Al Franken, before he was elevated to the august chamber of the U.S. Senate, wrote a book about Rush Limbaugh: Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. Al, at the time, apparently hadn’t run into the myriad mendacities of Bibi Netanyahu. Otherwise, he surely would’ve considered adding Bibi to his book.
The latest lie to emanate from Bibi is in a story from Maariv (Hebrew) in which the prime minister has the effrontery to claim that in return for its 100 freed prisoners Mahmoud Abbas has agreed to refrain from using the 1967 borders as a basis for the negotiations which began today in Washington:
[In return for freeing the prisoners], Netanyahu achieved something extraordinary: the Palestinians were forced to concede that there would be no explicit statement that the peace talks would be conducted on the basis of 1967 borders or land swaps. They also gave up on any explicit or official statement concerning a settlement freeze. Accepting instead a quiet freeze confined to settlements outside the main blocs.
This statement shows the extraordinary, even bizarre rubberiness of these talks, which were restarted today in Washington under the tutelage of John Kerry and his pro-Israel sidekick, Martin Indyk. The Palestinians have conceded on two of their three major conditions for entering negotiations (67 borders and settlement freeze). Bibi in turn has conceded on one of his conditions: despite his constant denials that he would do so, he has agreed to a prisoner deal before negotiations started and included Israeli Palestinian and East Jerusalem residents among those to be freed. The question is whether the Palestinians, having folded once on these two conditions, will also fold during negotiations when they find Bibi adamant in rejecting any flexibility. My guess is that they will (as they did in the earlier negotiation with Ehud Olmert, as shown by the Palestine Papers expose), though the deal will be camouflaged to look as if Abbas has made some sort of achievement.
The Maariv reporter says that when Abbas was faced with the choice between his demand for 67 borders or a prisoner release, he chose the tangible achievement (Palestinians seeing their prisoners physically return home to their loved ones) over the intangible (the return of territory that hasn’t been considered Palestinian–or Jordanian for that matter–since 1967). The trouble I have with this calculation, if it’s correct, is that once the Palestinian people realize that they’ve accepted a bait and switch from the Israelis and gotten precious little in return for their concession on 67 borders, they will howl with rage. This simply is a trick by which they expect the Palestinians can be hoodwinked and it won’t work.
This seems yet another reason that the body of the Palestinian people will reject any such agreement that concedes on points that are basic and inalienable as far as they are concerned. According to this article, Bibi not only refuses to base discussions on 67 borders, he refuses the concept of 1:1 land swaps. Which means that Palestinians may get little or nothing in return for allowing major settlement blocs to remain in Israeli hands. How can any Palestinian accept such terms?
If Bibi believes that merely because the Palestinians have begun talks without a public affirmation of 67 borders that this means they’re willing to renounce them, he’s living in cloud cuckoo land. Yet another reason to believe that these talks are destined to fail.
A different example of Bibi’s lies is this story (Hebrew), in which a deputy minister was forced to apologize to the Knesset after he told it that the government would never offer to free Palestinian prisoners as part of a deal to restart negotiations (“the policy of this government is not to free terrorists and it will not do so”). Apparently, the poor official was given information that was a deliberate lie (probably by national security advisor, Yaakov Amidror). He dutifully told the Knesset it was a lie . Then he was called out for the lie and had to admit it was and apologize. Subsequent events (this happened three months ago) have shown, of course, that Bibi did exactly what his subordinate told Knesset he would never do.
The Maariv reporter says, somewhat cluelessly, that lying to parliament is a very serious matter that doesn’t happen in to other governments (like Britain) which respect it (parliament). The point is that Bibi lies to everyone and does so whenever and wherever he feels the need. Israelis know (or should know) that their prime minister is an inveterate liar. They simply don’t care, as truthfulness is not a primary consideration for most Israeli politicians, especially those who are “successful” in wielding power.
Some of my Israeli readers will argue that all politicians lie, which is true. But when they do, they do their best to conceal the lie. And in rare instances in which the lie is discovered they will backtrack or concede in some minimal fashion that they did indeed lie. Not so in Israel. Politics there are so cynical that no one cares whether you lie or not. Your lie will certainly not be exposed (or exceedingly rarely) and even if it is, you will stare blankly at anyone who says you lied and treat them as if they don’t exist. And you will get away with it because, as I said, most Israelis simply don’t care.
