5 thoughts on “Quartet at Loggerheads Over Disagreement on Peace Negotiations – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. Hardly surprising tho’.

    After all, the Russians stated their support for the Palestinian bid for UN membership months ago, so it stands to reason that they would take it upon themselves to protect Abbas’ back inside the Quartet room.

    I said this last week, and I’ll say it again: Tony Blair’s mission is doomed to fail, precisely because he is Obama’s lapdog, and Obama himself is Bibi’s Bitch.

    Therefore Blair can come up with n.o.t.h.i.n.g. without it first being given the OK from Netanyahu, and anything that Netanyahu has agreed to has no chance of getting past the Russians, precisely because the o.n.l.y. thing that Bibi will ever agree to is a public shafting of Abbas.

  2. The PA offered (or proposed to offer) Israel the moon in return for peace and Israel refused. If Israel is pressured to negotiate in good faith, one can expect an entirely unmacceptable offer to be put forward. The offer will NOT be a good-faith offer congruent with international understanding of 242; BUT the negotiation will be good-faith in the limited sense that Israel makes some proposal rather than no proposal at all.

    What’s the use? We must have the powers taking about land, about water, about people (refugees among others, prisoners among others), etc. I fear that peace must be dictated, and I fear it because it matters so much WHO does the dictating.

    That is why I prefer a freely negotiated deal. But My plan is for the nations to use BDS to require Israel to remove all settlers, settlements, and wall within a fixed and short and immediately-beginning time period so that, within that period, Israel will negotiate like crazy in the hopes of getting the PLO to leave a FEW settlements un-dismantled and a few setters un-removed. Call it pressure. Call it law-enforcement. Call it anything but don’t call it late for dinner. It might work, I can think of nothing else that might work — other than the operation of Israeli democracy in the event that the people elect to throw off their military-imperial government. (Be nice if Americans would do the same, hmm?) Don’t know if the perversion of democracy by big money would permit Israel to do it, though. clerarly, the USA has an even tougher problem in that regard.

  3. Olmert’s offer to Abbas included an agreement that Palestine would accept no weapons from any country (without Israeli agreement) — so the old ‘defense-less Palestine’ state proposal that has been kicked around and rejected before.

    Why should any state agree to have no defense capability? That would not be a country. That would be a village, like Mayberry RFD. Maybe Palestine would get Andy and Barney and a one pistol.

    Abbas had to reject this.

    1. Bibi’s sophistry on this point is doubly noxious. If you want to demand a state be demilitarized that’s one thing. But you can’t then turn around & cry like a baby about how missiles from that demilitarized state will be raining down on yr citizens. That’s simply mendacious.

      1. It also makes a mockery of the demand for “defensible borders”.

        Think about it: you can either
        a) Demand that the neighbouring state be left defenseless BECAUSE you can’t secure your own borders, or
        b) You can demand a change to your borders SO THAT you can defend yourself against a neighbour that is heavily armed

        But logic dictates that you can’t demand both, precisely because if you have (a) then you don’t need (b), and if you have (b) then you don’t need (a).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link