One for the shelf

[Violet_Crumble]

Yesterday, the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz published what seemed like a significant development in the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, reporting that PM Ehud Olmert had presented Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president "with a detailed proposal for an agreement in principle on borders, refugees and security arrangements between Israel and a future Palestinian state".

The "offer" is nothing too different to what we've seen before: Israel keeps the main settlement blocs, including around Jerusalem, Gush Etzion, Maaleh Adumim, and, the Ha'aretz article suggests, Efrat and Ariel too. There is no mention of arrangements for the Jordan valley, crucial territory that Olmert has previously declared his intention to annex.

While Israel apparently keeps 7% of the West Bank, the Palestinians are "compensated" with land from the Negev desert and a road connecting the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In fact, the overall borders are by and large determined by the separation wall, which the report rightly notes has created a "new physical reality".

The Palestinian state would be "demilitarised", the question of Jerusalem is postponed, and there is "a detailed and complex formula for solving the refugee problem" that does not (it would seem) include even a recognition of Israeli responsibility. But while the details are familiar, and from a Palestinian point of view, a joke, what's more interesting is the way in which the package is presented as a "shelf agreement".

<snip>

The Palestinian response was as fast as it was dismissive, a decision taken by people keenly aware that there can be no repeat of Israel and the US's Camp David PR triumph; the Palestinians won't (even unjustly) be able to receive the blame for peace talks collapsing this time around.

It is in this context that the comments by Ahmed Qureia on Sunday about the "one-state solution" should be understood. The senior negotiator and ex-prime minister declared that if Israel continued to prevent the realisation of a Palestinian state in the Occupied Territories, "then the Palestinian demand … one state, a binational state".

It is what one journalist referred to as "the binational weapon", a threat, or, perhaps "a bargaining gambit" during a critical stage in the talks. However, it is likely to be not so much the appliance of leverage, but rather an indication that the game is up; it could even be "prophetic".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/israelandthepalestinians.middleeast1

[ProgressiveMuslim]

1. That leaves 3 options: one binational state, complete apartheid, or genocide.

It will be interesting to see which option Israel chooses.

My bet is on the second, a sort of victim-blamed denial of all those basic rights.

[oberliner]

4. How about this option: This 20something blogger from England doesn't know what he's talking about

It's interesting how some British guy who was born during the Reagan administration and who lives in Brazil is some kind of authority on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

5. One doesn't need a PhD in Middle Eastern studies to see the (ever-expanding) facts on the ground.

[oberliner]

6. Apparently a BA in English Literature in 2005 is enough

Look, anyone is free to hold an opinion and post their commentary on the web, but I think it is more than a little presumptuous of this person to dismiss an article by one of the editors of Ha'aretz as sounding like a "sales pitch".

[Violet_Crumble]

7. A sales pitch is a sales pitch, and it was a sales pitch I read on Tuesday night...

The govt would package it as a sales pitch, so it'd be a bit hard to report it without the sales pitch coming across as a sales pitch...

Ha'aretz have yet again done that annoying thing they do where they overwrite their articles as stories unfold. What's on that url now wasn't what was there on Tuesday night when I read it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x221363

I don't give a stuff if someone was in nappies when Reagan was president or that anyone deems them not to be qualified to comment on a newspaper article. That's called shooting the messenger. Let's focus on the content of the OP I posted. It gives a detailed opinion of why this offer was flawed, and I think the wise response was to reject it. With about five seconds left for Olmert as PM, it was never going to go anywhere, nor was there time for the back and forth of negotiations...

[oberliner]

9. Shooting the messenger vs. evaulating the credibility of the author

I think it is fair to question the degree of expertise of the poster of this op-ed.

"Shooting the messenger", as I understand the phrase, means to attack someone just because they are the bearers of bad news. This, in my opinion, is different from assessing how credible a particular analysis of the situation is by looking at the author's background.

A poster wrote that they felt that this editorial leaves three options. My argument is that there is also the option, the possibility, that the author of this editorial may not have an accurate reading of the situation, after all, he is only recently out of college, has (apparently) not studied the conflict extensively, and does not live in the region.

I also found his tone to be quite off-putting, not only in the way in which he dismissed the Ha'aretz article, but also in his tendency to try to tell the reader what things "really mean" or "basically mean".

