets a Palestinian state whose capital is east Jerusalem this would not block Fatah or Hamas from continuing armed struggle.
This attitude fits perfectly with the fact that even today the PA does nothing to prepare its people for peace and compromise. The claim that a Palestinian state should and will some day encompass all of Israel is maintained by schools, sermons, leaders, and media. It is contained, too, in the demand for a "right of return"--flooding Israel with several million Palestinians--as more important than getting a state where refugees can be resettled in a country of their own.
No wonder every poll shows overwhelming Palestinian support for armed attacks on Israeli civilians and little backing for a compromise peace that would end the conflict forever.
Of course the Palestinians embrace the peace process. For them it's meant the receiving of plenty of foreign aid, the acquistion of territory and absolutely no responsibility for creating a civil society.
From 1996 to 1999, when Netanyahu was first prime minister he signed the Hebron Accords and withdrew Israeli troops from most of that city. If anyone is aware of any reciprocal action that Arafat took during that time that increased the chance of coexistence, I'd be interested in hearing it. Even now, ten years later, the myth that Netanyahu was the main obstacle to peace persists.
It makes no difference that Netanyahu's successor, Ehud Barak went all out to make peace, only to be rebuffed at Camp David and finally faced the Arafat organized "Aqsa intifada" starting in late 2000. It makes no difference that Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 led to the strengthening of Hamas and the deteriorating security situation for Israel's southern residents. What we have seen over the past ten years is that no matter how committed an Israeli government or an American government is towards making peace in the Middle East, the Palestinian veto remains the main stumbling block to peace.
Crossposted on Yourish.
Posted by SoccerDad at March 26, 2009 5:27 AM
Hamas Economic Crisis Reveals Gaza As A Just Terrorist Group Surrounded By Human Shields
Gaza: you can never have too many snickers bars
Peter's perverse principle
Fortunately they weren't violent tea party types
It Takes Burning Down A Summer Camp For UNRWA To Notice
What's the difference between "disgraced" and a "higher ethical standard?"
The messaging or the strategy
The first prejudice
A treasure trove of terror
What if obamacare applied to state lotteries?
'Ehud Barak went all out to make peace, only to be rebuffed at Camp David and finally faced the Arafat organized "Aqsa intifada" starting in late 2000.'
There is no doubt that arafrat whated a better deal than the one produced either at camp david or taba in jan 2001,but these deals were not the prizes they have been made out to be. though consistently presented by israelis as an offer unparalleled in its generosity,camp david would have provided almost no redress to palestinians who had been forced from their homes and land in 1948, and it did not come close to satisfying the minimal rights of palestinians to self determination . in 2006, shlomo ben-ami, a lead israeli negotiator at both camp david and taba, broke ranks with the party line and admitted that "camp david was not the missed opportunity for the palestinians,and if i were palestinian i would have rejected camp david as well."
Posted by: sass at March 26, 2009 7:09 AMYou are saying that if someone is unhappy with negotiations, he is within his rights to use violence to get his way.
Arafat, if he didn't like the deal, could have sought better terms. He didn't. He started terror.
Please don't give me stuff about the minimal rights of the Palestinians. Had their brothers cared about them, they'd have been absorbed into existing countries after 1948. After the Arab world pays for the property it stole from the Jews it expelled, many of whom were absorbed by Israel, then you can talk about minimal Palestinian rights. And those rights don't include the right of return, unless you also believe that Israel must be destroyed. If you do, at least come out and say it instead of hiding behind Palestinian "rights."
Soccer Dad
Posted by: Anonymous at March 26, 2009 8:18 AMwhy do the palestinian need to be absorbed into other arab countries?- they are palestinians ,not jordanian,lebanese or eygptians, with their own land,which the jews stole and forced them to be refugees.israel was created in sin, by expeling 800000 palestinians.it was zionism which caused the arab world to turn on the jews in such a way.the arabs didn't decide just out of the blue to expell jews.the troubles in palestine was the cause.
your argument it self serving.the reason why this conflict is never ending because international law is totally disreguarded by israel.Under international law, there is no dispute, no controversy. Under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it's illegal for any occupying country to transfer its population to Occupied Territories. All of the settlements, all of the settlements are illegal under international law. No dispute. The World Court in July 2004 ruled that all the settlements are illegal. The Palestinians were willing to concede 50% � 50% of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. That was a monumental concession, going well beyond anything that was demanded of them under international law.
let me put it another way
why does israel deny the palestinians the same rights it expects for itself
The refugees are a consequence of the 1948 war started by the Jordanians, Egyptians, Lebanese and Syrians and Iraquis. Israel isn't responsible for the consequences of a war it didn't atart and didn't want.
Posted by: zee at March 26, 2009 12:36 PMeven if your statement was true ,why were the innocent civillian not allowed to returned to their homes. it happened in germany and all of europe after WW2.
it was a premeditated plan which started months before the arab armies marched in with a small ill equipped force to crush the jewish state.
how was israel going to be a democratic jewish state with a majority of muslim arabs.it had to transfer the population or the arabs would have voted the jewish state out of being.
the refugees of palestine were made into refugee in a deliberate ,premeditated plan to cleanse the area of non jews well before the arab armies attacked in 1948.how else was the new state going to have a jewish majority and be democratic at the same time.
Posted by: sass at March 26, 2009 4:34 PM