-
Best Defense
Robots: Killing Our Warrior Spirit?
-
The Cable
Whistleblower: I'm Being Bullied By State Dept.
-
Passport
Syria: Is It the Sunnis' or Shiites' Fault?
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Sunday, February 20, 2011 - 11:23 PM
Share
Last Friday the United States vetoed a U.N. Security Council Resolution condemning Israel's continued expansion of settlements in the occupied territory of the West Bank. The resolution didn't question Israel's legitimacy, didn't declare that "Zionism is racism," and didn't call for a boycott or sanctions. It just said that the settlements were illegal and that Israel should stop building them, and called for a peaceful, two-state solution with "secure and recognized borders. The measure was backed by over 120 countries, and 14 members of the security council voted in favor. True to form, only the United States voted no.
There was no strategic justification for this foolish step, because the resolution was in fact consistent with the official policy of every president since Lyndon Johnson. All of those presidents has understood that the settlements were illegal and an obstacle to peace, and each has tried (albeit with widely varying degrees of enthusiasm) to get Israel to stop building them.
Yet even now, with the peace process and the two-state solution flat-lining, the Obama administration couldn't bring itself to vote for a U.N. resolution that reflected the U.S. government's own position on settlements. The transparently lame explanation given by U.S. officials was that the security council isn't the right forum to address this issue. Instead, they claimed that the settlements issue ought to be dealt with in direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians, and that the security council should have nothing to say on the issue.
This position is absurd on at least two grounds. First, the expansion of settlements is clearly an appropriate issue for the security council to consider, given that it is authorized to address obvious threats to international peace and security. Second, confining this issue to "direct talks" doesn't make much sense when those talks are going nowhere. Surely the Obama administration recognizes that its prolonged and prodigious effort to get meaningful discussions going have been a complete bust? It is hard to believe that they didn't recognize that voting "yes" on the resolution might be a much-needed wake-up call for the Israeli government, and thus be a good way to get the peace process moving again? Thus far, all that Obama's Middle East team has managed to do in two years is to further undermine U.S. credibility as a potential mediator between Israel and the Palestinians, and to dash the early hopes that the United States was serious about "two states for two peoples." And while Obama, Mitchell, Clinton, Ross, and the rest of the team have floundered, the Netanyahu government has continued to evict Palestinian residents from their homes, its bulldozers and construction crews continuing to seize more and more of the land on which the Palestinians hoped to create a state.
Needless to say, the United States is all by its lonesome on this issue. Our fellow democracies -- France, Germany, Great Britain, Brazil, South Africa, India, and Colombia -- all voted in favor of the resolution, but not the government of the Land of the Free. And it's not as if Netanyahu deserved to be rewarded at this point, given how consistently he has stiffed Obama and his Middle East team.
For more on this latest sad chapter in the annals of American Middle East diplomacy, see M.J Rosenberg here and here, the Magnes Zionist here and here, and Gideon Levy here.
As these commentators recognize, the real reason for Obama's misguided decision was the profound influence of the Israel lobby. Indeed, few observers have missed this simple and obvious fact. One can only conclude that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's repeated claims that they are "friends of Israel" and devoted to its security are nothing more than empty, politically expedient rhetoric. Whatever they may say, the policies they are pursuing -- including this latest veto -- are in fact harmful to Israel's long-term future. The man who declared in Cairo on June 4, 2009 that a two-state solution was "in the "Israel's interest, the Palestinians' interest, America's interest, and the world's interest" must have changed his mind, because his actions ever since have merely hastened the moment when creating two viable states will be impossible (if that is not already the case). Then remember what former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in 2007, "if the two-state solution fails, Israel will face a South African style struggle for political rights." And "once that happens," he warned, "the state of Israel is finished."
If Obama were a true friend of Israel, in short, he'd be doing whatever he could to keep it from expanding its ruinous occupation and making the Zionist vision unsustainable. And given that Congress remains hopeless on this issue, he could have shown he was a true friend by instructing his U.N. Ambassador, Susan Rice, to vote for the resolution, as a diverse array of foreign policy experts had suggested. He would also have devoted some portion of his first two years in office to explaining to the American people why some "tough love" was needed on both sides (i.e., not just the Palestinians), and he would have recruited America's democratic allies in a genuine effort to bring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a fair and stable end. Had he done these things, most Americans would have supported him. Instead, his lame actions are just enabling the occupation, and for the most cynical domestic political reasons (like safeguarding his re-election prospects in 2012). Even worse, he did it at a moment when the Arab world is in ferment, and when the voice of the Arab street is beginning to be heard. But instead of aligning itself with international law, basic principles of justice, and its own stated position, the Obama administration caved. Again.
If the United States hopes to be on the right side of history, it is time to start thinking about what its policy should be when everybody finally acknowledges that "two states for two peoples" is no longer a practical possibility. This is going to happen sooner or later, and anyone who is still advocating for a two-state solution at that point is going to sound like an ignorant fool. Not because of the flaws in that option, but simply because it will be impossible to implement. What alternative solution will the president and secretary of state support then? Ethnic cleansing? A binational, liberal democracy in which all inhabitants of Israel/Palestine have equal civil and political rights? Or permanent apartheid, in the form of disconnected Palestinian Bantustans under de facto Israeli control? That awkward reality may not be apparent while Obama is president (which is probably what he is hoping), but it will be a damning legacy to leave to his successor, as well as a tragedy for two peoples who have already known more than their share.
Postscript: Some readers may think I am being too defeatist here, and they might cite in evidence Bernard Avishai's New York Times Magazine essay detailing the alleged "near-miss" peace talks between Olmert and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas in 2008. Avishai's account portrays the two leaders as close to a deal and suggests that it would not be that hard to resurrect a similar deal today. It's an interesting article, but there are at least four problems with his optimistic account. First, Olmert was the lamest of lame ducks by 2008, because he was due to be indicted on corruption charges and everyone knew it, so the talks themselves were something of a side-show. Second, even had this not been the case, it is by no means clear that Olmert could have sold the Israeli public on the proposed deal. Third, it is not even clear that the two sides were that close to an agreement, given Olmert's insistence that Israel could not withdraw from Ariel and Maale Adumim (two settlement blocs that thrust deep inside the West Bank). Fourth, and probably most important, political trends in Israel are headed the other way (among other things, Avigdor Lieberman wasn't foreign minister back then), which makes the Olmert/Abbas talks even less relevant. For excellent critical responses to Avishai's piece, see Noam Sheizaf, Matthew Taylor, and Ilene Cohen.
EXPLORE:OBAMA AND THE ISRAEL LOBBY, MIDDLE EAST, DIPLOMACY, DISASTERS, ISRAEL/PALESTINE, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, U.S. CONGRESS, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, UNITED NATIONS 
The "reasoning" behind this veto is simplicty itself
Obama is
(a) convinced that Netanyahu will use AIPAC to kick him in the nuts and
(b) convinced that the Palestinians are defenseless against a knife in the back.
So he knifes the Palestinians in the back as a way of avoiding getting kneed in the balls.
It really is as simple as that.
Sooner or later the Palestinians willl have to tell the USA the harsh truth: despite American claims to the contrary the USA just is not an "impartial mediator", and so the Pals will no tolerate the USA being in the room.
After all, if Netanyahu wants some Israeli lawyers then he can damn well bring his own, and not use Dennis Ross for that role.
I think you may be right but...
The thing I just don't seem to understand about Obama is that he continues to think that if he support the current regiem in Israel they will back off and let AIPAC support him during the election. But of course that is crazy. There is no way that AIPAC will support Obama over a Huckabee, Pawlenty, Palin, or even Romney - simply because these idiots go SO far to assert Israel's 'rights' that they essentially openly assert that they will support everything that Israel does carte blanche.
Obama does this for domestic policy as well. As if - if he compromises with the GOP (read: sells out...) that they will not go after him will all guns blazing in 2012.
He is supposed to be this great mind but he truly seems to me to be some sort of idiot. I just don't get it. The only logical conclusion that I can draw is that Obama actually supports these ideas - including this one - and he has most definitely lost my vote - which i am ashamed to admit I enthusiastically provided him (with a lot of $ I might add...) in 2008.
Of course you are right JOHNBOY
The reality is pretty obvious and irrefutable.
It will be interesting to listen to Prof. Walt's critics try to explain how the lobby had no part to play in this shameful and outrageous capitulation. Especially seeing as:
a) the resolution was worded to mirror official US policy
b) Rice explained that the US agreed with the resolution
Still, I am bemused that anyone is even discussing whether the US is a credible mediator. After Camp David, Ross admitted that the US acted as Irael;s legal counsel trying to broker the best deal on behalf of it's client.
It is amazing to read all the anti Israel comments you guys keep
convincing each other of the same thing. Where were all of you when Israel froze the building for the last 10 months where was dr walt to push on the palestinians to come to the table.