Certainly the offer is flawed. That is what negotiations are all about. One side asks for something that favors them, the other side counters with a proposal that favors their goals, and the two sides negotiate the details until a compromise is reached that both sides are willing to accept. Of course, this process would be helped along if we had someone like Obama actively engaged in the process.

As to the opinions presented in the OP, I very strongly disagree with the author's conclusion. I do not think that "the game is up". I think that the negotiations will continue and that we will in the not-so-distant future realize the dream of two states living side by side at peace with one another.

Just because the offer was flawed does not mean that the only options are the ones presented in the post that I responded to.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. Bullshit. Yr shooting the messenger...

And here's why. I notice that in the past you've posted opinion pieces (this one from a Professor of Film http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x214110), yet now suddenly yr more concerned with 'credentials' over content. Yr 'argument' also leads to the conclusion that yr assessment of the credibility of a writer is lacking in credibility due to the exact same argument you use to 'question' the credibility of that writer....

I'm sure you would have found his 'tone' off-putting because he wasn't saying things that you agreed with. But what you saw as a 'tendency' turns out to be one spot in the article where he says the following: 'What that basically means is that Israel does not actually need to do anything substantive until "the Palestinians complete a series of internal reforms and are capable of carrying out the entire agreement". Indeed, Israel would immediately annex the illegal colonies, but the strip of desert and Gaza-West Bank connecting road would not be "delivered" to the Palestinians until "the PA retakes control of the Gaza Strip".' So, can you point out where he got it wrong? It appears to me he got it pretty much right...

Exactly how do you think a back and forth negotiations is going to happen with Olmert departing the scene very soon? There's two reasons why the game is up. The first is the timing and Olmert's imminent departure not leaving any time for back and forth to happen. The second is that the whole idea of Israel immediately annexing the 7% it wants, then shelving the agreement until Fatah overthrows Hamas is a real mug's deal...

[oberliner]

11. I respectfully disagree with your assessment

I absolutely have posted opinion pieces by people with varying degrees of credibility. I raise no issue with that whatsoever. Exchanging opinions and discussing their validity is what this forum is all about. The whole reason why I even read and post on this forum is to share my opinions and learn others from a group of folks who may or may not have any expertise on the subject, but care enough to give these issues some serious thought.

A poster concluded that this editorial led to only three options: "one binational state, complete apartheid, or genocide."

I strongly disagree that those are the only three options, and I think it is more likely that the conclusions reached by the author of the editorial are not accurate.

The conclusion that I reach is that a two-state solution is not only possible, but it is, in fact, the only one that has any chance of ever being implemented.

Negotiations can take place regardless of what is going on with Olmert. And no one is asking Fatah to overthrow Hamas. Hamas is free to take a wide variety of steps in the name of the Palestinian people if it so desired all on its own.

Perhaps the international community can work on encouraging Hamas to renounce terrorist attacks against civilians and to recognize Israel. Then, perhaps Hamas and Fatah can reconcile as they will both have the shared goal of helping to create a Palestinian state living side by side at peace with Israel. It is unclear to me exactly what the goal of Hamas is at this point.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. Then disagree with PM, but don't attack the person who wrote the article about his qualifications...

No-one is asking Fatah to overthrow Hamas? Were you reading an entirely different proposal than everyone else was?

And it gets to a point where stuff like 'negotiations can take place regardless of what is going on with Olmert' just comes across as wanky. Which possible PM do you think will pick it up and run with it and make the adjustments necessary for it to float?

You know what? Hamas hasn't carried out any attacks on Israeli civilians for a fair while now. They're adhering to the ceasefire. And perhaps those who insist that Hamas should be encouraged to recognise Israel should also insist that Israel be encouraged to recognise Hamas as the government of Gaza...

[oberliner]

14. Israel should recognize Hamas as the government of Gaza?

The proposal says that the Palestinian Authority has to regain control over the Gaza strip. I don't see how that necessarily translates into Fatah overthrowing Hamas.

Don't you think that there are serious conversations taking place below the PM level? Or at least there have been in the past, and could be in the near future.

Do you seriously believe that Israel ought to recognize Hamas as the government of Gaza? Wouldn't the consequence be that the Palestinian Authority would then refuse to conduct any negotiations with Israel?

I'm not sure where you stand on the events that took place in June of 2007, but didn't Hamas take control of Gaza by force? Did they not violate the power sharing agreement that they entered into with Fatah? Do you actually consider them to be the legitimate government of Gaza? Do you consider Gaza to be a separate entity from the West Bank? If so, does Israel need to enter into two separate peace agreements, one with each entity?

