Middle East peace: Is two-state solution kaput? | csmonitor.com
Palestinian hopes that the Obama administration would remain resolute in insisting that Israel halt further expansion of its settlements on Palestinian land have been dashed. An especially low moment came when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton recently used the word "unprecedented" to praise Israel's minimalist promise of restraint in its settlement expansion program. In rapid reaction, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas announced that he did not wish to seek reelection because it was now clear that the US would not stand up to Israel.
Washington's capitulation raises the possibility that "the two-state solution is no longer an option and maybe the Palestinian people should refocus their attention on the one-state solution, where Muslims, Christians, and Jews live as equals," Mr. Erakat told the press.
His verbal bombshell just might signal a turning point in the long, frustrating search for peace with some measure of justice in Israel/Palestine.
...
The Palestinian leadership, with or without Mr. Abbas, should now announce its willingness to resume negotiations with Israel but only on this express and irrevocable understanding: If a definitive peace agreement on a "two-state basis" has not been reached and signed by the end of 2010, the Palestinian people will have no choice but to seek justice and freedom through democracy – through full rights of citizenship in a single state in all of the land which, prior to 1948, was called Palestine, free of any discrimination based on race or religion and with equal rights for all who live there, as in any true democracy.
The Arab League should then publicly state that the very generous Arab Peace Initiative, which, since March 2002 has offered Israel permanent peace and normal diplomatic and economic relations in return for Israel's compliance with international law, will expire and be "off the table" if a definitive Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement has not been signed by the end of 2010.
At this point – but not before – serious and meaningful negotiations can begin. Given how far Israeli settlements have encroached on Palestinian land, it may already be too late to achieve a decent two-state solution, but a decent two-state solution would never have a better chance of being achieved. If it is indeed too late, then Israelis, Palestinians, and the world will know and can thereafter focus their minds and efforts constructively on the only other decent alternative.
It is even possible that, if forced to focus during the coming year on the prospect of living in a fully democratic state with equal rights for all its citizens – which, after all, is what the United States and the European Union hold up in all other instances as the ideal form of political life – many Israelis might come to view this "threat" as less nightmarish than they traditionally have. ...
EU, US Will Not Recognize Palestine - IslamOnline.net - News
The European Union and the United States have poured cold water on a Palestinian request have the UN recognize their independent state in the West Bank and Gaza.
"I don't think we are there yet," Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the EU, told reporters in Brussels on Tuesday, November 17.
"I would hope that we would be in a position to recognize a Palestinian state but there has to be one first.
"So I think it is somewhat premature."
The Palestinian Authority said it plans to ask the UN Security Council to recognize an independent Palestinian state on the pre-1967 borders and with Al-Quds (occupied East Jerusalem) as its capital.
Israel warned the Palestinians against the move and threatened to annex more of the occupied West Bank.
Sweden's top diplomat recognized that the Palestinian initiative was the result of years of stalled peace talks.
"I wouldn't call it desperation…But it is clearly an act borne by a very difficult situation where they don't see any road ahead," he said.
"I can understand that."
Peace talks between the Palestinians and Israel have been frozen since the election of hawkish Benjamin Netanyahu as new prime minister of Israel.
...
China criticizes new Israeli move on settlements - Israel News, Ynetnews
Beijing says plan to expand southeastern Jerusalem neighborhood poses new obstacles to peace process, urges 'concrete measures to restore Palestine-Israel mutual trust.' PA officials: Americans now realize Israel deriding US, international law
The remarks by China's Foreign Ministry on Thursday added to a chorus of American, European and Palestinian demands that Israel stop settlement activity in the disputed part of the holy city. ...
Does sinking Mideast peace process hold any hope? | Reuters | By Douglas Hamilton - Analysis
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Efforts to rescue the sinking Middle East peace process are losing support.
Influential U.S. pundits have lost faith. Those Israelis who never did believe in it are saying: we told you so.
Some Palestinians believe it is as good as dead, strangled by Israel. They talk gloomily of a moment of truth.
Middle East veterans say they have seen such hopeless spells before, and seen them lead to outbreaks of violence.
U.S. President Barack Obama warned as much on Wednesday, saying it was dangerous of Israel to continue building settlements, hampering an urgent need to return to negotiations.