The U.S will lose it's political influence even more if it votes for the resolution because than the issue becomes international and will be handled by the " objective and effective U.N"
rather than the U.S. Even if the whole world will recognize a palestinian state it will not be able to function without an agreement, the only way to really solve the issue is to negotiate directly and for some reason no one is encouraging the palestinians to do that, why doesn't the U.N condemn terror instead. Obama is the one to blame he is the one that made the settlements the core issue and the palestinians cannot ask for less . once there is an agreement there is no more issue of settlements.
why is the U.N so busy with settlements while there are people being bombed to shreds in Lybia, what do all of you have to say about that, where is our great Liberal president that will condemn and support the peoples rights, Oh I forgot the U.S and Europe have a lot of interests in Lybia so we will wait till kadafi falls and than we will come out with a presidential statement.
Where is dr walt calling upon the us to act because of inhumane treatment of demonstrators in the arab world, it isn't important , the settlements are more important right now.
There is a reason why
"Where were all of you when Israel froze the building for the last 10 months where was dr walt to push on the palestinians to come to the table"
Here's what I was doing:
I was pointing out that Israel agree to freeze all settlement construction (including "natural growth") when it signed the 2003 Road Map for Peace, and that this Israeli agreement was ratified by the Knesset i.e. the committment to freeze all settlement construction was signed, sealed, and delivered by the Israelis as far back as 2003.
So I was busy pointing out that what *you* describe as a 10 month "freeze" amounted to a UNILATERAL attempt by Israel to change the terms of its committment under the Road Map (remember, a signed and ratified document) i.e. to unilaterally change an unconditional and indefinite freeze into a conditional and exemption-riddled "freeze" of strictly limited duration.
Now, so very sorry, but If I was the other party to that Road Map agreement then I wouldn't dream of putting up with that sort of nonsense, because to do so would mean acknowledging that Israel had a "right" to renege on an agreement.
Answer this, Buddah: why enter negotiations with a party that insists that regardless of what is agreed upon it retains the "right" to unilaterally change the terms of that agreement?
Why bother, because that isn't "negotiation", and what emerges isn't an "agreement".
John5433 I am not sure about the actual agreement but if you
are looking for excuses we can find plenty, the road map also says that all terror must stop and I don't know if you have been to gaza recently, the road map says that incitement should stop, read the books of kids in the PA.
I don't know all the details or times of the road map but I think it was supposed to be done in steps and with every next step that would come, there should have been a previous one that was fulfilled, I think that both sides didn't get too far and I don't know who to blame, but the palestinians are refusing to negotiate all of a sudden after abbas dealt with olmert no problem.
So Israel can also claim the same silly claim and say we won't negotiate until hamas becomes a peace lover. but the main issue is to really negotiate and there is one side refusing to do that' if anyone thinks that the conflict can be solved in the U.N he is dreaming, only direct negotiations, if you really want a state you don't not negotiate.
What's amazes BUDAHH, is that you keep recycling the same argumt
No matter what developments ensue along the way. You remain completely unswayed by facts.
There was no building freeze. Building in East Jerusalem continues at the same pace and buildings in the West Bank only slowed down.
Of course, that was only academic any. The Palestine Papers have revealed that the peace process has been a complete farce. The PA offered the Israelis everything they wanted and Israel said thanks, but no thanks.
The whole world can clearly see that the reason the US does not want the UN to handle this is because Israel will not agree to an impartial moderator. Israel has become accustomed to having the US acting as it;s broker and it;s legal advisor. The Palestine Papers revealed that even Mitchell, who came with such excellent credentials, was reduced to being a point man for Israel, demanding more and more concessions from the Palestinians while asking nothing of Israel.
Negotiations have been nothing but a smokescreen and a cynical ploy to legitimize land grabs.
The UN has condemned terror. It has condemned half a dozen major terror attacks in the past 6 months.
Since 1981, the settlements were a core issue. You cannot have two state settlement without contiguous territory for the second state.
What's going on in Lybia is an outrage. The UN has already accused Gadaffi of genocide, and the world is hoping his regime is toppled. Meanwhile, the Israeli issue has not gone away, much as you and your fellow Hasbarats would love it to.
What terror and incitement Buddah?
In 2006 Hamas declared an end to suicide attacks, and none have happened since.
In 2008, Hamas held to a ceasefire for 4 months until Israel beoke it and started war. It was Israel the did the incitement. 1,400 people were massacred and all you can think about are what children in Gaza are reading.
Mind numbing myopia. The chidlren in Gaza can't even get pencils and books to write in.
BTW. Netenyahu was caught on tape boasting about how he sabotaged Olso.
Budahh starts from a simple premise......
Which is this: if he deliberately keeps himself ignorant of the contents of the Road Map then he can assume that it means whatever he wants it to mean.
Ignorance is Strength! Freedom is Slavery! War is Peace!
Here's what you need to know:
The Road Map is divided into three Phases, and nobody has a right to down-tools WITHIN A PHASE for any reason.
Or, put another way: even if the other side *is* dragging its feet all you can do is put your head down and power on to the end of Phase I, at which point you refuse to go to the next Phase until the other dude has caught up to you.
This is how it was written: "In each phase, the parties are expected to perform their obligations in parallel, unless otherwise indicated."
Got that?
OK, having got that then we can make sense of what **is** in Phase I.
And what we see is this:
"Palestinian leadership issues unequivocal statement reiterating Israel’s right to exist in peace and security and calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire to end armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere. All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel."
That "Palestinian leadership" is The PLO/PA i.e. it is Abbas And His Bunch. It most definitely is not Hamas, nor it is Islamic Jihad.
Or, in short: so long as Abbas And His Bunch are committed to non-violence then that provision has been fulfilled.
Q: Why?
A: Because the only group recognized as the "Palestinian leadership" is Abbas And His Bunch.
But what about Israel?
"Israel also freezes all settlement activity, consistent with the Mitchell report."
"GOI takes no actions undermining trust, including deportations, attacks on civilians; confiscation and/or demolition of Palestinian homes and property, as a punitive measure or to facilitate Israeli construction"
"GOI immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001"
"Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)."
Not much room to maneouvre there, Budahh......
Abbas has carried out all of his obligations under Phase I of the Road Map.
Every last one of them.
To. The. Letter.
He is now waiting for Netanyahu to pull his finger out i.e. to do what he has to do in order to join Abbas up on the podium, at which point *both* Abbas and Bibi procede to Phase II, which is when negotiations take place.
Netanyahu is having none of it.
He has downed his tools without carrying out A Single One Of His Tasks in Phase I and, furthermore, he is insisting that he doesn't have to carry them out i.e. he is demanding that everyone procede immediately to the final status negotiations.
So dispute the fact that Bibi is in complete and utter violation of *ALL* of his Road Map committments, he still has the chutzpah to demand his prize.
And what is that prize?
It is to be able to lock Abbas into a tent while the IDF bulldozers continue to tear down everything that is around it.
The Israeli position is simply beyond chutzpah. It is obscene, Budahh, and made worse by the utter refusal of people like you to pull your head out of the sand and stare that obscenity in the face.
what kind of an excuse is that Johnboy 45
so the hamas is not part of the agreement anymore, Israel will only make peace with the pa and the hamas will continue its ways, the west bank has came a long way and the palestinians should get credit for that, they are doing better than ever security wise, the distance between that and them fulfilling the roadmap is far. but to say that gaza is not part of the deal why you are negotiating for it is just a bad excuse.
THe incitement has never stopped, like I said before excuses are like assholes, and we can use them too come negotiate and get an agreement, Israel will implement every part of a peace agreement just like it has with other countries it signed peace deals with, without direct talks there will be no peace get that through your heads, you can play the blame game all day but it will not move us an inch closer to reach a settlement.
What ARE you talking about, Budahh?
"so the hamas is not part of the agreement anymore,"
Such chutzpah! The USA, the Quartet, and the Government of Israel has N.E.V.E.R. recognized Hamas as a representative of the Palestinian people i.e. as part of "the Palestinian Leadership".
Not once.
Not for one single second.
N.E.V.E.R.
As far as the USA, the Quartet, and Israel is concerned that Palestinian leadership has been what it has always been since Rabin and Arafat exchanged letters in 1991 i.e. the P.L.O.
It's just astonishing how hasbarah hacks can hop from one foot to the other like a frog on a hotplate, and all the while claim that they are being consistent.
"the distance between that and them fulfilling the roadmap is far"
Oh, fer' crying out loud! Read Your Road Map Document: Israel is a player, it is not the umpire, and so IT IS NOT UP TO ISRAEL TO MAKE THAT CALL.
The Quartet makes that call, and the Quartet is exceptionally happy with the progress that Abbas and Faayad have made in the West Bank, and the Quartet has not the slihtest complaint about how Abbas And His Gang have fullfilled all of their obligations under the Road Map.
"but to say that gaza is not part of the deal why you are negotiating for it is just a bad excuse"
The deal is between the Government of Israel and the "Palestinian Leadership". It says so in the damn document.
Your argument is circling around in ever-decreasing circles, so much so that it is disappearing up your own backside:
1) The deal is between the GoI and the "Palestinian Leadership"
2) You refuse to recognize that Hamas is part of that "Palestinian Leadership"
THEREFORE
3) You can not point at Hamas and say "What about them, heh? What about them!!!"
Well, what about them? Do you want them in the process, or don't you?
