The Most Hopeless Middle East Peace Talks Ever

by: shergald

Sun Aug 22, 2010 at 11:54


.....'hopeless' was Huffington Post's rendering of the New York Times coverage of the recently announced resumption of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, which spoke of 'scant hopes from the beginning.'

Who cannot agree?

Last week, Israeli journalist Gideon Levy, speaking in Dundee, Scotland on a tour sponsored by the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, talked about Israel's abandonment of the pretense of diplomacy in favor of a policy of provocation and raw military power, with the ultimate aim of denying Palestinians any chance of forming their own independent state.

And a week before that, Chris Hedges, speaking at a fund raiser for the US Boat to Gaza campaign, called the "peace process (a) cynical, one-way route to the crushing of the Palestinians as a people."

Levy is really talking about the racist Likud agenda of the present government, which will screw Palestinians by offering them a group of Bantustans inside of what will become Greater Israel, the ultimate Likud goal.  

shergald :: The Most Hopeless Middle East Peace Talks Ever
Is it any wonder why Moumoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader at this time, has little faith in the peace process which is being encouraged by Mitchell, Clinton, and Obama, and even Netanyahu, who refuses preconditions, but then dictates conditions that can only lead the Palestinians into an unacceptable Apartheid existence? Obama, in one year or so, has turned himself from the savior of Middle East peace (per his Cairo speech) into Netanyahu's poodle (a phrase coined by Booman), which well describes Obama's latest obsequious pandering of the Israel Lobby.

The New York Times article is long, but here are a few paragraphs.

JERUSALEM - The American invitation on Friday to the Israelis and Palestinians to start direct peace talks in two weeks in Washington was immediately accepted by both governments. But just below the surface there was an almost audible shrug. There is little confidence - close to none - on either side that the Obama administration's goal of reaching a comprehensive deal in one year can be met.

Instead, there is a resigned fatalism in the air. Most analysts view the talks as pairing the unwilling with the unable - a strong right-wing Israeli coalition led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with no desire to reach an agreement against a relatively moderate Palestinian leadership that is too weak and divided to do so. "These direct negotiations are the option of the crippled and the helpless," remarked Zakaria al-Qaq, vice president of Al Quds University and a Palestinian moderate, when asked his view of the development. "It is an act of self-deception that will lead nowhere."

(snip)

"Abbas is naked before his whole community," observed Mahdi Abdul Hadi, chairman of the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs, an independent research institute in East Jerusalem. "Everyone knows that this Israeli government is not going to deliver anything."

Most Palestinians - and many on the Israeli left - argue that there are now too many Israeli settlements in the West Bank for a viable, contiguous Palestinian state to arise there. Settlement growth has continued despite a construction moratorium announced by Mr. Netanyahu. Moreover, support for many of the settlements remains relatively strong in Israel. In other words, if this view holds, the Israelis have closed out any serious option of a two-state solution. So the talks are useless.

(Link to the rest of the article above.)

And yes, it contains mention of all of the "generous offers" Israel made to the Palestinians in the past, and it does so without blinking, without reference to the Oslo Hoax, which allowed the settlement of the Palestinian territories to double under the Clinton administration, Barak's so-called "generous offer" at Camp David 2000, which he later confessed he was not able to deliver, or Olmert's alleged secret offer, which was leaked a year later after negotiations stopped.

None of these Israeli efforts were bona fide.  Except for a few months during the Rabin administration, the colonization of Palestinian lands never ceased, it continues today, and will continue during these so-called peace talks. Is there more to know about where the talks will lead?

Netanyahu's tact here, after the ploys of past Israeli PMs Shamir and Sharon, is to continue talking while establishing more facts on the ground. But today, it is Obama who is leading the Palestinians into this old trap.  


Tags: , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Reflections from Mondoweiss: (0.00 / 0)

NYT' finally lets its readers know that 2SS is all but over
Philip Weiss
August 21, 2010

In a story about the resumption of direct talks between Palestinians and Israelis today, the Times' Ethan Bronner glumly concedes that the two-state solution is likely DOA:

Most Palestinians - and many on the Israeli left - argue that there are now too many Israeli settlements in the West Bank for a viable, contiguous Palestinian state to arise there. Settlement growth has continued despite a construction moratorium announced by Mr. Netanyahu.