Besides Hamas Islamists in Gaza, however, there is as yet no obvious groundswell of latent violence among Palestinians.
There may be a longing for new directions: suspending the hunt for an elusive peace treaty could release energy for building a better life on the truce that exists.
Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad wants to get on with founding a state without waiting for a peace deal. Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already initiated moves to help build up the Palestinian economy without waiting for a pact. ...
...
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner laments that Israel once had a great peace movement but now "this desire has completely vanished, as though people no longer believe in it."
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman calls the peace process "a bad play" which no one believes in any more and which runs on repetitively, in a triumph of hope over experience. ...Ray Hanania: Re-Energizing The Two-State Solution To Israeli-Palestinian Peace
Yes, I am running for President of Palestine in the next election, if there is one. No, I don't expect to win. But then, many long shot candidates who don't expect to win, actually find themselves winning.
Still, my goal isn't to win office but to help re-ignite the peace process between Palestinians and Israelis not by pushing the leaders to do their jobs and stop putzing around but by reaching out to the grassroots Palestinian and Israeli publics. ...
...
Here's my campaign platform and I think it's doable because Israelis and Palestinians are already responding positively:
- I support two-states, one Israel and one Palestine. As far as I am concerned, I can recognize Israel’s “Jewish” character and Israelis should recognize Palestine’s “non-Jewish” character.
- I oppose violence of any kind from and by anyone. I reject Hamas’ participation in any Palestinian government without first agreeing to surrender all arms and to accept two-states as a “final” peace agreement. But I also reject allowing Israeli settlers to carry any weapons and believe Israelis must impose the same restrictions on them.
- I can support some settlements remaining – given the reality of 42 years of time passing -- in a dunum-for-dunum land exchange. If Ariel is 500 dunums with a lifeline from Israel, then Israel gives Palestine 500 dunums in exchange.
- Jerusalem should be a shared city and Palestinians should have an official presence in East Jerusalem. The Old City should be shared by both permitting open access to the city to all with a joint Palestinian-Israeli police presence.
- Palestinian refugees would give up their demand to return to pre-1948 homes and lands lost during the conflict with Israel. Instead, some could apply for family reunification through Israel and the remainder would be compensated through a fund created and maintained by the United States, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the United Nations.
- I also think Israelis should find it in their hearts to show compassion and offer their apologies to Palestinians for the conflict.
- I support creation of a similar fund to compensate those Jews from Arab lands who lost their homes and lands, too, when they fled.
- I think the Wall should be torn down, or relocated to the new borders. I have no problem separating the two nations for a short duration to help rebuild confidence between our two people.
- All political parties, Palestinian and Israelis, should eliminate languages denying each other’s existence, and all maps should be reprinted so that Israeli maps finally show Palestine and Palestinian maps finally show Israel.
- A subway system should be built linking the West Bank portion of the Palestine state to the Gaza Strip portion of the Palestine State. Palestine should be permitted to build a seaport access to strengthen its’ industry, and an airport to permit flights and too and from the Arab and Israeli world.
- I would urge the Arab World to renew their offer to normalize relations with Israel if Israel agrees to support the creation of a Palestinian State.
- And I would ask both countries to establish embassies in each other’s country to address other problems.
- While non-Jewish Palestinians would continue to live in Israel as citizens, Jews who wish to live in settlements surrendered by Israel could become Palestinian citizens and they should be recognized and treated equally.
- If Jews want to live in Hebron, they should be allowed to live in Hebron and should be protected, just as non-Jews. In fact, for every Jewish individual seeking to live in Palestine, a Palestinian should be permitted to live in Israel. In fact, major Palestinian populations in Israel could be annexed into Palestine (like settlements).
- Another concept is to have non-Jews living in Israel continue to live there but only vote in Palestinian elections, while Jews living in Palestine would only vote in Israeli elections. A special citizenship protection committee could be created to explore how to protect the rights of minorities in each state.
- Israel and Palestine should create joint-governing and security agencies working with the United States to monitor the peace, and establish an agency to pursue criminal acts of violence.
You tell me who has a better campaign platform that makes more sense among Israel's and Palestine's leaders?