Because if you *do* want them in the process then You Need To Recognize Them, and if you refuse to recognize them (i.e. you refuse to talk *to* them) then Stop Jabbering On About Them.
"Israel will implement every part of a peace agreement just like it has with other countries it signed peace deals with"
Again, the chutzpah is astonishing.
Israel won't LET the Palestinians have a country.
Israel REFUSES to let them declare their country.
There is, in fact, absolutely nothing stopping Israel from doingthis:
1) withdrawing the IDF behind the Green Line, thus ending the occupation,
2) promptly recognizing the state of Palestine when Abbas declares it, and
3) THEN negotiating a peace treaty with that newly minted state.
Nothing at all, except for Israel's unbridled greed for more territory than it is legally entitled to, and to assist it in that boundless avarice Israel insists on keeping the Palestinians pinned to the ground with a boot to their throat and a gun pointed at their head.
I don't have much to ad to that except of the known fact that the major media apparatus here in the US will not even in the slightest of terms, criticize the Israeli Government because they are in fear. Look what happened to one of the best journalists of all time, Helen Thomas. If your a high profile media figure being critical of Israel can be career ending....even to the point of striking down ones accomplishments before they even made the criticisms.
JOhnboy 543 It might have made sense when the PA was in controll
of Gaza and could have implemented the agreement in the strip, and now once they have no control over the gaza strip they are not fulfilling their part there you cannpt just say oh they have no control there so it doesn't matter obviously they are negotiating for gaza as well as the west bank , but what about gaza ? If we are negotiating for a palsetinian state in the west bank only than I can agree with you and the incitement and hostile activity against Israel has not stopped. If we are negotiating for the full deal than you must admit there is a problem .
Yes nobody has recognized the hamas as the legitimate representative of the palestinian people but they are the ones who control a large part of the palestinian people, and nobody will untill they meet the quartets demands, to say that it is chutzpa because we would not sell an agreement that can be implemented in only half of the future palestinian.
And i have a question for you, what has changed since 2008 when Olmert was in power and the palestinians had no problem to negotiate with Israel with all the settlements and there were direct talks and there was almost an agreement according to both sides. Although the other side denies the details. What has changed so much that the palestinians cannot negotiate anymore.
You say the deal is between the government and the "Palestinian Leadership" and can you tell me who is the palestinian leadership, is it the one in gaza or the west bank is it the one that was elected or the one that its term is out of date, no one really know , they cannot even make peace with each other , we all know that the rift is big and that it is almost like a 3 state solution. Hamas will not just give up its power.
Why would we recognize hamas is it says it will kill us the first oppertunity it has, sounds suicidal . "We won't let them have a state" come and negotiate , you think that a state will just fall out of the sky, no and if they truely want a state they need to come to the table.
Again, another sophistic reply
"Oh, Oy Vey! The Hamasim, oh, the Hamas!" You keep saying Hamas and Gaza are the problem, but guess what, Gaza is still under siege and blockade and yet Hamas maintains the cease fire. Hamas has repeatedly said they will support any treaty that the Palestinian people will support, and has even offered to support Abbas' negotiations.
Reading the Palestine Papers we see why Hamas has been more equivocal in flatly supporting the PA, and we see why the PA is losing popular support. But, for you to maintain that Hamas has been a roadblock is totally disingenuous. You may be able to pull that on the average American, but don't expose your blatant sophism for a critical audience--you'll forever ruin your credibility.
Let's consider the Budahh-concept of "control"
"but what about gaza ? If we are negotiating for a palsetinian state in the west bank only than I can agree with you and the incitement and hostile activity against Israel has not stopped. If we are negotiating for the full deal than you must admit there is a problem"
There may (or there may not) be a problem in implementing any "full deal", sure, but no problem about REACHING a "full deal".
Consider: over 60% of the West Bank is no more under the control of the PA than the Gaza Strip is. It is called "Area C", and it is under the total and complete military and civil control of..... Israel.
Yet that doesn't stop Abbas from negotiating with Israel over the entire West Bank, nor does that stop Israel from talking to him, as you yourself accept.
But note this: even *if* Israel signs an agreement to vacate Area C that may (or may not) be implemented i.e. Israel may sign on the dotted line and then shout "Terror! Terror! Terror!" and refuse to pack up and leave. After all, Israel "agreed" to freeze all settlement construction when it signed the Road Map, and then promptly refused to freeze any settlement construction whatsoever.
The same holds true of Gaza i.e. Israel, the USA, and the Quartet **all** recognize that Abbas is the sole representative of the Palestinian people and, as such, he is the only person entitled to negotiate over the fate of the Gaza Strip.
Well, then, put Hamas to one side and let him negotiate over the Gaza Strip.
Nothing stops an agreement being reached with Abbas regarding the Gaza Strip, and if Abbas then can not deliver on his part of that deal then all that happens is this: that agreement isn't implemented.
There is nothing the least bit unusual about this e.g. the Allies met several times to reach agreement amongst themselves how to divide up Europe, regardless of the fact - and it was a fact - that they did not at that time control Europe: the Nazi's did.
None of those Allies ever said "Oh, no, actually, we shouldn't be talking about this while Hitler is still alive and kicking....", and nobody ever said "Maybe we should wait a while, you know, just in case the Germans end end up winning the war...."
So why should the Government of Israel and the P.L.O. accept your argument merely because Hamas is still alive and kicking, or because you insist that Abbas can never get the Gaza Strip back in his hands?
After all, Hamas no more "owns" the Gaza Strip than the IDF "owns" Area C of the West Bank, nor is that Hamas "control" any more chiselled into stone than is the IDF's "control".
Israel gave the nod to ABBAS to be the sole recognized representative of the Palestinian people, and having done that then there is **no** problem with negotiating with him - and him alone - regarding the fate of the Palestinian people, including those who are in the Gaza Strip.
And if **you** then want to point to Hamas and shout "Heh! What about THEM?" then Abbas has the perfect comeback: "Them? Why, them's ain't me, sunshine".
I agree there shouldn't be a problem reaching a full deal, and that is why I say come and negotiate , most people in Israel wouldn't rather have anyone else negotiate than abbas, so why doesn't he come and negotiate, see that is what I am saying that every side has its own problem but israel is not saying we won't negotiate because of hamas , it is saying lets negotiate anyway although hamas is problematic,
and to all the other responses that claim hamas has agreed to a cease fire and they are all of a sudden no longer a bloodthirsty organization, read their charter, if they were truthfully interested in peace they would change their ways and not promise the demise of Israel everyday, they might not be shooting as much out of pragmatism , they are arming themselves and getting ready for the next round.
They are refusing to sign a unity agreement with the PA, why has there been no agreement between the parties for the past 3 years? They will accept an agreement yet they wouldn't let elections go on in the PA.
So all I am saying we have our issues just like the palestinians do, so come to the table and negotiate that is the main point, and you didn't address my question about what has changed so much since the negotiations with olmert.
I can see exactly where your argument falls down. Budahh
"but israel is not saying we won't negotiate because of hamas , it is saying lets negotiate anyway although hamas is problematic, and to all the other responses that claim"
No, that statement is completely untrue.
What Israel is saying is this: let's negotiate now "without preconditions", EVEN THO we agreed as far back as 2003 to indefinitely freeze all settlement construction prior to those negotiations taking place.
And when Abbas - quite rightly - says that:
(a) since Israel AGREED TO THAT then
(b) the Palestinians are going to HOLD ISRAEL TO THAT then
the Israelis start spluttering internally inconsistent nonsense about [mumble] [mumble] Hamas! [mumble][mumble] Babies! Balconies! [mumble][mumble] Incitement! [mumble][mumble] Never Been So Insulted In All My Life!!![mumble][mumble].
You are doing the same thing i.e. you are insisting that Abbas must come to the negotiating table *even* *though* Israel has not even done *one* of the things that it committed itself to doing when it signed that Road Map For Peace.
Why on Earth would Abbas agree to that, Budahh?
Think about it: if Abbas agrees to that then he is acknowledging that Israel has a "right" to renege on any agreement that it signs and ratifies.
Abbas would be crazy to do that, for reasons that should be obvious even to you i.e. if Israel has a "right" to unilaterally "rewrite" agreements then no agreement that bears Israel's signature is worth the paper that it is written on.
you keep going back to the same argument, I am saying both sides are not perfect and abbas had no problem negotiating for the past god knows how many years, all of a sudden he cares about the settlements enough so that they cannot even make him come to the table.
If you think that the palestinians will achieve something without negotiations you are wrong so you can encourage the sides and bring up whatever claims you have, yet when you go to the U.N and you think they will change something, you are just shooting yourself in the foot, do you expect the world to make Israel concede to all demands , you think that the world will be able to impose peace, be serious .
I think that abbas just knows he cannot get from the current prime minister what he has gotten from olmert and barak so he is waiting till who knows what maybe government change or i dont know what , that is why all of a sudden after years of negotiating he refuses to , otherwise it is unexplainable.
There is a reason why I keep coming back to it, Budahh
"you keep going back to the same argument,"
That's because YOU keep wanting to drag the discussion onto homilies and generalizations rather than to address the point that I keep making.
