November 15, 2010
Not a good 90 day bet
In a "news analysis", A 90-Day Bet on Mideast Talks, Ethan Bronner and Mark Landler of the New York Times analyze the issues involved in the possible agreement of Prime Minister Netanyahu to extend a building freeze for another 90 days.
However one line sticks out as describing the problem with this extension.
The initial reaction by conservative Israeli politicians was to oppose the deal, saying that the previous 10-month settlement freeze was a one-time gesture and ought not to be extended. They emphasized that for the first nine of those 10 months, the Palestinians did not negotiate. They also argued that if the aim of the 90 days was to establish future borders, too much would be given away by Israel before a comprehensive agreement was reached.
It's odd but hardly surprising that this is qualified as the reaction of "conservative" politicians. It's, of course, correct. If the Palestinian were serious about peace they would have negotiated for the full 10 months, but what the Palestinians really want are concessions handed to them on a silver platter. Note this too:
The vote by Mr. Netanyahu's cabinet on the proposal is expected to be very close but it was likely to pass by at least one vote, analysts said. Likewise, while the Palestinians have objected partly because the proposed construction freeze does not include East Jerusalem, which they want as the capital of their future state, that is not considered an issue likely to dissuade them from rejoining the talks.
But that's because until President Obama's tantrum in March, there was never any issue of whether Israel should be building in parts of Jerusalem that were liberated in 1967.
Bronner and Landler do a good job of laying out the issues involved, unfortunately they only gloss over two major ones. 1) The Palestinians lack of seriousness and 2) the Obama administration's missteps.
Posted by SoccerDad at November 15, 2010 6:19 AM
And Israeli stupidity.
Why make the revanants an issue? Its bogus.
There is NO evidence the Palestinians would return to the table if Israel agreed to freeze them for three more months.
So why do it at all? The Palestinians ironically enough, are trying to save the Jews from their own thoughtlessness in rushing to embrace an ill-advised deal.
A WaPo editorial hit the nail on the head discussing the current negotiations: "Having largely created the impasse over settlements with pointless demands that Israel cease all building, President Obama will now pay dearly to take the issue off the table."
The peace process of the last 2 decades have shown the Palestinian people that diplomacy and negotiations have failed to yield what it was supposed to, a Palestinian state, co-existent with Israel, on the little that remained of original Palestine. What with Israels continued Judaization of Jerusalem, its ever expanding settlements, its monstrous security wall and its whole, apartheid-like structure of seperation and control which even the South Africians deem worse than their own had ever been-what with all that, the seemingly futile and imterminable 'peace-process' was well on the way to placing such a state forever out of reach. 10 months or 90 days will not change all the new 'facts on the ground', now growing every day.
Well, sass, PLEASE oh please do LIST down in detail ALL the PROVEN concrete STEPS that the palis have taken in their "diplomacy and negotiations" towards the PEACE process over the last 2 decades.
Also, SHARE all the FACTS you have of what you call the "original Palestine".
Should a BREEZE, sass.
Or you can avoid being held ACCOUNTABLE for your CLAIMS by PRETENDING that this call for PROOF does NOT exist so that you can CONTINUE to huff and puff AGAINST the brick house of TRUTHS?
If so, YOUR post is nothing more HOT AIR.
Things should be greatly reconsidered or this is just getting worst that would really affects us.