President Obama’s opportunity to speak truth to power : Information Clearing House -� ICH
November 15, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- - When I wrote and posted Part 1 of this article, I was, of course, aware that there wasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of President Obama speaking truth to the power of Jewish America as it was represented at the General Assembly of The Jewish Federations of North America. The words I put into his mouth could only have been spoken by him if he was going to be true to his statement to Netanyahu and Abbas – “We must all take risks for peace”.
It would seem that a very similar thought was in the mind of Uriel Heilman who wrote an analysis piece for the JTA (Jewish Telegraph Agency). Under the headlineObama shifts to Israel’s corner, but tries not to show it, Heilman noted that “when the chief of staff took to the podium… he sounded almost exactly like Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a day earlier”.
It’s true that Emanuel did say that “Israel must halt settlement construction on the West Bank” (not the occupied West Bank, just the West Bank); but in the context of his whole speech, that was mere lip-service to a presidential call that had been rejected by Netanyahu and served only to confirm that it’s Zionism’s stooges in Congress who call the policy shots on Israel/Palestine, not the White House.
According to Emanuel, Israel seeks a lasting peace. The truth telling of that day was left to French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner. He said, in Paris, “Israel’s desire for peace seems to have completely vanished.” (That, of course, is not completely true. Israel does want peace, but not on terms virtually all Palestinians and most other Arabs and Muslims everywhere could accept).
...
At the time of writing there are signs that the growing despair of the occupied and oppressed Palestinians will trigger a third intifada at a not too distant point in a foreseeable future.
In terms of realpolitik, there’s a case or saying that could be a good thing to the extent that Israel’s brutal suppression of it would probably inspire more global sympathy and support for the Palestinian claim for an acceptable amount of justice. But there’s a much stronger case for saying that it could be catastrophic for the Palestinians. A third intifada could give Zionism’s in-Israel mad men the pretext they will one day invent if they are not presented with it on a plate to complete the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
The price of President Obama’s refusal to tell truth to Jewish power might well be blood and destruction on a scale not yet seen in Israel/Palestine and far beyond.
Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East. Author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews: The False Messiah (Zionism, the Real Enemy of the Jews). He blogs onwww.alanhart.netPresident Obama’s opportunity to speak truth to power: Part 1 - Alan Hart
I would have President Obama answer as follows.
When I met briefly with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas in September, I said to them, “We must all take risks for peace”. In the event of it becoming clear that Israel is the obstacle to peace, I would take a risk.
The first duty of any president is to protect America’s best interests. I have to tell you very frankly that it would not be in America’s best interests to go on giving unconditional support to an Israel that had been shown itself to be the obstacle to peace – peace on terms which, in my view, would be accepted with relief by any rational government and people in Israel. Some commentators have said that the name of the game is “saving Israel from itself”. In my assessment that’s not the whole game but it is an important part of it.
In the event of Israel not be willing, for a real and lasting peace, to commit to withdraw from all Arab land it occupied in 1967, I would seek to prevail upon Congress to enable me to use all the leverage the United States has to oblige Israel to do what is required of it by the spirit as well as the letter of UN resolutions representing the will of the organised international community and international law.
Though much denied, it is true that the lobby which supports Israel right-wrong has had enough influence in Congress to block policy initiatives that were not to Israel’s liking. If necessary I would seek to counter that influence by personally lobbying each and every member of Congress. I would ask them all a very simple question – Are you an American first or a supporter if only by default of a foreign power? And if still I was blocked, I would go over the heads of Congress and appeal directly to all my fellow Americans. I would ask them to play their part in calling and holding their elected representatives to account in order to make our democracy work for justice and peace.
If I had to go down that road, I would hope to have the support of the vast majority of my Jewish fellow Americans. Your response to me here today will give me a first indication of whether or not that hope would be justified.
Because I came to this meeting determined to be completely honest about my own thoughts and feelings, there is more I must say.
In my view there is no bigger threat to the security of America and all Americans than continuing and unending conflict in the Middle East and the hatreds it fuels in the region and far beyond. And that’s why national security adviser James Jones told “J” Street’s first conference that advancing the Israel-Palestinian peace process is the “epicenter” of U.S. foreign policy. He put it this way: “If there was one problem I could recommend to the president if he could solve only one problem, this would be it. Bringing about an Israel-Palestinian peace agreement would create ripples around the world. The reverse is not true. This is the epicenter.” ...