[Vegasaurus]

16. Recognize a terrorist group, that still has terror as the main part

of their political rhetoric?

Hamas will be recognized when they begin to act like a government, not like a terrorist group (against Israel and their own people).

[shira]

18. wise PA response was to reject this?

It's either more war, more blood, more suffering - - - - or accept what is in essence the Taba 2001 plan under the Clinton parameters. How is it "wise" to reject for Palestinian leadership to reject this? What is their counter-offer, if they even made one (which shows THEY are not serious if none was ever made)?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

8. Oberliner, Israel talks two-state, while it acts to systematically deny any chance of that

ever taking place.

It's plain to see for anyone who cares to look.

[oberliner]

13. Israel removed every single settler from Gaza, most against their will

Israel wants a two-state solution, however, they want it on their terms.

In the end, they will not be able to get everything that they want.

Both sides will need to make sacrifices, both sides will need to compromise.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

17. C'mon Oberliner:

the cost of maintaining settlements in Gaza had become too high, given they had no stregegic value and limited emotional value. That unilaterial move was done over the objections of Fatah at the time, if you recall.

That move was nothing but in Israel's strategic interest, and hardly evidence of their ability to compromise.

[shira]

19. Israel denies any chance of 2 states?

They just offered 98.5% of the pre-1967 land mass and a route between Gaza and the W.Bank that never existed. How is that "systematically" denying any chance of a 2-state solution?

And how has Palestinian leadership compromised on their positions and worked toward a real solution to this conflict?

[Vegasaurus]

21. I will wait to hear the responses to this one

I think Palestinian refusal to consider a proposal such as this, which is the best ever offered in recent times, shows their leadership's inability to consider peace.

Their continued inflammatory anti-Zionist, destructionist, single state rhetoric will never, ever result in peace for them, or easing the suffering of the innocent Palestinian people.

But then we know that the Palestinian leadership has never had the welfare of its citizens in mind.

If so, they would seize an opportunity for peace and statehood.

[Vegasaurus]

2. self-delete

I

[azurnoir]

3. Seemed signifigant?

LOL, seemed more like Ehud doing a George. The things not mentioned in the so called agreement were as important if not more so first being water rights will Israel keep those or give them to the Palestinians? Then the "new" development the road connecting Gaza and the West Bank which would be of course under Israeli control, there by giving Israel governmental the right to create 2 isolated prisons at will. Then the settlement along with their IDF guardians, the Palestinians get their own state with a constant IDF presence.

[pelsar]

15. had to chuckle.....whos negotiating?

olmert abbas?....seems more like a "work project" than anything else, keep the guys on the public payroll busy doing something.....

[shira]

20. Palestinians should seize the chance for peace

Seize the chance for peace that Olmert is offering

Calls for a single state solution are unnecessary: there's now a fair and sensible two-state proposal on the table

Petra Marquardt-Bigman guardian.co.uk, Wednesday August 13 2008 11:30 BST Article history

When Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qureia (Abu Ala) announced last Sunday that the Palestinians might demand "one state, a binational state" if the current negotiations with Israel failed to produce satisfactory results soon, some observers reportedly commented that this statement could signal "a significant change of heart." These observers probably have a short memory, because Qureia made a similar announcement in January 2004, when he was Palestinian prime minister.

Back then, Qureia's statement attracted much media attention, and particularly the Israeli press highlighted the controversial nature of his remarks: Ha'aretz compiled a special report on the question "Is the two-state solution in danger?" and the Israeli-Palestinian forum Bitterlemons devoted an issue to "Abu Ala's remark about a one state solution".

Inevitably, the vast majority of Jewish Israelis will view any talk about a one-state solution as a threat – even as an existential threat, because such a "solution" obviously means the end of Israel as a Jewish state. There is no reason to think that Qureia is not aware of that. When he brought up the possibility of renewed demands for "one state, a binational state" last Sunday, he indicated that the Palestinians would choose this option if Israel refused to withdraw to the 1967 borders.

However, in the run-up to the Annapolis meeting last fall, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas had explicitly stated that the Palestinians were open to border adjustments as long as they would end up with an equivalent of the "6,205 square kilometres" of territory that make up the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.




more:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/israelandthepalestinians.middleeast