"I am saying both sides are not perfect and abbas had no problem negotiating for the past god knows how many years, all of a sudden he cares about the settlements enough so that they cannot even make him come to the table."
That is waffle, Budahh. Abbas has Israel cold on this: he can, indeed, point to a document where Israel committed itself to freezing all settlement construction before negotiations takes place. He is therefore ENTITLED to say that he will not enter into those negotiations until Israel lives up to that committment.
Abbas is perfectly correct to point out that he has waived that entitlement in the past AND IT HAS DONE NO GOOD i.e. all that has happened is that Israel has yelled "Yipppppeeeeee!" and let rip with the bulldozers while he was kept busy with pointless talks with whoever has been tasked with keeping him talking, talking, talking, talking.
Trick him once, shame on you. Trick him twice, shame on him.
He has been tricked before, he is not willing to be tricked again.
And this is the important part, Budahh, so do pay attention: Abbas HAS A RIGHT to insist that he will not be tricked again, and Israel does NOT HAVE A RIGHT to insist that he must keep falling for this same trick over and over and over again.
"If you think that the palestinians will achieve something without negotiations you are wrong so you can encourage the sides and bring up whatever claims you have, yet when you go to the U.N and you think they will change something, you are just shooting yourself in the foot, do you expect the world to make Israel concede to all demands , you think that the world will be able to impose peace, be serious ."
That, again, is demonstrably untrue. Abbas has repeatedly said that he is willing - indeed, eager - to return to the negotiating table the moment that Netahyahu shows his willingness to accept the notion that Israel's signature on a paper is worth something.
This isn't rocket science: even you should be able to comprehend that it the way that Netanyahu shows his willingness to negotiate in good faith is by AGREEING to live up to Israel's AGREEMENTS, and if he isn't willing to do that (and he isn't) then it is demonstrably true that Bibi is acting in bad faith.
"I think that abbas just knows he cannot get from the current prime minister what he has gotten from olmert and barak so he is waiting till who knows what maybe government change or i dont know what , that is why all of a sudden after years of negotiating he refuses to , otherwise it is unexplainable."
Of course he understands perfectly well that Netanyahu is insisting on "negotiations without preconditions" because he intends to shaft the Palestinians.
But they also understand this, even if you will not: Netanyahu **must** first get the Palestinians to agree to waive that Road Map committment of Israel's, because once they do that then Netanyahu can just keep on shafting Abbas over and over and over again, and all without **any** cost to himself.
Why should the Palestinians agree to allow themselves to be shafted, Budahh, simply because Bibi won't agree that Israel has to honour its own signature?
Johnyboy54 lets not pretend the palestinians have been keeping
up every part of their road map commitments, like I said before both sides can find things that the other side didn't keep, picking one thing and making it the thing that doesn't let you get back to talks is just an excuse and Israel can do the same thing.
How do you know what netanyahu will give no one knows untill there is an agreement and there have been a lot of people from the right side of Israeli politics who made serious steps towards peace, begin and sharon , netanyahu signed the hebron agreement.
So you expect abbas to not return to the table forever now?
Israel is not goin to stop settlements just because abbas won't negotiate. what will he get out of it? If Israel is cornered on the world scene you think it will make more concessions, don't think so.
"Johnyboy54 lets not pretend the palestinians have been keeping up every part of their road map commitments,"
We know that for a fact, because otherwise the Quartet would find fault with their (lack) of effort. And, so sorry, it is a fact that the Quartet has been exceptionally pleased with the efforts of Abbas And His Bunch.
"like I said before both sides can find things that the other side didn't keep, picking one thing and making it the thing that doesn't let you get back to talks is just an excuse and Israel can do the same thing."
And, again, the Road Map says that ISRAEL is not to be the judge of that, and neither is Abbas.
Abbas claims that he has reached the finish line for Phase I. The Quartet agrees.
Abbas claims that ISRAEL has not even started on Phase I. The Quartet agrees.
Now, I invite you A.G.A.I.N. to read the Road Map document: it clearly says that Abbas has no obligation to procede to Phase II (i.e. to negotiations) unless/until Netanyahu joins him at the finish line of Phase I.
And it is demonstrably true that Netanyahu not only hasn't reached that finish line, he hasn't even got out of the starting blocks.
"How do you know what netanyahu will give no one knows untill there is an agreement and there have been a lot of people from the right side of Israeli politics who made serious steps towards peace, begin and sharon , netanyahu signed the hebron agreement."
Look, you are simply making a "trust me" argument, and in terms of this "peace process" that is an utterly pointless argument to put forward.
There *is* no trust in the peace process, and it is precisely because of thes that the Americans decided that Another Way Was Needed, which was a "Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" (its full and official title, if you didn't already know).
Both the Israelis and the Palestinians AGREED that this was the way forward i.e. they both AGREED to replace "trust me" with "don't listen to what I say, look at what I do".
Q: And what do we see Israel doing?
A: We see Israel flat-out refusing to do what it agreed to do.
"So you expect abbas to not return to the table forever now?"
No, I expect Israel to LIVE UP TO ITS COMMITTMENTS, and the moment that it does then I expect Abbas to return to the negotiating table.
"Israel is not goin to stop settlements just because abbas won't negotiate."
Israel is not willing to stop settlements because it never had any intention of stopping settlements.
Now, the question is this: Why did Israel agree to freeze settlement construction if it never had any intention of ever stopping settlement construction?
The answer is easy: its only interest in the negotiating process is as political cover for endless expansion of those settlements i.e. it simply and knowingly lied when it signed that Road map agreement.
"what will he get out of it? If Israel is cornered on the world scene you think it will make more concessions, don't think so."
And I think that this Israeli govt is suffering from a massive overdose of hubris.
Netanyahu should have that looked at, because hubris does tend to be fatal....
Johnyboy I read the road map and like I said there are arguments
for both sides, The Pa was supposed to fight all the terror and breakup all the terror organizations, that was a first step so I don't know where the heck you got that they are doing everything they were supposed to be doing, they haven't.
They were supposed to establish institutions and ferorm the whole PA, and have democratic institutions. No offense but we have seen what has happened to the Palestinian democracy, there is Terror in gaza, Israel has went beyond the road map has cleared the gaza strip and got terror in return. The quartet might be saying that they are doing a better job yet they have not met their full commitments. Please quit selling us they have. There are terror organizations and they are alive and kicking.
There were no elections, The deal was supposed to be done in 2005. It hasn't yet.
If abbas had such a problem it came to him at a funny time. Obviously the deal would include all the terror organizations, and even in the west bank they are still around.
The PA is fighting them to save their own skin otherwise it would have been taken over by the hamas a long time ago.
So Israel can bring up the same claims and you cannot explain abbas's sudden decision to stop negotiations untill....., and where was he while there was a 10 month freeze, so your argument is baseless, both sides did not even fulfill the first step of the roadmap, I have not heard the quartet say that the palestinians have fulfilled their obligations I don't know where you got that , I would appriciate it if you would give a link .
What *are* you smoking, Budahh?
"Johnyboy I read the road map and like I said there are arguments for both sides,"
And I'll repeat: the Q.U.A.R.T.E.T. is tasked with hearing the arguments for both sides and then deciding who is doing what they were tasked to do and who is not.
The Q.U.A.R.T.E.T. is perfectly happy with the PA's efforts, and scores Israel a Big Fat Zero.
"The Pa was supposed to fight all the terror and breakup all the terror organizations, that was a first step so I don't know where the heck you got that they are doing everything they were supposed to be doing, they haven't."
Nonsense: there is no "terror" coming from any part of Area A i.e. the area where the PA has both civil control and responsibility for security, and even the IDF admits this: rare praise indeed.
The PA is NOT responsible for any "terrorism" or "incitement" coming from any territory other than in Area A, because it is an indisputable fact that Area A is the only part of the occupied territories where the PA has been given responsibility for security.
You are simply setting the bar impossibly high i.e. you expect the PA to control "terror" in places where their security forces are unable to operate.
"The quartet might be saying that they are doing a better job yet they have not met their full commitments."
One More Time: the Q.U.A.R.T.E.T. is the sole judge of that, and they say that the PA is meeting all its commitments.
"There are terror organizations and they are alive and kicking."
Again, you set the bar impossibly higher than the Road Map does, because that Road Map says that the PA security forces have to show a commitment and a demonstrated ability to fight terrorism; it does not say that the PA security forces have to demonstrate that they have wiped out terrorism.
Heck, in over 40+ years of trying the IDF hasn't managed to do *that*, and the IDF is infinitely more powerful than the PA's security forces.
"There were no elections, The deal was supposed to be done in 2005. It hasn't yet."
What are you talking about? The elections were held in 2006. Didn't you read about it?
"So Israel can bring up the same claims and you cannot explain abbas's sudden decision to stop negotiations until"
Honestly, there is no reasoning with some people.
Abbas says he will not enter negotiations until there is an unconditional and indefinite freeze on construction.
You consider that to be inexplicable, and you consider that Bibi's demand that negotiations start tomorrow WITHOUT any such freeze is perfectly reasonable.