A Thorn in the World’s Side : Information Clearing House -� ICH
My acquaintances are warning me: Don’t go. Hostile elements will cause disturbances, protest, shout and interfere. The atmosphere at British universities is anti-Israel to an extent unseen in the past. Israel is perceived as a thorn in the civilized world’s side.
An Israeli professor who quietly left a prestigious British university told me: “My academic and social life there was intolerable. Colleagues stayed away from me as if I was a leper. I was not invited to meetings, which were shifted from university buildings to private residences in order to keep me out. The fact I openly expressed leftist views was to no avail. My objection to the occupation and endorsement of a return to the 1967 borders made no difference. In practice, I became ostracized.”
“Today you are a welcome guest in the British and European academic world only if you reject the very existence of the colonialist and imperialistic creature that methodically commits war crimes, known as Israel,” he said. “Today it isn’t enough to condemn Bibi and Barak; in order to be accepted by academia outside of Israel one must condemn the Balfour Declaration.”
British academia’s radicalism highlights the accelerated deterioration in Israel’s status and image. We are in the midst of a freefall on the foreign affairs front. The cold peace with three Muslim states – Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey – has turned into a cold war. Israelis are unwelcome guests in these and many other states, where in the past we were embraced.
Meanwhile, Israel failed in its efforts to isolate Ahmadinejad’s Iran and disqualify it as a member of the family of nations. Ahmadinejad is having a grand time.
Bibi doesn’t see the change
The intimate dialogue that in the past characterized the relationship between the US president and Israel’s prime minister is paralyzed. The pipeline of dialogue is clogged. India and China, the two emerging powers, voted in favor of adopting the Goldstone Report at the UN’s human rights commission. Ever since then, it has been etched on Israel’s forehead as a Sign of Cain.
Friendly governments, such as France and Britain, are turning their backs on us while currying favor with local sentiments. Israel’s membership in OECD, which was largely a done deal in the past, is distancing again – because of the growing negativity vis-à-vis Israel and not because any technical dispute. By coincidence, or not, large foreign investors are pulling out of Israel.
Does everyone hate us? Possibly so, yet the fact is that up until six months ago Israel enjoyed an extraordinary boom on the foreign affairs front, both in terms of its foreign ties as well as in global public opinion. This fact points to one source for the deterioration we’re seeing: The new government in Jerusalem. ...
Rannie Amiri: The Disastrous Presidency of Mahmoud Abbas
Last week, Abbas said he would not seek re-election in polls scheduled for January 2010. His resignation however, was quickly rejected by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and as of today, no one has announced their intent to run in his place.
In truth, many consider the move a tactic to exert additional pressure on the Obama administration, especially after Abbas’ demand for an Israeli settlement freeze prior to talks went largely ignored.
It came, after all, on the heels of Secretary of State Clinton’s meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, in which she rewarded Abbas for his years of servility with the following humiliating statement:
“What the Prime Minister has offered in specifics of restraint on the policy of settlements ... is unprecedented.”
... In Abbas, Israel found a valuable partner; one who was willing to compel fellow Palestinians to accept conditions to which Israel itself has never agreed. ...
Paul Craig Roberts: America's Dismal Future
t did not take the Israel Lobby long to make mincemeat out of the Obama administration’s “no new settlements” position. Israeli prime minister Netanyahu is bragging about Israel’s latest victory over the US government as Israel continues to build illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land.
In May President Obama read the Israelis the riot act, telling the Israeli government that he was serious about ending the Israeli conflict with the Palestinians and that a lasting peace agreement required the Israeli government to abandon all construction of new settlements in the occupied West Bank.
On November 10 Obama’s White House chief of staff, Rahm Israel Emanuel, surrendered for his boss at the annual conference of the United Jewish Communities. The ongoing Israeli settlements, he said, should not be a “distraction” to a peace agreement.
Allegedly, the US is a superpower and Israel is a client state whose very existence depends entirely on US military and economic aid and diplomatic protection. Yet, in the real world it works the other way. Israel is the superpower and the US is its client state.
This true fact is proved to us at least once every week and sometimes two or three times in one week. A few days ago the US House of Representatives voted 344 to 36 in favor of disavowing the UN report by the distinguished Jewish judge Richard Goldstone that found that Israel had committed war crimes in its attack on the civilian population in the Gaza Ghetto. The Israel Lobby demanded that the House repudiate the fact-filled report, and the servile House did as its master ordered.
