By Brian Barder
UPDATE: (20th July 09): A report from Jerusalem in Monday’s New York Times (hat-tip: David Tothill, as ever) describes extensive scepticism in Israel about the genuineness of Netanyahu’s Damascene conversion to a two-state solution, and serious doubts about the negotiability of the conditions he has laid down for Israeli acceptance of a Palestinian state. Given Netanyahu’s record, such scepticism is understandable and may well prove to be justified. But it’s equally possible that he is setting out a maximalist initial negotiating position that includes some demands and conditions which he could concede in the course of future negotiations in return for corresponding concessions by the Palestinian side. Such tactics are far from unknown in the run-up to a difficult negotiation. More daunting, perhaps, is the difficulty described in the NYT report over how far the Fatah President of the Palestinian National Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, can realistically negotiate in the name of all Palestinians when he doesn’t control Gaza and when his authority even in the West Bank is to some extent in question:
"The Israeli leaders note that Mr. Abbas does not control Gaza, which was taken over by his Hamas rivals two years ago. They add that it is doubtful how much he controls what they call Judea and Samaria, the biblical name for the West Bank, and say that if the Israeli Army were to leave the area it could turn into another “Hamastan.”"
The hope must be that the regional Arab and other Muslim states may eventually succeed in their current efforts to put effective pressure on Hamas and Fatah to get their acts together in a joint authority sufficiently united to be able to serve as an interlocuteur valable in negotiations with Israel, with President Obama, Russia, the EU and the UN (the middle east quartet) acting as arbitrators and providers of good offices. But it will all take precious time, and Obama needs to show tangible progress during his first term if he is going to be able to carry American public opinion with him in putting the necessary pressure on Netanyahu to show more flexibility than has been his hallmark hitherto.
--
Perhaps at last something buried deep in the so-called middle east peace process is beginning to stir. First the doggedly right-wing and famously obstinate Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, for the first time accepts the principle of a two-state solution — Israel and Palestine existing side by side in mutual recognition. Then he announces his willingness to meet the chairman of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, immediately “in order to advance the political process” — and he makes this announcement “at a weekly cabinet meeting”, showing that it represents government policy and not just a passing personal whim. And the Palestinian response?
"Saeb Erekat, a senior Palestinian negotiator, reacted soberly to Mr Netanyahu’s comments, saying the Palestinians wanted to see practical commitments, most importantly a freeze of all settlement construction in West Bank Jewish settlements. Mr Erekat said the Palestinian Authority would reject any deal between Israel and the US for even a limited amount of building in those settlements, currently home to about 250,000 Jewish Israelis. “There are no middle-ground solutions for the settlement issue: either settlement activity stops or it doesn’t stop,” Mr Erekat told Voice of Palestine radio. This was the essence of a letter Mr Abbas sent to Barack Obama, the US president, at the weekend, Mr Erekat said. [Dina Kraft in Tel Aviv, Financial Times, July 13 2009].
It’s surely significant that the implied bottom line for the Palestinians’ senior negotiator is a freeze of Israeli settlements on the West Bank, precisely President Obama’s demand as put to the Israelis, and not their complete dismantlement, even if dismantlement may remain the Palestinians’ ultimate objective. It looks however as if that could be negotiable: negotiated land swaps have long been envisaged as an element in any eventual settlement.
It’s true that a freeze of the Israeli settlements has been a feature of some earlier provisional agreements between Israel and Palestine, and that other reports appear to signal a more demanding Palestinian position. But that was last month….
The Financial Times report quoted above occupies half a column down the side of page 5 of Monday’s paper. Might it not be more significant than that obscure location seems to imply?
Obama really seems to be shaking up all the kaleidoscopes. What a pity that he’s so firmly committed to the pointless slaughter in Afghanistan — politically realistic, perhaps, but surely against his own better judgement.
Brian
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
How can someone with such clear (and mostly sensible) views on domestic issues be so blinkered and bigoted when it comes to the 'touchy' subject of Israel?
Israel is far from perfect, but it is a vibrant and democratic (and predominantly secular) society that has survived and thrived in the midst of a sea of dictatorships, theocracies and authoritarian states that stretches from the Atlantic to the Indian Oceans.
The single question that trenchant critics of Israel need to answer is: 'Have the Jews the right to an independent state in their ancestral homeland?'. If one's answer is 'no' (as "Israel is a racist, supremacist abomination." seems to indicate ) then there is little point in continuing the discussion.
It is worth noting that critics of Israel blame it for all/many of our current woes. Resolving the Isreal-Palestinian problem will do nothing to alleviate these. If Israel were to disappear tomorrow would the Middle East suddenly become a beacon of enlightenment? Until the Arab/Muslim world stops blaming Israel and/or the West for all their woes, reform their backward religion and stop repressing their own peoples with despotic regimes then a 'clash of civilisations' remains inevitable.
And as usual, given the opportunity, have now become National Socialists
Israel is a racist, supremacist abomination.
"No funding, no spare parts, no technology, no arms, no food aid and no emigration."
What do you mean by that? I don't get it. You sound like a rabid a genocidal anti-Semite to me.
Hmmm... Funny that Egypt (under Nasser) and Jordan (under King Hussain) didn't think to give the Palestinians in those areas their own state back then....
Huge gas reserves (£2B) have been found off the coast of Gaza. Israel wants them, Hamas said no, hence the recent violent attempt by Israel to overthrow Hamas and install a more "pliable" government in Gaza in the form of Fatah, who would not contest Israel getting the gas.
Source
Blair and the Gaza Gas
Do carry on with your reasoned and informed dissertation
Two-state is Jew and Arab having their own independent state, but it won't work because there will be the same level of violence as there is now.
The three state solution is Egypt gets gaza, Jordan gets the west bank. Then instead of Israel in a dispute with a minor state every time a rocket is fired it would be faced with a major one instead. It would make Israel think twice before counter attacking to defend itself, yet it still might. The bigger implication is that Egypt would defiantly want to avoid such a conflict so would control the hardliners within its new boarders. For both sides the cost of failing to keep the peace would be too serious.
This was the perfered solution in the area until the Americans decide to intervene.
However, now the Arab leaders find having Israel there too convenient. Now every time their caught being corrupt or what not, they stoke up the spector of Zionist oppression that diverts attention from their own short comings.
Zionists are not going to do that. Ever. God "gave" them Israel, the rest of us can get stuffed. No argument, no negotiation possible. You cannot change a religion. The best solution would be let them build their walls around Israel, let them throw out non Jews, let them ban all other religions and then weld the doors closed. Let them have their racially pure, ideologically fundamental promised land.
No funding, no spare parts, no technology, no arms, no food aid and no emigration.
Ultimately however, I am sure only the three-state solution will last, and finally bring peace.