You are wrong: Abbas' position is
1) perfectly consistent with prior agreements,
2) totally in compliance with the obligations placed upon BOTH parties in those agreements,
3) completely understandable in the light of previous Israeli construction during past negotiations, and - last but not least -
4) simple commonsense.
Bibi's demand, by way of comparison, shares none of those virtues i.e. it
1) clearly violates previous agreements,
2) indisputably amounts to a unilateral abrogation of commitments made under those same agreements,
3) totally inexplicable in a man who CLAIMS that he is determined to reach a final status agreement in those talks,
4) utterly consistent with with his duplicitous behaviour during past negotiations, and - last but not least -
5) distinctly smelling of fish.
But you have no hesitation pointing the finger of blame at Abbas?
How odd, because all that is required to get negotiations started again is for Netanyahu to make this announcement: "OK guys, you've got me dead to rights: the Road Map says I have to freeze all construction, so I'm freezing them all."
Simple, and it has the simple virtue of being CONSISTENT with Israel's obligations.
Whereas restarting the negotiations via Abbas gritting his teeth and saying "I'm not supposed to do this, but I've been heavied into it" may be simple, but it has the vice of requiring an ADDITIONAL impost upon Abbas i.e. he is being forced to give up something that was granted to him by previous agreements.
"I have not heard the quartet say that the palestinians have fulfilled their obligations I don't know where you got that , I would appriciate it if you would give a link"
Here's a start:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/03/138583.htm
Plenty of praise for the PA in that, Budahh, but very, very, very little that is positive regarding Israel.
More to follow.....
boodah--I find your use of your moniker offensive, franly
Sick, demented David, agent of the devil, murderer, pervert, liar--Ok, I see where you get your argument style from, the most philosophically ignorant nation in the region from back in the day, still mired in childish ethics, philosophic inquiry, still centuries behind the ancient Greeks. But, enough of our self serving sophism, dishonest, un-earnest nonsense:
What part of the concessions revealed by the Palestine Papers isn't enough? What was Abbas not offering that you needed to make a deal?
All your blather is to prevent you from addressing that question, answer please?
I know that they are happy that doesn't mean that they said that they have fulfilled their commitments , show me a link or a document that says that, they were also happy when Israel pulled out of the gaza strip but we obviously are not going to agree on that and the argument is pointless.
Is gaza cosidered area A, and Israel arrests terrorists almost everyday you can go on the Shabak website the numbers are there. The Pa have shown zero ability to fight the terror forces in gaza, they are not even allowed in gaza.
And netanyahu froze all construction for 10 months out of good faith, what was abbas waiting for?
I read your link and it says nothing like the palestinians have done their job and the Israelis have not, they also talk about gaza buddy.
It pretty much says what I said.
"
the Quartet calls on the Palestinian Authority to continue to make every effort to improve law and order, to fight violent extremism, and to end incitement. The Quartet emphasizes the need to assist the Palestinian Authority in building its law enforcement capacity"
And it encourages Israel to do things also. They talk about gaza as well there is no need to copy paste they say that the terror must stop.
and unilatteral steps should not be taken.
Scott in dallas show me one concession that the Pa leadership has verified, it only shows you how they are not getting their people ready for true peace, the arab world is mad because wow if you want to make peace you need to make concessions.
You think we are philosophically ignorant? Look at what is going on in the world, you have been brainwashed , abbas was the one who didn't take the deal so sorry you are offended guy.
J thomas I have not been smoking anything, have you ever been to Israel or are u fed by what you have been reading in the news? Do you know anything first hand because I do, so blabbering about something just because you think you know does not make you any smarter or right.
"I know that they are happy that doesn't mean that they said that they have fulfilled their commitments , show me a link or a document that says that,"
!!!!!!! That document says exactly that, budahh
Let's look at the PA first:
1) Fighting terrorism? Tick
2) Building-blocks of statehood? Tick
3) Ending incitement? Tick
4) Commitment to good governance, opportunity, justice, and security? Tick. Tick. Tick. Tick
Q: Does it say anywhere that the Pals aren't doing what they need to do?
A: No. There are no crosses against them.
Let's now look at Israel:
1) Ease restrictions of movement? A good start, but Must Do Better.
2) Promised not to block some building projects in Gaza? Tick.
That is it.
That is the sum total of all praise from the Quartet to Israel.
Q: Does it say anywhere that the Israelis aren't doing their bit?
A: Oh, yeah, plenty:
a) Freeze all settlement activity? Fail
b) Dismantle outposts erected since March 2001? Fail
c) Refrain from demolitions and evictions in East Jerusalem? Fail
d) Refrain from new housing units in East Jerusalem? Failure with double-demerit.
But you score it differently, hmmm? How so, Budahh?
"Is gaza cosidered area A, and Israel arrests terrorists almost everyday you can go on the Shabak website the numbers are there."
I'll repeat: the PA simply can not be held responsible for any terrorism from any area where its security forces can not operate.
Israel is fighting terrorism where the IDF is responsible for security?
Yeah, it is, and good for it, but what has that got to do with the PA?
Hamas is NOT fighting terrorism in the Gaza Strip, where it is in control of security?
No, it isn't, and for that Hamas should be condemned. But Hamas ain't "the Palestinian leadership", and so that observation is no reflection on the PA.
"The Pa have shown zero ability to fight the terror forces in gaza, they are not even allowed in gaza."
And I'll repeat this again, because it never gets old: the PA can no more be held responsible for acts of terrorism where the PA security forces are unable to operate than King Canute can be held responsible for the effect of the Moon on tides.
"And netanyahu froze all construction for 10 months out of good faith,"
I'm sorry, but that statement is utterly and completely untrue.
Netanyahu put a stop to all new building approvals for private residences for 10 months i.e. no new public construction could BEGIN.
That's it. Nothing more:
1) Public works were exempt.
2) Private works already begun were exempt.
3) East Jerusalem was exempt.
"what was abbas waiting for?
He was waiting for the unconditional and indefinite freeze that Netanyahu is obligated to impose and which you mistakenly believed that Netanyahu announced. Bibi still hasn't imposed it, and so Abbas is still waiting.
"It pretty much says what I said."
Buddy, you can only make that quote "say" what you want it to say by oh-so-conveniently ignoring the sentence before came before it i.e.
"Noting the significant progress on security achieved by the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank,"
Translation: the Quartet just gave the PA a Tick, and in the sentence that you quote they then urge the PA to Keep Up The Good Work, Because The Tend-line Is Going Up, Up, Up!
"They talk about gaza as well there is no need to copy paste they say that the terror must stop."
As cop-out's go that's one mighty impressive bit o' dodging.......
Be honest, Budahh: this whole concept of resorting to "evidence" to back up your lamentable "arguments" is all news to you, isn't it?
Darn hard, isn't it? Ponitification is sooooo much easier, heh?
JOHNBOY4546, your argument is based on two false notions.
a) Israel agreed to freeze settlement building.
It did not. Israel filed a 14 point reservations document to the quartet. One of those reservations is that Israel will not build new settlements but will continue to extend existing ones.
b) The quartet is the sole authority in determining whether a side has fulfilled it's obligations.
It's not. nowhere in the roadmap document does it say that (the specific role they is monitoring). even if it did, there is no official document published by the quartet asserting the PA has accomplished all of it's phase 1 goals or that Israel has done "zero" as you say.
Regardless of these claims, the objective both governments should aspire to is peace and not following a 10 year old suggestion.
Johnny what is so hard to understand?
THe quartet says the pa must improve a lot of its work, just like the things I mentioned, there is terror in areas that the pa controls actually about a year ago it was a palestinian policeman who stabbed an Israeli to death. The Idf goes into all of the west bank believe me, areas a,b,c and whatever other area you want, hostility has not stopped,incitment has not stopped.
What kind of sense do you make , you keep saying the pa has stood by all its obligations, you are purposely avoiding the fact that when the road map was signed the meaning was all the palestinian areas including gaza, even in the west bank here is a shabak report in english and arabic if you like. So quit feeding us bull about how there is no terror in the west bank just for the past month.
http://shabak.gov.il/english/Pages/default.aspx
Now do you think that you can deal with an official entity that has no sovereignty or as you claim no responsibility for half the country, and say that because they have been doing an ok job at some areas we should see it as agreement fulfilled, when obviously the agreement was meant for a lot more than that, only a child would think that things work like that. read the shabak reports for the past 10 years the numbers don't lie just because in the last year the pa improved they cannot collect when the train has passed, although I am sure if they fully stood by their obligations Israel would have fulfilled every part of its obligations. Terror is the main thing for Israelis we like to live just like you .
Now we are not agreeing so lets agree to disagree.
Facts are such darn tricky things, heh, RODNEY?
"Israel filed a 14 point reservations document to the quartet. One of those reservations is that Israel will not build new settlements but will continue to extend existing ones."
I shall point you here:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-s-road-map-reservations-1.8935
I now invite *you* to point me to the "reservation" that says that Israel would continue to build in existing settlements.
No hurry.
Take your time.
When you are ready.
"nowhere in the roadmap document does it say that (the specific role they is monitoring)."