US Rep. Dennis Kucinich spoke to his colleagues for 2 minutes in an effort to make them see that their vote against the Goldstone report would be a great embarrassment to the US government and demean the House in the eyes of the world. But none of that matters when Israel gives its servants an order. The US House of Representatives preferred to demean itself and to embarrass the US Government rather than to cross the Israel Lobby.
Retribution quickly fell upon Kucinich for his 2 minute speech. On November 9, Kucinich was forced to withdraw as the keynote speaker for the Palm Beach County (Florida) Democratic Party’s annual fundraising dinner. The Israel Lobby gave the order--dump Kucinich or there’s no money and no one is coming to the dinner. County Commissioner Burt Aaronson called Kucinich “an absolute horror.” ...
� Anyone who rejects the two-state solution, won't bring a one-state solution. They will instead bring one war, not one state. A bloody war with no end. -- Israeli President Shimon Peres, 7 November 2009. : Information Clearing House -� IC
By Ali Abunimah
"Anyone who rejects the two-state solution, won't bring a one-state solution. They will instead bring one war, not one state. A bloody war with no end." -- Israeli President Shimon Peres, 7 November 2009.
November 11, 2009 -- "Electronic Intifada" - -- One of the most commonly voiced objections to a one-state solution for Palestine/Israel stems from the accurate observation that the vast majority of Israeli Jews reject it, and fear being "swamped" by a Palestinian majority. Across the political spectrum, Israeli Jews insist on maintaining a separate Jewish-majority state.
But with the total collapse of the Obama Administration's peace efforts, and relentless Israeli colonization of the occupied West Bank, the reality is dawning rapidly that the two-state solution is no more than a slogan that has no chance of being implemented or altering the reality of a de facto binational state in Palestine/Israel.
This places an obligation on all who care about the future of Palestine/Israel to seriously consider the democratic alternatives. I have long argued that the systems in post-apartheid South Africa (a unitary democratic state), and Northern Ireland (consociational democracy) -- offer hopeful, real-life models.
But does solid Israeli Jewish opposition to a one-state solution mean that a peaceful one-state outcome is so unlikely that Palestinians should not pursue it, and should instead focus only "pragmatic" solutions that would be less fiercely resisted by Israeli Jews?
The experience in South Africa suggests otherwise. In 1994, white-minority rule -- apartheid -- came to a peaceful, negotiated end, and was replaced (after a transitional period of power-sharing) with a unitary democratic state with a one person, one vote system. Before this happened, how likely did this outcome look? Was there any significant constituency of whites prepared to contemplate it, and what if the African National Congress (ANC) had only advanced political solutions that whites told pollsters they would accept?
Until close to the end of apartheid, the vast majority of whites, including many of the system's liberal critics, completely rejected a one person, one vote system, predicting that any attempt to impose it would lead to a bloodbath. As late as 1989, F.W. de Klerk, South Africa's last apartheid president, described a one person, one vote system as the "death knell" for South Africa. ...
...
The younger Verwoerd was on the far-right of South African politics, leading a quixotic effort to carve out a whites-only homeland in the heart of South Africa. But his reasoning sounds remarkably similar to liberal Zionist defenses of the "two-state solution" today. The Economist clarified the use of such language at the time, stating that "One of the weirder products of apartheid is the crippling of language in a maw of hypocrisy, euphemism and sociologese. You talk about the Afrikaner 'right to self-determination' -- meaning power over everybody else."
Zionism's claim for "Jewish self-determination" amidst an intermixed population, is in effect a demand to preserve and legitimize a status quo in which Israeli Jews exercise power in perpetuity. But there's little reason to expect that Israeli Jews would abandon this quest voluntarily any more than South African whites did. As in South Africa, coercion is necessary -- and the growing boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement is one of the most powerful, nonviolent, legitimate and proven tools of coercion that Palestinians possess. Israel's vulnerabilities may be different from those of apartheid South Africa, but Israel is not invulnerable to pressure.