Moreover, support for many of the settlements remains relatively strong in Israel. In other words, if this view holds, the Israelis have closed out any serious option of a two-state solution. So the talks are useless.

This is a significant development.

Anyone who has visited the West Bank and East Jerusalem can see that the idea of two states is all but utopian given the reality of Jewish colonization; but the ideal/fiction of two states must be endorsed in Washington and New York if you are going to be taken seriously, because saying otherwise means that you think the Jewish state is finished. I have known people to privately concede that the idea of a two state solution is crazy but publicly say that they believe in it--in order to be taken seriously. Yesterday on the beach here in Cape Cod, with my mom, I heard a leftwing friend explain to a rightwing friend that she is "for the two-state solution"-- a good reminder of the fact that believing in two states is still an avant-garde position, in Jewish life, in complete defiance of the reality, that there is one state there, administered effectively by one side. Bronner's statement opens the real hope that the Times will begin to inform its readers about the actual state of affairs in Palestine and allow them to start thinking of more creative ways to end the oppression and statelessness of Palestinians. As Noam Sheizaf does in the post above.

On a related note: Bronner quickly blames the end of the two state solution on the Palestinians, saying that they have repeatedly rejected Israel offers of Partition. I have some sympathy for this view-if I were Palestinian, I would think, if we hold out long enough, we will get a majority Palestinian state-but then wouldn't you do the same thing in the same dispossessed situation?

Also Bronner quotes two Palestinians in the piece but, emphasizing the "Israeli perspective," far more Israelis. I count four Israelis, including neocon Dore Gold-- who despite working for Israeli governments makes $96,000 a year as a scholar of the American Enterprise Institute. The Times says that the piece includes reporting from Ramallah by Khaled Abu-Akr. Naturally I wonder if one or both Palestinian quotes were provided by him; and if Bronner interviews Palestinians; or if the fact that his son is now serving in the IDF makes it hard for him to get Palestinians on the phone? Just making trouble.

No wonder no one listens to Bronner.


The Maps. (0.00 / 0)
The settlements (i.e., cities, towns, and villages) Israel has built in the West Bank, which it proposes to enlarge while peace negotiations continue. The ethnic cleansing of the Jordan Valley has not stopped either.

Photobucket

Another version: The Palestinian Gulag showing the areas appropriated. These include the border regions and the Jordan Valley to the right.

Photobucket


Richard Silverstein (Tukan Olam) weighs in with more pessimism, so long as Obama and the Quartet fail to use pressure: (0.00 / 0)

Why U.S.-Brokered Israeli-Palestinian Peace Talks Will Fail

The ink isn't even dry on the press release announcing Israeli-Palestinian peace talks beginning under U.S. auspices on September 2nd, before just about everyone except Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is sighing with abject resignation and conviction that they will be a failure.  Why?  First, because the U.S. president has not publicly told the sides what the consequences of failure will be.  There must be a downside for the parties that will keep them in line when the going gets tough (as it assuredly will).  With no downside, Bibi will play Obama like a tin fiddle.  Second, Bibi doesn't want the talks to succeed and will do absolutely nothing to make them work.  Why should he?  Where's the benefit to him?  His coalition is filled with far-right yahoos who will scream bloody murder at the first sign of weakness from their leader.  Does he need such headaches?  Does he relish the idea of retiring to a plush office at the Shalem Center so he can gaze fondly at a portrait of his sugar daddy, Shelly Adelson, on the wall?  Not likely.

Frankly, I can't see anything in this for Mahmoud Abbas either, and have no clue why he agreed to participate.  Did he enjoy having endless coffees with Ehud Olmert in Jerusalem and Ramallah so much that he wants to resume the pleasure, except his time in Washington?  What will he get from this?  Another upgrade of his D.C. digs from third world backwater semi-official would-be embassy to almost embassy of a soon to be nation in waiting?

If this is all the Obama administration has up its sleeve it has a losing hand.  But if it has a backup plan in the certain event of failure, then it might still wrest victory from the jaws of defeat.  If it is prepared and possibly even expects failure and has a Plan B which would call for an internationally imposed settlement on both sides, then he might be onto something.  In the end, the only thing that can save the parties from mutually assured destruction is external intervention.

http://www.richardsilverstein....







USER MENU


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you

Donate to Open Left

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

STATE BLOGS