I shall now point you here:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/21st_century/roadmap.asp
And I will now direct your attention to this quote: "The Quartet will meet regularly at senior levels to evaluate the parties' performance on implementation of the plan."
Your argument, such as it is, amounts to this: The PA must do what the IDF has never been able to do, and it must do it in places where the PA's own security forces are unable to operate.
This despite the fact that the IDF is INFINITELY more powerful than the PA security forces, has had DECADES more time to carry out that task, and has NEVER been shy about operating wherever and whenever it wants with as much force as the whim takes it.
Yet given all those advantages the IDF has *never* been able to accomplish the task that you insist that the PA must accomplish before it can claim to have lived up to its commitments under the Road Map.
Heck, Budahh, why don't you demand that Abbas hold back the tide?
The Road Map simply does not insist that the PA demonstrate that it has eradicated terrorism, even in the areas that it has security responsibility, and the Quartet certainly does not hold the PA responsible for terrorism in areas that PA security CAN NOT OPERATE.
Heck, not even the IDF does that.
This just today from the IDF spokesman:
"The terrorist organizations are constantly operating against Israeli civilians and IDF soldiers," the IDF stated, adding that they held "the Hamas terrorist organization solely responsible for maintaining the calm in the Gaza Strip and for any terrorist activity emanating from it."
If that's what the damn IDF says then who are you or I to argue with him?
You are right the reservation about the settlements was not in that document. I'm sorry. That reservation came from PM Sharon himself on May 12 2003.
As for the for the second point, the fact that the quartet evaluates something (Israel didn't even agree to that, see reservation 4) doesn't mean it has the SOLE authority do determine whether someone completed a phase. You argued that the quartet is the umpire. that's not true, both sides have the right to say the other side is not keeping up it's obligations.
I repeat what I said before. If the roadmap doesn't work we should try something else. People's lives are more important than some piece of paper.
RODNEY insists that the players get to be the umpire.
"That reservation came from PM Sharon himself on May 12 2003."
Consider this: you and I walk into a lawyer's office where we agree to the terms of a contract. We both sign that contract, and that signature is witnessed by the lawyer. AFTER that contract is signed you grab it and start rubbing out various sentences and adding your own in crayon.
Q: Do those chicken-scratches mean anything?
A: No, not unless that lawyer and I have agreed to those alterations.
Q: Did we agree to those alterations?
A: No, we did not.
Sharon's "reservations" mean nothing, Rodney, because they amounted to a UNILATERAL attempt to alter the terms of an agreement and that is an utterly pointless thing to do.
Because, obviously, you can't UNILATERALLY alter the terms of an "agreement", because that very concept involves a contradiction-in-terms.
"As for the for the second point, the fact that the quartet evaluates something (Israel didn't even agree to that, see reservation 4) doesn't mean it has the SOLE authority do determine whether someone completed a phase."
Again, I shall refer you to the Road Map itself, where you will find this statement explaing the reason WHY the Quartet meets to evaluate the performance of the two sides:
"Progress into Phase II will be based upon the consensus judgment of the Quartet of whether conditions are appropriate to proceed, taking into account performance of both parties."
The players are "Government of Israel" and the "Palestinian leadership"
The umpire is "the Quartet".
The players do not get to question the umpire's call.
Play ball, gentlemen.....
"You argued that the quartet is the umpire. that's not true, both sides have the right to say the other side is not keeping up it's obligations."
I'll point back to that previous quote, and stress how that means that cries of non-compliance from either party can not be used as an excuse to down-tools WITHIN a Phase, merely as an excuse not to move from Phase I to Phase II.
I shall now also refer you to the statement from the Quartet that I showed to Budahh, and point you to this line: "The Quartet reiterates its call on Israel and the Palestinians to act on the basis of international law and on their previous agreements and obligations -- in particular adherence to the Roadmap, irrespective of reciprocity"
Irrespective. Of. Reciprocity.
That, Rodney, is the Quartet telling you that you are blowing smoke out of somewhere that the sun does not shine.....
"I repeat what I said before. If the roadmap doesn't work we should try something else."
Such a masterly statement of the zionist attitude towards signed and ratified agreements i.e. if I don't *want* to be bound by my past agreements then I don't *have* to be bound by them, and you guys simply have to acknowledge that and change your tune.
Excuse me, Rodney, but if that is true then what **is** the point of negotiating with Israel, seeing as how Israel can refuse to be bound by any agreement that emerges from those negotiations?
In my world my word is my bond, and my signature binds me. But not in your world, heh?
I did not say that we should give up on the road map because it's inconvenient for Israel. We should give up on that because it doesn't work.
The original end date was 6 years ago, obviously something went wrong. You are free to put the blame 100% on Israel. I will disagree with you, but the most important thing is to end this conflict.
If it was up to me all the settlements would be gone tomorrow, but you have to understand that Israel is a democracy so there there are different voices pulling in different directions.
We need to find paths that will lead us to peace. We may need to acknowledge that the road map might not be that path.
Round and round and round Rodney goes...
"I did not say that we should give up on the road map because it's inconvenient for Israel. We should give up on that because it doesn't work."
The flaw in that comment is obvious: the correct phrase is not "it doesn't work" but "it isn't working".
Q: Annnnnnnnd, why isn't it working?
A: Because one of the two parties is refusing to carry out its obligations under that agreement, and the other party refuses to give them a free pass.
What you are insisting upon is that the recalcitrant should - indeed, must! - be given that free pass. That does, of course, amount to saying that a party to an agreement has a RIGHT to trash that agreement.
Look, Rodney, your argument is indefensible; it requires that you make a mockery of what "an agreement" is all about.
Think about it: you are insisting that we must trash the very concept of "an agreement" (i.e. that the two sides have AGREED on what must be done) in order that the two sides can enter into negotiations to make...... an agreement.
Hellooooooooo. Anyone in there? Anyone at all?
After all, if we should - no! must! - trash this agreement because Israel's refusal to carry it out makes it unworkable then what stops Israel from trashing any future agreement by employing that same tactic and then invoking that same "Rodney logic (tm)"?
Nothing at all that I can see i.e. Rodney insists that Israel has a magic get-out-of-jail card labelled "recalcitrant", and Israel can play that card whenever it wishes.
Round and round and round Rodney goes...
"I did not say that we should give up on the road map because it's inconvenient for Israel. We should give up on that because it doesn't work."
The flaw in that comment is obvious: the correct phrase is not "it doesn't work" but "it isn't working".
Q: Annnnnnnnd, why isn't it working?
A: Because one of the two parties is refusing to carry out its obligations under that agreement, and the other party refuses to give them a free pass.
What you are insisting upon is that the recalcitrant should - indeed, must! - be given that free pass. That does, of course, amount to saying that a party to an agreement has a RIGHT to trash that agreement.
Look, Rodney, your argument is indefensible; it requires that you make a mockery of what "an agreement" is all about.
Think about it: you are insisting that we must trash the very concept of "an agreement" (i.e. that the two sides have AGREED on what must be done) in order that the two sides can enter into negotiations to make...... an agreement.
Hellooooooooo. Anyone in there? Anyone at all?
After all, if we should - no! must! - trash this agreement because Israel's refusal to carry it out makes it unworkable then what stops Israel from trashing any future agreement by employing that same tactic and then invoking that same "Rodney logic (tm)"?
Nothing at all that I can see i.e. Rodney insists that Israel has a magic get-out-of-jail card labelled "recalcitrant", and Israel can play that card whenever it wishes.
You blame Israel for the failure of the road map. Not surprising. If you think Israel has no real interest in peace than why do think it even signed the agreement? Or the Oslo accords for that matter? And why did it pull out of Gaza?
Apparently (and luckily) the Palestinians don't share your view of Israel or they would never have agreed to go into negotiations.
Honestly, do you really think the Palestinians have done nothing wrong and Israel is the eternal devil?
How about this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DhFF7p7Z38
(video of Hillary Clinton condemning Palestinian hate education)
The reasons for the unsatisfactory achievements of the road map are not as simplistic as you try to portray. It has to with Israel fearing that the west bank will become "Gaza 2", the intricacies of Israeli politics, the unwillingness of the PA leaders to articulate to their people the concessions that must make and we don't even know how the latest events might affect the region.
Given that reality has Changed, we must react accordingly and not just nitpick over clauses in a dead contract.
As for the credibility issue, both sides have none. At least in each other eyes. The basis of these agreements are not that one side trusts the side's word, it's the belief that the other side is acting on their own self interest that happen to coincide with your own. It's a tricky and non-stable path but it's the only thing we have so far.
Possibly the worse attempt to defend Israel you will ever see...
"You blame Israel for the failure of the road map. Not surprising."
!!!!!!!
Here is an agreement, and these are the commitments contained within it.
One of the parties is carrying out its commitments to the very best of its abilities
The other party is flat-out refusing to carry out any of its commitments.
Q: Who is to blame for the failure to implement that agreement?
A: The party that refuses to carry out its commitments.
Q: What's their name?
A: "Israel"
Of course I blame Israel, Rodney. That's because Israel is to blame.....
"If you think Israel has no real interest in peace than why do think it even signed the agreement?"