Coercion is not enough, however; as I have long argued, and sought to do, Palestinians must also put forward a positive vision. Neither can Palestinians advocating a one-state solution simply disregard the views of Israeli Jews. We must recognize that the opposition of Israeli Jews to any solution that threatens their power and privilege stems from at least two sources. One is irrational, racist fears of black and brown hordes (in this case, Arab Muslims) stoked by decades of colonial, racist demonization. The other source -- certainly heightened by the former -- are normal human concerns about personal and family dislocation, loss of socioeconomic status and community security: change is scary.
But change will come. ...
gulfnews : If there is to be peace, colonies cannot remain
Peace will not come to Palestine if the leading intermediaries duck the vital issues at the heart of the problem. Israel wants security, and the Palestinians want their country back after years of occupation. To get anywhere near sensible negotiations that will offer both sides respect and a way forward, it is not possible to pretend that some problems do not exist.
Such deliberate blindness is what went wrong with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's five-day Middle East trip, during which she managed to praise the present bargaining position offered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as an "unprecedented" gesture raising hope that peace negotiations could commence. This was ridiculous, as Netanyahu's gesture included a plan to build 3,000 new homes in the illegal Israeli colonies scattered all over the West Bank.
Early this year, US President Barack Obama gave an exciting address to the Arab world in which he called for action on finding peace in the Middle East. The Arab world took Obama's position in good faith, delighted that the new president had outlined a more constructive route forward, which also fitted into his more inclusive vision of how he saw the world working.
But the great rhetoric has not been matched by action, and the current lack of American direction is starting to wear thin. This is why it was such a disaster for Clinton to go off-message and add her own views on Netanyahu's position, which she then had to retract the next day, and make clear that the United States regards colonies as illegal, and supports a freeze in building.
An immediate freeze on building in the colonies is essential, but that would be only a start. What has to happen in the medium term is that all the colonies should be knocked down, which would then allow peace to flourish in the long term.
Grave blow to fading hopes of a two-state solution | Ian Black | World news | The Guardian
Abbas has been under pressure for months, but his decision not to stand for re-election was triggered by Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, who last weekend shifted from demanding a settlement "freeze" to praising the "restraint" shown by Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's Likud Likud prime minister.
Having dropped her bombshell in Jerusalem, she insisted to alarmed Arab foreign ministers in Morocco that nothing had changed. She then flew to Egypt to persuade President Hosni Mubarak to urge the Palestinians to resume talks unconditionally. The British foreign minister, David Miliband, went to Jordan to get King Abdullah on board.
...
Analysts say talk of alternative presidential candidates is irrelevant since it is hard to imagine any other leader – even the popular Marwan Barghouti – being as flexible as Abbas or agreeing to talks with Israel without a settlement freeze, or a firm guarantee that the international community will force Israel to return to the 1967 borders to allow the creation of a viable Palestinian state. ...
Palestinian President Says He Won’t Seek Re-election - NYTimes.com
It was nonetheless clear that Israeli-Palestinian talks would not resume any time soon despite intensive American diplomacy. A top aide to Mr. Abbas said a large part of the “despondency and frustration” felt by Mr. Abbas and the entire Palestinian leadership was due to President Obama’s unrealized promises to the region. He said he feared that without a stop to settlements, Islamist rivals in Hamas could triumph and violence could break out.
“There was high expectation when he arrived on the scene,” the aide, Nabil Shaath, who heads the Fatah party’s foreign affairs department, said of Mr. Obama at a briefing. “He said he would work to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that it would play a major role in improving the American and Western relationship with the Muslim world. Now there is a total retreat, which has destroyed trust instead of building trust.”
Mr. Shaath added that if the United States vetoed sending a United Nations report critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza to the Security Council, “It really is like telling the Palestinians to go back to violence.”
The United Nations General Assembly was debating that report on Thursday, and the administration, backed by a House resolution, does not want it sent to the Security Council. The result of a committee headed by the South African jurist Sir Richard Goldstone, the report accuses both Israel and Hamas of possible war crimes in their war last January, which killed some 1,200 people, nearly all of them Palestinians.
The less Mr. Abbas can show he has obtained from Israel and the United States, the likelier it is that Palestinian voters will turn to Hamas, which calls for the destruction of Israel and enjoys extensive support from Iran.
In his comments, Mr. Abbas said, “This is not to bargain or maneuver.” But some of his aides saw his announcement as a high-stakes gamble to persuade Mr. Obama to announce a full peace plan aimed at ending the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and creating a Palestinian state.
