May 30, 2009
Stall. wait for pressure. get concessions. add some violence. repeat.
Noah Pollak describes Mahmoud Abbas's negotiating strategy as described in an interview with Jackson Diehl, as a "Princess Bride strategy."
Diehl seems to get it too as he writes:
Abbas and his team fully expect that Netanyahu will never agree to the full settlement freeze -- if he did, his center-right coalition would almost certainly collapse. So they plan to sit back and watch while U.S. pressure slowly squeezes the Israeli prime minister from office. "It will take a couple of years," one official breezily predicted. Abbas rejects the notion that he should make any comparable concession -- such as recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, which would imply renunciation of any large-scale resettlement of refugees.
There's no reason to expect otherwise. That's what happened, of course, during the 90's. President Clinton wasn't happy with Netanyahu's approach to the peace process. So Clinton did everything in his power to undermine Netanyahu. He even reneged on an agreement he made with Netanyahu when Arafat objected to it. Netanyahu's standing at home crumbled and Ehud Barak was elected prime minister in his place.
That, of course, allowed Clnton to make his attempt to bring peace to the Middle East an earn a Nobel Peace Prize. But as well know, Arafat rejected Barak's offer and started the "Aqsa intifada."
Diehl points out that Olmert offered Abbas even more than Barak had (offered Arafat) and it still wasn't enough.
But by now we have a pattern. The Palestinian refuse to negotiate. They expect American pressure on Israel. (And the Obama administration seems willing to provide that pressure.) When they get the American pressure and Israel capitulates they claim it's still not enough and refuse to budge. (Jack explains why it will never be enough.) All the while the Palestinian refuse to take the basic steps to build an economy (something Netanyahu wants to encourage - and did encourage when he was PM in the 90's) or accountable political institutions or take any steps you'd expect if their goal was an independent state.
Crossposted on Yourish.
Posted by SoccerDad at May 30, 2009 7:44 PM
Why Does The Goldstone Commission Report Rely On Contradicting Testimony?
On a foundation of sand
Kemp vs. goldstone
The Goldstone Commission: A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To Gaza
Garlasco hits the fan
Israel deploys WorldNetDaily against Iran!
Have you forgotten?
Slapping the outstretched hand
Turki stuffing
Fadlallah clarifies that Israel's existence is the issue
From the title I would have swoorn you were talking about Israeli tactics. I would imagine most people that come across your article would.
Posted by: George at May 31, 2009 11:01 AMFrom the title I would have swoorn you were talking about Israeli tactics. I would imagine most people that come across your article would.
Posted by: George at May 31, 2009 11:01 AMNuke the fricking place, if it's so vital to American interests, then they will have nothing to fight over, like children, take their obsession away! Or stay out of it and let them fight it out forever becos that's what they have done for eons. And the losers can just migrate and fight on. Thank god for USA and we will be forever in a fight also, for just being number 1 nevermind why, truth, righteousness, and the American way, freedom is not free, some-one somewhere is paying a high price for it. Enjoy
Posted by: rrlphillips at May 31, 2009 11:10 AMWe've been invaded by moonbats again.
Just nuke the muslim countries.
Posted by: Laura at May 31, 2009 12:14 PMtruth be told,arafat begged barak not to allow sharon to make the provocative al aqsa walk about which certainly triggered the aqsa intifada. that and the continuing occupation and settlement expansion on palestinian land.i wonder why its always the palestinians are to blame for all the blockages in the peace process so far, that it was their 'acts of terrorism,crime and hostilities', their 'incitement', their 'unilateral acts' which would have to be reined in if the peace process was to continue-not israels disastrously counter productive settlement policy,its systematic violation of its pledges to carry out troop withdrawals,the anti arab violence and incitement of its illegal settlers, its land expropriations and home demolitions,its economic blockades and what amounted to ethnic cleansing by stealth in jerusalem.
Posted by: sass at May 31, 2009 1:43 PMTruth be told, that's a lie made up by Arafat and eagerly accepted by Deborah Sontag of the NY Times. Look at any contemporaneous account of the time of that meeting and there was no mention that Arafat was concerned about anything. Only when he sought to rewrite his legacy did he claim that he asked Barak not to let Sharon walk. At the time he voiced no objections.
Posted by: soccer dadd at May 31, 2009 1:56 PMThere is no chance an Israeli capitulation on settlements will reinvigorate the "peace process." The Arabs have no limit to their demands and no Israeli government can satisfy the maximum of those demands and still survive in office just as no Palestinian government can accept less than the maximum of those demands and still survive in office. In other words, no middle ground exists to make a two state solution possible. To imagine it is ever going to happen in view what has just been said is sheer fantasy. Without a Palestinian interest in peace, no TSS will ever get off the ground.
Posted by: NormanF at May 31, 2009 2:46 PMarafat did warn barak about sharons provocative visit which was reported soon after.... three days before Sharon's visit to the compound, Arafat warned Barak that such a visit would cause a conflagration. "He begged him not to allow it." Another report states that Saeb Erikat, the head of the Palestinian negotiating team, delivered a similar warning to deputy Minister of Internal Security and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Shlomo Ben Ami (Orli Azulai, Yediot Ahronot, 10/13/00).
Posted by: sass at May 31, 2009 4:39 PMIt was about as provocative as a walk in the park and it wouldn't have cost thousands of lives that it did because the Palestinians used a pretext to do what they wanted to do and if it wasn't that, it would have been something else. Arafat instigated the Second Intifada because he thought it would strengthen his bargaining position vis a vis Israel. Its failure left the Palestinians weakened and it eventually divided them. None of that was Israel's fault.
Posted by: NormanF at May 31, 2009 7:29 PMAll of this Israeli propaganda sounds vaguely familiar. Oh yes, now I remember: it was the Nazi propaganda that blamed the inhabitants of the Warsaw Ghetto for their own extermination !!!
Posted by: Vietnam Vet at May 31, 2009 10:19 PMnormanF, you really should research your information from independent unbias reports- not pro zionist organisations which are full of myths and have a need to rewrite history-in which the blind are leading the blind.
the real and wholly obvious explanation for the self -sacrifical palestinian zeal, during the aqsa intifada,a portent of the suiscide bombers to come, was what the palestinians themselves said it was: their fury against the accursed occupation.
tell me want is israels official, declared ,authenic israeli standpoint on a final settlement. israel doesn't have one.