Because Israel learnt long ago that it can accelerate settlement expansion under the cover of endless negotiations.
"Or the Oslo accords for that matter?"
Because that's where Israel first learnt that it can accelerate settlement expansion under the cover of endless negotiations.
"And why did it pull out of Gaza?"
Because Sharon understood that Bush was a blithering idiot who would give Israel enough credit for the Gaza disengagement to cover the debit accrued by expanding settlements in the West Bank under the cover of endless negotiations.
You are basing **all** of your questions upon one (unwarranted) assumption i.e. that Israel signs agreements in good faith.
Which is odd indeed, because you also insist that Israel has a "right" to renege on its commitments i.e. you insist that Israel has a right to act in bad faith even as you insist that Israel is signing these agreements in good faith.
Well, so sorry, but when someone advance such an abvious disconnect then the rule of thumb is this: What they SAY doesn't matter nearly as much as what they DO.
And what Israel does is sign agreements and then renege on that signature.
"Apparently (and luckily) the Palestinians don't share your view of Israel or they would never have agreed to go into negotiations."
!!!!!!!
Abbas is pointing out an undeniable truth: every time that the Palestinians have entered into negotiations with Israel then they have been shafted i.e. Israel has taken that opportunity to accelerate settlement expansion under the diplomatic cover provided by those negotiations.
The Pals have had a gutful of that, Rodney.
And because of that repeated display of bad faith from Israel a deal was reached where Israel **couldn't** do that i.e. Israel signed onto an agreement (the Road Map) where it promised not to build up settlements while the negotiations were taking place.
And what is Israel doing? It is still trying to shaft Abbas by insisting that he must enter into negotiations why the bulldozers are still going about their business.
It, honestly, is a display of unbridled arrogance that goes way beyond chutzpah.
"(video of Hillary Clinton condemning Palestinian hate education)"
OK, I'll repeat this for what must be the tenth time: the Q.U.A.R.T.E.T. decides wether (or not) the Palestinian Authority is doing enough to combat incitement against Israel.
Not Hillary Clinton.
Not You. Not Me.
Not Benyamin Netanyahu.
Not Uncle Tom Cobley.
The Q.U.A.R.T.E.T.
"The reasons for the unsatisfactory achievements of the road map are not as simplistic as you try to portray. It has to with Israel fearing that the west bank will become "Gaza 2", the intricacies of Israeli politics, the unwillingness of the PA leaders to articulate to their people the concessions that must make and we don't even know how the latest events might affect the region. Given that reality has Changed, we must react accordingly and not just nitpick over clauses in a dead contract."
Look, this goes to the very heart of the issue: WHAT IS AN AGREEMENT?
Is it something that you can toss away because you are sick of it?
Is is something that you can re-write because it is no longer convenient?
Is is something that you can get around be claiming that you had your fingers crossed?
The answer in all three cases is "No, YOU can't alter it without the agreement of the other parties".
And that is because an AGREEMENT is when all the parties get together and AGREE that they will do "this", and "that" and "the other", and having AGREED upon that then they can not unilaterally decide to do Something Else Altogether.
So if "circumstances change" then the parties must ALL AGREE to change (or to replace, it doesn't really matter) that AGREEMENT.
It. Can. Not. Be. Done. Unilaterally.
Israel is attempting to do exactly that i.e. to UNILATERALLY change the terms of that agreement in order that they can evade their commitments under that agreement.
Q: Why does it want to do that?
A: Because Israel never intended to carry out those commitments.
Q: So why did it sign in the first place?
A: Because it is a dab hand at signing documents in bad faith.
Abbas is having none of that: he has Israel's signature on a document, and he is holding Israel to that signature.
Good on him, I say, because I accept the concept of "my word is my bond".
But you? No, you, not so much......
So your sole assumption is that Israel only cares about settlement expansion. Even when Israel destroys settlements it's only a trick to build other ones. Do you really think that's more reasonable than my assumption that Israel has some good faith when it talks to the Palestinians?
The clip I provided shows very clearly the Palestinian breaching of the agreement. We don't need the quartet to tell the sky is blue. Israel sees this brainwashing going on and you can't blame them for not being the most trusting people in the world. The quartet didn't say Israel is only wasting time in negotiations ever since '93 to expand settlements (even though the rate of expansion has gone down since then) but you are very quick to assert that's an absolute truth, and that's ok, The quartet is not god, we can make judgments on our own.
I tried making this point earlier but I'll try to make it clearer. the main reasons an agreement with the PA is not fully supported in the Israeli public are:
a) Disbelief that the Palestinians will give up the right of return (might change in the next elections following the release of the papers)
b) Fear that after the IDF will leave the west bank it will become a terrorist nation like Gaza. this fear is not irrational since Hamas got most of the votes in the west bank in the last elections. That's why making an agreement with the current PA regime seems sometimes pointless as it might not in charge soon.
Unlike your portrayal, the settlers and the settlement movement have little support in Israel. every pole shows that the Israeli public is willing to give up land (and settlements) for real peace.
Wrong in the first line, Rodney
"So your sole assumption is that Israel only cares about settlement expansion"
No, what I am saying regarding settlement construction is something completely different i.e. Israel only cares about "negotiations" as a means of political cover for the expansion of settlements.
OK, for the ELEVENTH time now......
"The clip I provided shows very clearly the Palestinian breaching of the agreement."
Then take it to the Q.U.A.R.T.E.T. and ask them to comment on it.
Here, I'll even give you a name to get you started: Blair, Tony.
"We don't need the quartet to tell the sky is blue."
You can reach whatever opinion you want, Rodney.
Feel Free.
Be My Guest.
But I do need to tell you (*sigh* again *sigh*) that your opinion means Jack Shit.
The Q.U.A.R.T.E.T. is the sole arbiter of wether the PA is not doing enough to combat incitement, and they do not seem to be the slightest bit concerned about those grainy videos on YouTube.
You are? Well, good for you, Rodney.
But, please, remind me again why you opinion matters?
And, gosh, that's such a pointless point, Rodney.
"I tried making this point earlier but I'll try to make it clearer. the main reasons an agreement with the PA is not fully supported in the Israeli public are:"
.... completely irrelevant to this debate......
Israel insists that it wants Abbas to enter the negotiating tent.
Israel insists it will NOT freeze construction in order to get Abbas in there.
Abbas insists that Israel signed an agreement saying they will freeze all settlement construction prior to negotiations.
Abbas insists that he will NOT enter that tent until Israel lives up to that commitment.
Who is right, and who is wrong?
On ***that*** issue Abbas is completely in the right, and Israel does not have a leg to stand on, and what YOU are quoted as saying above has absolutely NO relevence to ***that*** issue.
Because it gives base to my argument that Israel is negotiating in good faith and if it is hesitant in going through with agreements, it does so out of understandable rational concern for it's citizens.
It undermines your theory about Israel's motives i.e expending settlememts.
I think the umpire analogy you brought forth is making you miss a key component in this conflict. Interactions between international bodies are not the same as interactions between two citizens of the same country. No international body has the authority to give orders to another body. That's why the UN for instance is "condemning" and not "forbidding". The only thing keeping an agreement alive is trust. Because it's hard for the Israelis and Palestinians to trust each other they use a middle man. That middle man can't force anyone to do anything no matter how many times you capitalize the word quartet. If either side thinks the other side is not doing the things that need to be done (not necessarily what was written in the agreement) the other side will lose trust and will be reluctant to cooperate, no matter what the middle man says.
I'll ask you a question, do you think Israel wants peace? and do you think it is willing to stop the settlements in future in order to get it?
"But it is relevant Because it gives base to my argument that Israel is negotiating in good faith and if it is hesitant in going through with agreements, it does so out of understandable rational concern for it's citizens."
And you are wrong, and you are wrong on two counts:
1) Netanyahu isn't demanding that Abbas sign an agreement: Netanyahu is demanding that Abbas ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS. He does so for a specific reason: once he locks Abbas into a room then he has the diplomatic cover that he needs to mute criticism of Israeli settlement expansion.
2) Israel has very little hesitation signing agreements, precisely because it EXPECTS to be able to renege on those agreements, and it EXPECTS to be allowed to get away with it.
"I think the umpire analogy you brought forth is making you miss a key component in this conflict. Interactions between international bodies are not the same as interactions between two citizens of the same country. No international body has the authority to give orders to another body. That's why the UN for instance is "condemning" and not "forbidding". The only thing keeping an agreement alive is trust. Because it's hard for the Israelis and Palestinians to trust each other they use a middle man. That middle man can't force anyone to do anything no matter how many times you capitalize the word quartet. If either side thinks the other side is not doing the things that need to be done (not necessarily what was written in the agreement) the other side will lose trust and will be reluctant to cooperate, no matter what the middle man says. "
This is all childish nonsense. OF COURSE there is no world policeman. OF COURSE there is no world court that can arrest Netanyahu for contempt of court or for breach of trust.
OF COURSE that is true, and that is why in terms of international relations the world works on the basis of "good faith" i.e. your word is your bond, and if you break it then nobody trusts you any more and nobody will deal with you any more.