For all the frustration that the Palestinians and others have over the current Israeli government’s policies — continuing settlement building on land the Palestinians want for their state, refusal to discuss the status of Jerusalem or final borders, or the return of Palestinian refugees to their original homes — Israel is facing a deeply divided Palestinian leadership incapable of agreeing to any deal just now.
The Israelis say that the way forward is threefold and that the tracks should occur simultaneously: Palestinian institution building, economic development in the West Bank and political dialogue between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
The Palestinians say they will not start negotiations anew but want to renew them from where they left off with former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel. Mr. Olmert apparently offered more than 90 percent of the West Bank and some international or shared rule over Jerusalem. The current prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has made it clear that Israel would wish to hold on to much more land for security purposes and that Jerusalem is off the table.
“I think he’s reached the conclusion that he’s reached a dead end,” said Qaddoura Fares, another Fatah leader, on Israel Radio, speaking of Mr. Abbas.
Saeb Erekat, chief Palestinian negotiator, said Wednesday at a news conference that perhaps Palestinians should abandon the two-state approach and work toward one shared state with the Jews, something a vast majority of Israelis oppose.
He said Mr. Abbas should maybe “tell his people the truth, that with the continuation of settlement activities the two-state solution is no longer an option.” ...
Palestinian Memo: Hopes In Obama "Evaporated" After "Zionist Lobby" Pressure
JERUSALEM — The Palestinian president's political party says all hopes in the Obama administration have "evaporated," accusing the White House of caving in to pressure from the pro-Israel lobby and backing off a demand to freeze Jewish settlement.
Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah Party also accused the U.S. of failing to set a clear agenda for a new round of Mideast peace talks, according to an internal memo obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday.
"All hopes placed in the new U.S. administration and President Obama have evaporated," the document said. Obama "couldn't withstand the pressure of the Zionist lobby, which led to a retreat from his previous positions on halting settlement construction and defining an agenda for the negotiations and peace." ...
RFI - US backs down from demand to freeze settlement construction
In a joint news conference held, unusually, before talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pressed for negotiations to be restarted as soon as possible, regardless of Palestinian insistence -- which Washington backed only a few months ago – of a settlement freeze.
"There is no question that the United States are our staunchest friends and that Israel's firm stance on its positions pays off," Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon happily told public radio on Sunday.
...
The Palestinians argue a settlement freeze is not their precondition but an obligation Israel undertook when it signed on to the 2003 international roadmap for peace plan.
"Israel should not be given any excuse to continue building settlements," said Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas's spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeina. "This is the main obstacle in the way of peace."
“Those who believe that talking peace is better than not talking peace will see this as a step forward,” says correspondent Mark Lavie in Jerusalem.
“Those who believe that talking peace without achieving peace in the end damages prospects for calm in the area would see it as a step backward,” he told RFI.
Lavie said the change of tone came after Washington realised that its main ally would just not give in on settlements, supported by the vast majority of the electorate of Netanyahu's right-leaning government. ...
Palestinians accuse U.S. of killing peace prospects | Reuters
Palestinians accuse Clinton of hurting peace talks - washingtonpost.com
"I believe that the U.S. condones continued settlement expansion," Palestinian government spokesman Ghassan Khatib said in a rare public chiding of Washington.
"Calling for a resumption of negotiations despite continued settlement construction doesn't help because we have tried this way many times," Khatib added. "Negotiations are about ending the occupation and settlement expansion is about entrenching the occupation."
...
"What the prime minister has offered in specifics on restraints on a policy of settlements ... is unprecedented," Clinton added. "I want to see both sides as soon as possible begin negotiations."
Netanyahu has said he will not create any new settlements in the West Bank and indicated he would temporarily suspend any plans for future construction. But he has insisted Israel would not limit building in east Jerusalem, which it annexed after capturing it. And he has refused to call off the construction of 3,000 apartments in the West Bank that already have been approved.
...
The Palestinians say the settlements are undermining their dream of independence by gobbling up large chunks of territory they claim as part of a future state. Some 500,000 Israeli settlers now live in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, which Israel captured in 1967.
Israel promised to halt all settlement activity in a 2003 peace plan, but construction has never stopped. ...
