Roadmap and PeacemakingIsrael and Palestine
What starts the numerous peacemaking efforts? What brings them to a halt? Are they doomed to fail because the problem is intractable? Or are some peacemaking plans simply unrealistic? With one-sided conditions and expectations?
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
A high-ranking U.S. official says Israel wants peace talks to resume and instantly her president "severely" denies the veracity of her words
Israel doesn't want peace | Tue., April 10, 2007 | By Gideon Levy
The moment of truth has arrived, and it has to be said: Israel does not want peace. The arsenal of excuses has run out, and the chorus of Israeli rejection already rings hollow. Until recently, it was still possible to accept the Israeli refrain that "there is no partner" for peace and that "the time isn't right" to deal with our enemies. Today, the new reality before our eyes leaves no room for doubt and the tired refrain that "Israel supports peace" has been left shattered.
It's hard to determine when the breaking point occurred. Was it the absolute dismissal of the Saudi initiative? The refusal to acknowledge the Syrian initiative? Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's annual Passover interviews? The revulsion at the statements made by Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, in Damascus, alleging that Israel was ready to renew peace talks with Syria?
Who would have believed it? A high-ranking U.S. official says Israel wants peace talks to resume and instantly her president "severely" denies the veracity of her words. Is Israel even hearing these voices? Are we digesting the significance of these voices for peace? Seven million apathetic Israeli citizens prove that we are not. ...
...
Israel makes a point of setting prerequisites and believes it has an exclusive right to do so. But, time and time again, Israel avoids the most basic prerequisite for any just peace - an end to the occupation. Of all the questions asked during his Passover interviews, no one bothered to ask Olmert why he didn't react with excitement to the recent Arab initiatives, without preconditions? The answer: real estate. The real estate of the settlements. ...
Israel doesn't want peace | Tue., April 10, 2007 | By Gideon Levy
The moment of truth has arrived, and it has to be said: Israel does not want peace. The arsenal of excuses has run out, and the chorus of Israeli rejection already rings hollow. Until recently, it was still possible to accept the Israeli refrain that "there is no partner" for peace and that "the time isn't right" to deal with our enemies. Today, the new reality before our eyes leaves no room for doubt and the tired refrain that "Israel supports peace" has been left shattered.
It's hard to determine when the breaking point occurred. Was it the absolute dismissal of the Saudi initiative? The refusal to acknowledge the Syrian initiative? Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's annual Passover interviews? The revulsion at the statements made by Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, in Damascus, alleging that Israel was ready to renew peace talks with Syria?
Who would have believed it? A high-ranking U.S. official says Israel wants peace talks to resume and instantly her president "severely" denies the veracity of her words. Is Israel even hearing these voices? Are we digesting the significance of these voices for peace? Seven million apathetic Israeli citizens prove that we are not. ...
...
Israel makes a point of setting prerequisites and believes it has an exclusive right to do so. But, time and time again, Israel avoids the most basic prerequisite for any just peace - an end to the occupation. Of all the questions asked during his Passover interviews, no one bothered to ask Olmert why he didn't react with excitement to the recent Arab initiatives, without preconditions? The answer: real estate. The real estate of the settlements. ...
Israel wants an Arab capitulation. ... What more can the Arabs offer?
No more Arab capitulation
Israel had finally given its conditional assent to the Arab peace initiative launched in Beirut in 2002. Ahead of his meeting with Palestinian President Abbas on 11 March, Israel's Prime Minister Olmert said that he "approved of regional negotiations on the basis of the Arab peace initiative," noting that Israel was willing to respond to that initiative, especially the positive aspects it contained. The Israeli foreign minister then advised Arab countries not to wait for peace to normalise relations with Israel, but to act sooner. Meanwhile, reports indicated that Israel demanded limited amendments in the initiative, especially with regard to the matters of borders and refugees. During her tour of the region, Condoleezza Rice hinted in the same direction.