Why **do** you think Israel is complaining long and hard about a "campaign of deligitimization"? What **do** you think that "deligitimization" actually is?
It is this: Israel has lied and cheated and reneged and signed-with-its-fingers-crossed TOO MANY TIMES, so now its word is no good and nobody trusts the little recalcitrant.
"I'll ask you a question, do you think Israel wants peace?"
No. Even if the Israelis public deludes itself that "Israel wants peace" the ruling regime is unable to wean itself off its addiction to settlement expansion.
"and do you think it is willing to stop the settlements in future in order to get it?"
No, Israel will continue to do what it has ALWAYS done under EVER Prime Minister i.e. delay, delay, delay while it expands those settlements, and then prevent any chance of a final status agreement by making an impossible demand of the Palestinians i.e. that the Palestinians must cede *all* those settlements (plus room to grow them) to Israel.
Annnnnnnd, hot off the press.....
"I'll ask you a question, do you think Israel wants peace?"
My opinion of that seems to be shared by some other people of note:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/merkel-chides-netanyahu-for-failing-to-make-a-single-step-to-advance-peace-1.345539
Another triumph of Israeli diplomacy.
Israel has acted the charlaton one too many times, Rodney. It appears that I am not the only one to has noticed.....
I have studied this issue for a long time and I read all the comments. Israel is not serious about peace. The main game that is being played out is land grabs for a "greater Israel". You merely have to read the words that the former prime minsters of Israel from day one have uttered to see that the intention is not to end at the pre-1967 borders. From day one, when the state of Israel was formed, the agreement was to have a homeland for the Jewish people on about 60% of the land of former Palestine. The constitution was to provide equal rights for the people regardless of religion. The reason that the world is so upset with the Israeli actions in the region is for all the same reasons that JohnBoy has so patiently tried to elucidate. The agreements that Israel signs are not adhered to. That is the simple fact. That is the fact from day 1. I have friends in Israel and friends in the Arab world. My Israeli friends are upset with their government for the mistreatment of the Palestinians. The world is upset for the same reason. The world is seeing the true picture of Israel. I suppose the defining moment was when the Gaza flotilla was attacked in international waters. For Israel's sake, they might want to alter their behavior, and treat people fairly. They say that they are a democracy, so why then are they not adhering to democratic fundamentals, such as rule of law, equal rights, one vote per person regardless of where they live. Keep up the good work Johnboy. The world is on your side of the argument. 14 members of the Security Council voted to condemn the settlement building. Only the USA vetoed it. Many countries have recognized a Palestinian state. The tide is turning for Israel. Don't try to fight it Israel. The tide is too strong. Make peace with the people there. Give them their basic human rights. Don't destroy homes, make midnight arrests of children, build apartheid walls, destroy water wells, olive groves, etc. The alternative is BDS, more isolation and at some point, maybe even the loss of the only friend in the world that you have....the USA.
Stephen M. Walt ignores some basic and important facts:
1. The 3 B$ a year are paying back mainly in US military compounds and give huge "blood" to elevate those factories and keep the jobs of the employees.
2. Israel keeps close ties with the factories she buys from and with the US army / navy / air force and advice back how to improve military projects and to adjust them to the battle needs.
3. Israel new inventions, adjustment, know-how, technologies and developments flow to the US almost for free and help the US industries and armies. The “Arrow” project is not just partially subsidized by the US but the ownership and the future profits too. So apart from the US benefits its dollars again she also benefited from acquiring the new technological breakthrough of the system. This is only the most known example, but there are some others which didn’t get yet to the public eyes (One hint mentioned: the Laser bean system).
4. Let’s take for example the UAV drone projects. Israel was the first country that took this matter seriously in the early 70th and developed huge and fascinating UAV industries that lead the world with new developments and breakthrough concepts and technologies. The US wake up only 20 years later and Israel just gave some UAV’S to the US in order to study the tactic and strategic benefits of the vehicle. Now the US and other coalition armies in Afghanistan use Israeli drones that save lot of their soldier’s life. Israeli know-how and expertise is used by the American military and industries when developing new version of drones.
5. wants the military aid the US wants to give it to Israel. The 3B$ a year turns Israel to be more tied to the US interests and makes the US more influential over Israel, which gives her more political value and strength in the eyes of the Muslims states.
6. Israel combatant expertise were taught in the US, Britain, Australia, France military units, and some of the combatants came to Israel to be trained at Israel military facilities. Not to mentions that this expertise is saving lot of the coalition lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
7. Israel industries produce lot of technology and military excellent products which are well sold everywhere. But she can’t sell these goods to countries that the US thinks will harm her, while the US sells almost everything to everyone, even to the enemies of Israel, without asking Israel’s opinion. This is the best that the US can wish for, and that is one of the reasons for the US policy to give Israel this annual aid which let her almost control the Israeli security selling market. The US even influencing to stop Israeli military projects that may weakened the Israeli military ties with the US such as the closure of the fighter ‘Lavi’ project in late 80th. Too military Independence Israel doesn’t serve the US interests.
8. I’m sure that I can raise more issues to explain that very wide US-Israel connection but I’ll let others to add, for now.
Stephen M. Walt ignores some basic and important facts:
1. The 3 B$ a year are paying back mainly in US military compounds and give huge "blood" to elevate those factories and keep the jobs of the employees.
2. Israel keeps close ties with the factories she buys from and with the US army / navy / air force and advice back how to improve military projects and to adjust them to the battle needs.
3. Israel new inventions, adjustment, know-how, technologies and developments flow to the US almost for free and help the US industries and armies. The “Arrow” project is not just partially subsidized by the US but the ownership and the future profits too. So apart from the US benefits its dollars again she also benefited from acquiring the new technological breakthrough of the system. This is only the most known example, but there are some others which didn’t get yet to the public eyes (One hint mentioned: the Laser bean system).
4. Let’s take for example the UAV drone projects. Israel was the first country that took this matter seriously in the early 70th and developed huge and fascinating UAV industries that lead the world with new developments and breakthrough concepts and technologies. The US wake up only 20 years later and Israel just gave some UAV’S to the US in order to study the tactic and strategic benefits of the vehicle. Now the US and other coalition armies in Afghanistan use Israeli drones that save lot of their soldier’s life. Israeli know-how and expertise is used by the American military and industries when developing new version of drones.
5. wants the military aid the US wants to give it to Israel. The 3B$ a year turns Israel to be more tied to the US interests and makes the US more influential over Israel, which gives her more political value and strength in the eyes of the Muslims states.
6. Israel combatant expertise were taught in the US, Britain, Australia, France military units, and some of the combatants came to Israel to be trained at Israel military facilities. Not to mentions that this expertise is saving lot of the coalition lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
7. Israel industries produce lot of technology and military excellent products which are well sold everywhere. But she can’t sell these goods to countries that the US thinks will harm her, while the US sells almost everything to everyone, even to the enemies of Israel, without asking Israel’s opinion. This is the best that the US can wish for, and that is one of the reasons for the US policy to give Israel this annual aid which let her almost control the Israeli security selling market. The US even influencing to stop Israeli military projects that may weakened the Israeli military ties with the US such as the closure of the fighter ‘Lavi’ project in late 80th. Too military Independence Israel doesn’t serve the US interests.
8. I’m sure that I can raise more issues to explain that very wide US-Israel connection but I’ll let others to add, for now.
The obvious question to ask of the Obama administration is what it got from the Israeli government in exchange for the American veto of this resolution.
At this point in time, the veto represents a fairly large American favor to Netanyahu's government. Now, I don't really have much interest in mucking around with the "who's a friend of Israel" debate, which I regard as just something to keep long-winded bloggers in material to post. The fact is, though, that the American veto of this resolution is less likely to benefit President Obama at this time than at any other during his first term in office; that in addition to placing the United States in an isolated position on an Israeli government policy that does not benefit American interests at all it rather steps on a pretty good recent trend that sees several Arab countries taking steps toward democracy, or at least liberalization; and that, as Walt correctly points out, the Israeli government has not accomodated the Obama administration on this issue in the past.
As I say, a pretty big favor done by Washington. What do we get for it?
That question is irrelevent, Zathras
It really doesn't matter wether (or not) this Israeli government had to promise something in order to secure that veto, because Netanyahu will have no hesitation in reneging on any such deal.
After all, Israel SIGNED and RATIFIED the Road Map for Peace, and that agreement (remember, a signed and ratified document) committed Israel to freeze all settlement construction.
Israel signed it, Israel ratified it, and then Israel immediately reneged on it.
And - let's be honest here - you need to make a huge leap of faith to assume that Israel had to promise anything in order to secure that veto. Israel doesn't need to "deal" when it is able to "cajole", and Netanyahu has shown time and time again that he can use the threat of the Israel Lobby to cajole Obama into caving in to Israeli demands.
I would be very surprised if Obama was receiving anything from the Israelis. Netanyahu and Lieberman (and the whole Knesset) are not known for making concessions or compromises. Recall the ransom that was allegedly offered (and turned down) for a settlement freeze; Israel knows that Washington is in its pocket. It doesn't need to offer anything to get everything in return.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(140)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE