The 'non-meeting' meeting
If the conflict between Israel and the Arabs could be considered a competition, then Israel won the latest round.
First, PM Netanyahu stood firm against the one-sided pressure of Pres. Obama to bring about a total freeze on all Israeli building in the West Bank, and Obama still invited him to the meeting in NY. Second, Pres. Abbas of the PA publicly declared that he would not meet with Netanyahu until such a total freeze was in place, and he caved. He accepted to attend the tripartite meeting with Netanyahu without the precondition of the total freeze. So in this instance Israel won!
To get Abbas off the hook and evade criticism by Hamas and Fatah activists, the Palestinians labelled the meeting a "non-meeting" and a photo-op. While Obama and Netanyahu suggested that the meeting might be the start of a new round of negotiations, at the same time both the American and Israeli sides were trying to lower expectations.
Notwithstanding all the previous meetings, for example between Olmert and Abbas, is seems that nothing in fact was achieved and they are back to square one. Israel will not make a major concession without evidence of Palestinian or Arab reciprocity, and Obama has not been able to deliver any.
Nevertheless, Obama was both strident and persuasive. He met with each side separately first, and castigated them for not getting on with it. Then he insisted that since previous progress had been made they must start negotiations from where they left off. Netanyahu agreed that there should be immediate negotiations with no preconditions. And although Abbas publicly agreed, later his office released a statement that reinstated his precondition that there must be a total Israeli freeze before negotiations could resume. So it's a very murky picture.
The Palestinians insist that since they have improved security in the PA territories of the West Bank, with US and EU support and Israeli approval, that they have therefore taken the first step of the Road Map and now it's up to Israel to take a step. But, improved security was a sine qua non for the PA to survive. The armed gangs of thugs roaming their city streets are now gone, Hamas terrorists have been driven out or forced underground, and there is real economic growth and improvement of Palestinian life, with a 6% growth rate this year, as opposed to negative growth in previous years. Obama noted this, and praised Netanyahu for removing many (ca. 150) IDF checkpoints from the West Bank. However, the Road Map also called for the Palestinians to stop all terrorism and incitement to violence. In that respect they still have a long way to go.
In essence, Obama endorsed the "plan" of PM Fayyad, who is regarded as a moderate, that the Palestinians should have a State in two years. But, Obama ignored several details of that Plan, that insists the State would be declared without Israeli agreement, that it would be based on sharia law, that it should have "Jerusalem" as it's capital and would not be demilitarized. If this "plan" is followed it is a prescription for war not for peace.
Detailed and serious negotiations between the two sides is essential if another war is to be averted.
First, PM Netanyahu stood firm against the one-sided pressure of Pres. Obama to bring about a total freeze on all Israeli building in the West Bank, and Obama still invited him to the meeting in NY. Second, Pres. Abbas of the PA publicly declared that he would not meet with Netanyahu until such a total freeze was in place, and he caved. He accepted to attend the tripartite meeting with Netanyahu without the precondition of the total freeze. So in this instance Israel won!
To get Abbas off the hook and evade criticism by Hamas and Fatah activists, the Palestinians labelled the meeting a "non-meeting" and a photo-op. While Obama and Netanyahu suggested that the meeting might be the start of a new round of negotiations, at the same time both the American and Israeli sides were trying to lower expectations.
Notwithstanding all the previous meetings, for example between Olmert and Abbas, is seems that nothing in fact was achieved and they are back to square one. Israel will not make a major concession without evidence of Palestinian or Arab reciprocity, and Obama has not been able to deliver any.
Nevertheless, Obama was both strident and persuasive. He met with each side separately first, and castigated them for not getting on with it. Then he insisted that since previous progress had been made they must start negotiations from where they left off. Netanyahu agreed that there should be immediate negotiations with no preconditions. And although Abbas publicly agreed, later his office released a statement that reinstated his precondition that there must be a total Israeli freeze before negotiations could resume. So it's a very murky picture.
The Palestinians insist that since they have improved security in the PA territories of the West Bank, with US and EU support and Israeli approval, that they have therefore taken the first step of the Road Map and now it's up to Israel to take a step. But, improved security was a sine qua non for the PA to survive. The armed gangs of thugs roaming their city streets are now gone, Hamas terrorists have been driven out or forced underground, and there is real economic growth and improvement of Palestinian life, with a 6% growth rate this year, as opposed to negative growth in previous years. Obama noted this, and praised Netanyahu for removing many (ca. 150) IDF checkpoints from the West Bank. However, the Road Map also called for the Palestinians to stop all terrorism and incitement to violence. In that respect they still have a long way to go.
In essence, Obama endorsed the "plan" of PM Fayyad, who is regarded as a moderate, that the Palestinians should have a State in two years. But, Obama ignored several details of that Plan, that insists the State would be declared without Israeli agreement, that it would be based on sharia law, that it should have "Jerusalem" as it's capital and would not be demilitarized. If this "plan" is followed it is a prescription for war not for peace.
Detailed and serious negotiations between the two sides is essential if another war is to be averted.
posted by Jack Cohen at 7:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home