It is hard to fathom this rapid change of heart on Israel's side. But we known that Israel, along with the US, are in the habit of engaging in such manoeuvres whenever an Arab summit is about to convene. The aim is always the same: to distract Arab leaders from the real issues at hand. In this case, Israel's aim was to prevent the summit from taking a strong anti-Israeli line. And America did the same, arranging for the Baghdad summit to be held on 10 March, a fortnight or so before the summit. The US wanted the Baghdad conference to launch a new regional policy that may bring about a solution to the Iraqi crisis. The conference, therefore, was timed to prevent the Arab summit from taking a hard-line stance on Iraq.
The Israeli move is nothing more than a diversion tactic. Israel's prime minister speaks of the "positive aspects" of the Arab initiative but his real aim is to speak of the aspects he wouldn't agree to. This is quite predictable, for Israel is unwilling to withdraw from the occupied territories and resolve the refugee problem. As for Livni's call for normalisation before talks, this is a non-starter. What Israel wants is for the Arabs to strip their initiative of content, to turn it into the "Tel Aviv initiative". Israel wants the Arabs to normalise their relations with Israel as a gesture of goodwill. Then and only then, it would engage in talks that may or may not lead to results.
Israel wants an Arab capitulation. It saw how the Arabs changed their position in the past and hopes for much the same again. Before 1967, the Arabs saw Israel as an imperialist state. After 1967, they accepted a two-state solution. Then the Arabs offered full normalisation to sweeten the deal. Now Israel wants more.
The Arab peace initiative is not a starting point for negotiations. Its wording is too clear to allow for further talks. The Arabs didn't fashion their initiative in ambiguous language that allows for give and take. Instead, they said exactly what they meant. The problem is that the initiative offers Israel not the least that the Arabs can accept, but the most they can do. This is what makes this initiative a poor starting point for negotiations. What more can the Arabs offer? ...
No more Arab capitulation
Israel had finally given its conditional assent to the Arab peace initiative launched in Beirut in 2002. Ahead of his meeting with Palestinian President Abbas on 11 March, Israel's Prime Minister Olmert said that he "approved of regional negotiations on the basis of the Arab peace initiative," noting that Israel was willing to respond to that initiative, especially the positive aspects it contained. The Israeli foreign minister then advised Arab countries not to wait for peace to normalise relations with Israel, but to act sooner. Meanwhile, reports indicated that Israel demanded limited amendments in the initiative, especially with regard to the matters of borders and refugees. During her tour of the region, Condoleezza Rice hinted in the same direction.
It is hard to fathom this rapid change of heart on Israel's side. But we known that Israel, along with the US, are in the habit of engaging in such manoeuvres whenever an Arab summit is about to convene. The aim is always the same: to distract Arab leaders from the real issues at hand. In this case, Israel's aim was to prevent the summit from taking a strong anti-Israeli line. And America did the same, arranging for the Baghdad summit to be held on 10 March, a fortnight or so before the summit. The US wanted the Baghdad conference to launch a new regional policy that may bring about a solution to the Iraqi crisis. The conference, therefore, was timed to prevent the Arab summit from taking a hard-line stance on Iraq.
The Israeli move is nothing more than a diversion tactic. Israel's prime minister speaks of the "positive aspects" of the Arab initiative but his real aim is to speak of the aspects he wouldn't agree to. This is quite predictable, for Israel is unwilling to withdraw from the occupied territories and resolve the refugee problem. As for Livni's call for normalisation before talks, this is a non-starter. What Israel wants is for the Arabs to strip their initiative of content, to turn it into the "Tel Aviv initiative". Israel wants the Arabs to normalise their relations with Israel as a gesture of goodwill. Then and only then, it would engage in talks that may or may not lead to results.
Israel wants an Arab capitulation. It saw how the Arabs changed their position in the past and hopes for much the same again. Before 1967, the Arabs saw Israel as an imperialist state. After 1967, they accepted a two-state solution. Then the Arabs offered full normalisation to sweeten the deal. Now Israel wants more.
The Arab peace initiative is not a starting point for negotiations. Its wording is too clear to allow for further talks. The Arabs didn't fashion their initiative in ambiguous language that allows for give and take. Instead, they said exactly what they meant. The problem is that the initiative offers Israel not the least that the Arabs can accept, but the most they can do. This is what makes this initiative a poor starting point for negotiations. What more can the Arabs offer? ...
Abbas offered Israel the "hand of peace" yesterday as every Arab country pledged to recognise the Jewish state if it returns all land captured in 1967
...Abbas offers the 'hand of peace' to Israel | By David Blair in Riyadh | Last Updated: 1:50am BST 31/03/2007
The Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, offered Israel the "hand of peace" yesterday as every Arab country pledged to recognise the Jewish state if it returns all land captured in the war of 1967.
This once-dormant peace plan was revived at a summit of the Arab League in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
All 22 Arab states formally adopted the blueprint as a means of normalising ties with Israel and ending the Middle East conflict.
Mr Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, told Arab leaders in the marbled splendour of the King Abdul-Aziz conference centre that this was an historic moment.
"We renounce violence in all its forms and manifestations because we were the first victims of violence," he said.
"I repeat the sincerity of the Palestinian will in extending the hand of peace to the Israeli people. With the support of the Arab countries, we must not lose any chance to put an end to this historic problem."
The Saudi-drafted plan enshrines the "land for peace" principle.
Israel would have to withdraw from all the territory captured in the six-day war almost 40 years ago and allow the creation of a Palestinian state covering the entire West Bank and Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital. Israel would also have to hand the Golan Heights back to Syria. ...
...Abbas offers the 'hand of peace' to Israel | By David Blair in Riyadh | Last Updated: 1:50am BST 31/03/2007
The Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, offered Israel the "hand of peace" yesterday as every Arab country pledged to recognise the Jewish state if it returns all land captured in the war of 1967.
This once-dormant peace plan was revived at a summit of the Arab League in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
All 22 Arab states formally adopted the blueprint as a means of normalising ties with Israel and ending the Middle East conflict.
Mr Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, told Arab leaders in the marbled splendour of the King Abdul-Aziz conference centre that this was an historic moment.
"We renounce violence in all its forms and manifestations because we were the first victims of violence," he said.
"I repeat the sincerity of the Palestinian will in extending the hand of peace to the Israeli people. With the support of the Arab countries, we must not lose any chance to put an end to this historic problem."
The Saudi-drafted plan enshrines the "land for peace" principle.
Israel would have to withdraw from all the territory captured in the six-day war almost 40 years ago and allow the creation of a Palestinian state covering the entire West Bank and Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital. Israel would also have to hand the Golan Heights back to Syria. ...
Thursday, April 05, 2007
"She [German PM] showed no understanding for the plight of our people. On the other hand, she appeared to be very biased toward Israel."
Apr. 4, 2007 0:12 | Updated Apr. 4, 2007 22:18 | PA upset by Merkel's pro-Israel stance | By KHALED ABU TOAMEH
Palestinian Authority officials have accused German Chancellor Angela Merkel of "offending the Palestinians' feelings" during her visit earlier this week to Ramallah, where she met with PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.
The accusations, the first of their kind against a European leader, were made by top PA officials only hours after Merkel and her entourage left Ramallah on Monday.
"She did everything to provoke the Palestinians during her visit," said one official. "She showed no understanding for the plight of our people. On the other hand, she appeared to be very biased toward Israel." ...
Apr. 4, 2007 0:12 | Updated Apr. 4, 2007 22:18 | PA upset by Merkel's pro-Israel stance | By KHALED ABU TOAMEH
Palestinian Authority officials have accused German Chancellor Angela Merkel of "offending the Palestinians' feelings" during her visit earlier this week to Ramallah, where she met with PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.
The accusations, the first of their kind against a European leader, were made by top PA officials only hours after Merkel and her entourage left Ramallah on Monday.
"She did everything to provoke the Palestinians during her visit," said one official. "She showed no understanding for the plight of our people. On the other hand, she appeared to be very biased toward Israel." ...