This in turn, is part of the total dysfunction of politics in Israel. Because the electorate believes you will lie, indeed expects you to, you never have to pay a price for it. And if politicians will lie to the public, then they will lie to the world and maybe even believe the lies they are telling. This is why so much of Israeli society and the nation’s history are built on lies (like Nakba, the “purity of arms,” the Only Democracy in the Middle East, the most moral army in the world, etc.). If you want to be charitable you may call them distortions. But it is essentially self-delusion.
If you’re an Israeli rightist, this news about Bibi’s lies will not sit comfortably, as it might lead you to believe that Bibi would lie about even more important issues, then turn around and concede them to the Palestinians or Americans under pressure. But my take on Bibi is different. He lies not so much to deceive his right-wing allies, but in order to relieve pressure so that he will never have to concede on any major issues.
Personally, I believe the U.S. either exerted enormous pressure on Bibi to get the talks restarted or it bribed him with huge concessions or gifts in the form of F-16s or other secret U.S. weapons systems (perhaps the latest bunker buster for an attack on Fordo?). Facing such pressure, he chose to concede on an issue that is, for most Israelis, relatively symbolic (the prisoners). He did so in order not to have to concede on an issue that is much more fundamental to him and his followers: 1967 borders, Jerusalem or the Right of Return.
What strikes me as exceedingly strange about these negotiations as opposed to other difficult bi-lateral negotiations concluded successfully in recent decades (like the talks which ended the Yugoslav war) is that the Israelis and Palestinians refuse to concede on any major point. They each maintain their own view of what the basis for the talks will or should be, and refuse to adopt the terms of the other party. So for Israel: they claim to be entering talks without recognizing 1967 borders. They will offer no concession to the Palestinians on settlements (though tacitly they have, at least in a modified form). They will demand Israel be recognized as a Jewish state. They will not concede on Jerusalem or Right of Return.
The Palestinians in turn enter negotiations based on 67 borders. They’ve already won a concession in the form of a prisoner release. They have conceded nothing on Right of Return or Jerusalem, at least not publicly.
There was a rumor the U.S. promised a letter to each side promising something the other side would never concede: to the Israelis that the talks will be conducted on the basis of Israel being a Jewish state; and to the Palestinians that the talks will use 1967 borders as their basis. It’s like a man who’s a bigamist who promises his single home to each of his wives without their knowing the other exists.
This simply won’t work. It can’t.
I’m not sure it’s meant to work.
But to anyone not looking too deeply at the matter, it looks as if Mr Kerry has had a really determined try at getting negotiations going.
I think that Mr Kerry isn’t just fighting Israeli intransigence, he’s fighting Obama’s indifference as well. To that end, he probably has to have some sort of process going to even get his president’s attention, let alone authority for any serious banging of heads.
But what I think the Israeli government will do is:
say “look how we tried!”
implement the murderous “solution” that was becoming perceptible in the rhetoric for a while last year.
“gift of the latest bunker buster dedicated to Fordo …”
Do you mean gift wrapped with a B-52 or perhaps a B-2a Stealth bomber for delivery?
I have written about this non-existing option for Israel. This means the US and Obama has leverage on Israel for the IAF can’t go it alone and strike Iran’s deep underground facilities.
I have this image in my mind of a B-52 carrying a huge bunker buster underneath it all tied up with blue & white ribbons & landing at an Israeli military airport. That’s about the size of what it would take to buy Bibi off.
“I have this image in my mind of a B-52 carrying a huge bunker buster underneath it all tied up with blue & white ribbons & landing at an Israeli military airport.”
Possibly so, but unless the USA also gifts the B-52 then that bunker-buster is useless to the IDF; nothing they have can take off with a huge bunker buster strapped under its wings.
@Possibly they will: Maybe the U.S. would lend the B-52 to Israel for a few days…
Richard: “Maybe the U.S. would lend the B-52 to Israel for a few days…”
And the pilots too, presumably, since I doubt that there is anyone in the IDF who knows how to fly a B-52.
At which point you’d have to ask why the USA would bother with the subterfuge.
After all, if the Americans have to gift the IDF
A) The Bomb
B) The Plane to carry that bomb
C) The crew to fly that plane that carries that bomb
then in what way is that still an Israeli air-force operation?
Why not simply refuse to play pretendies and just send the USAF instead?
Plausible deniability.
“John Kerry and his pro-Israel sidekick, Martin Indyk.”
Indyk will be a fair mediator.
Since you (and the Palestinians) think he’s pro-Israel and the Israelis think he’s pro-Palestine and the truth is usually can be found somewhere in the middle…
You can count me in on the side of Richard. Do you have any link of Israelis not satisfied with former AIPAC research director and WINEP’s founding director Martin Indyk?
Another link – WINEP’s founding director Martin Indyk.
@oui, the following was written for Al-Monitor by Ben Caspit.
“Now extreme right-wing Israelis are trying to reject Indyk. Somehow Indyk’s name is connected to the New Israel Fund: He serves as co-chair of the fund, in its international council,a position which led Deputy Minister of Defense Danny Danon and his friends to label him “an enemy of Israel.” ”
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/07/israelis-palestinians-negotiation-momentum.html
Thanks!
There are extremists and even farther right-wing extremists. My bad, an underestimation of the perils of human rights being enstowed on Israeli society.
Oh indeed, a subversive organisation – International Council of the New Israel Fund and the NIF Australia.
@Oui you are welcome.
With respect to your analysis: “I have written about this non-existing option for Israel. This means the US and Obama has leverage on Israel for the IAF can’t go it alone and strike Iran’s deep underground facilities.”
I Suggest you’ll listen to the following discussion Featuring Nicholas Burns, Amos Yadlin, and Jeffrey Goldberg
Yadlin states in very clear terms that Israel can achieve its target should i decide to attack Iran on it’s own.
No disrespect but if i would have to chose between your analysis and the one of Amos Yadlin the Former head of Israeli military intelligence, who served many years as a pilot with the IAF… I will chose Yadlin’s any give Sunday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGpkuPCEmsg
@Gonen: You’d choose to believe Amos Yadlin, a leading member of the military organization known for lying & saying whatever it takes to get whatever it wants? Yadlin says whatever helps the IDF. Of course he says Israel can destroy Iran alone, because to say otherwise would mean he was saying his own organization to which he devoted decades of his life, was a failure.
Almost every non-Israeli serious military analyst (and a number of Israeli analysts as well) has said very publicly & clearly that Israel cannot do significant damage to Iran’s nuclear program in an attack on its own. Claiming that Oui is the only person who believes this is an easy way out for you. But it just won’t do.
@ Richard: I never claimed Oui was the only person who stated that. I do believe however that General Yadlin has two big advantages over most analysts (including analysts wanna be’s)
A. He knows exactly what Israel capabilities are in terms of weapons and abilities.
B. He knows exactly what the Israeli Targets will be.
can you name a single analyst that knows the two ? Not someone who speculates, someone who really knows.
didn’t think so.
I can’t think of many experts who’d have more reason to lie than Yadlin if they though it would benefit Israel’s defense/strategic interests.
@Gonen: You set up Oui and Yadlin as a misleading pair, when some of the world’s most distinguished security analysts have agreed with Oui. A more apt comparison would be between Yadlin and Reuven Pedatzur or Anthony Cordesmann, who both think Israel would have to be out of its mind to attack Iran alone. Both are among the most esteemed analysts in their fields. There are scores of others as well.
Pedatzur ? a credible source ? you need to distinguish between air-time and credibility. Five months ago there was a big debate in Israel over the performance of the “Iron Dome”. Pedatzur appeared on London and Kirshanbaum (A program on TV channel 10) and presented himself as someone who fails in using basic logic.
You can watch the debate he had with Uzi Rubin, who was the head of the Israeli Anti-Missile program for years (and holds an MA in Aerospace engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute) in which Mr. Rubin asks Pedatzur one simple question: “If iron dome didn’t work as you claim and intercepted only 5% of the rockets that were fired from Gaza – 1560 is the number announced by Hamas, 1506 in the number announced by IDF – , based on Hamas numbers, what happened to another 500 Rockets ? evaporated in mid air ?” (time marker 5:00 in this video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmbJO3DEbUM
I have no idea who Anthony Cordesmann is.
@Gonen: Yes, I would say a decorated IAF pilot, university professor and security columnist for Israel’s leading liberal newspaper is not just a credible source, but a distinguished one.
Further, I’ve written about the failure of the Iron Dome system which is quite well documented by MIT’s Prof. Ted Postol, who I’ll put up against Uzi Rubin any day of the week. Postol has no axe to grind in this matter. While Rubin is part of the Israeli missile mafia, probably a consultant for Iron Dome’s manufacturer, & definitely not an independent source.
Further, whether Israel can successfully attack Iran or not has nothing to do with Iron Dome. You’re mixing apples & oranges as apoligists like you always do.
The fact that you don’t know who Anthony Cordesmann is speaks volumes to your ignorance on matters of Middle East military strategy & policy.
Working for peace or working for war, those two will never meet! Only the latter will be decorated in the military and security state of Israel. Searching for Anthony Cordesman at CSIS.
@ Oui “Only the latter will be decorated in the military and security state of Israel”
Really ? Israel’s achievements are well known all over the world, from the Nobel peace prize 2 Israeli leaders won (Rabin & Peres) to the intel chip inside your computer. You expect the bravery and valor of Israel’s soldier to be judged by third party ? Doe’s that’s the way it works with the US armed forces ? I’m sorry but i don’t understand your statement.
@ Richards & Oui, You brought the name of Anthony Cordesman and presented him for being the oracle of Delphi. I’t appears that you trust his analysis through and through.
The following is a study he wrote right after operation cast lead. in which he writes “The analysis reveals impressive improvements in the readiness and capability of the , Israeli Defense Forces since the fighting against the Hezbollah in 2006. It also indicates that Israel did not violate the laws of war.”
So the question is vis-a-vis Cordesman’s analyses Re Israel’s ability to attack Iran, is Cordesman always right ?
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090202_gaza_war.pdf
@Gonen: Wow, you have the strange notion that if an expert speaks accurately on one subject he speaks accurately on all subjects. Most of the rest of the world doesn’t believe this. But apparently in the hasbara war in which you’re an active participant, you hold such simplistic views. The rest of us don’t.
And no, anyone who holds that the IDF performed well during Cast Lead and didn’t violate the laws of war is wrong. Flat out wrong. If Cordesmann wrote this, then he’s wrong. In this particular case. But not in every statement he makes about any other subject. Does your limited comprehension apprehend this idea?
Ironic that Caspit would write that because he himself smeared Shamai Leibowitz for supporting BDS when Shamai was an NIF law fellow. His reporting caused NIF to dump Shamai from the program.
I hope Caspit has had a change of heart and moderated his politics.
At any rate, what Dannon & Im Tirzu object to is not NIF’s being an enemy of Israel, but being an enemy of Likudism. Of course, Likudniks don’t see any difference, but there is.
But you really want to argue that because Indyk is smeared by assholes like Dannon that this means he IS anti-Israel? You argue this with a straight face?
@ Richard, if it was directed at me – i have no idea. don’t know enough about Indyk and didn’t form an opinion.
I was simply providing Oui what he was asking for.
The only Israelis who think he’s pro-Palestinian are Likudniks so far to the right they’d be best friends with Meir Kahane if he were alive.
Objectively, Indyk cannot be a “fair mediator.” He’s in Israel’s pocket & will ensure any agreement reflects Israel’s interests overall.
Objectively? Realy?
Extreme leftist on one hand and extreme rightist on the other.
Objectively, he’ll do fine.
@Fred: Palestinians are “extreme leftists?” Ridiculous. Nor is your judgment that Indyk or your view of him is objective.
Coming late to this thread, but the US can’t be a fair broker. I think the claim that Kerry made that peace has to be made in 9 months puts most of the pressure on the Palestinians. They’re the ones who are powerless and are under the boot of the Israelis, and furthermore, if talks fail, nobody thinks the US will abandon Israel. So what that means is that if talks fail, the blame will be put on Palestinians, as usual. It will be said that this was their last chance, they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, and now the US will just wash its hands of the problem. In practice that means the US will keep supporting Israel and Israel will have an almost free hand. The pressure on the Palestinians to give in to whatever the US proposes will be enormous. The pressure on the Israelis won’t be anywhere near as great. It can’t be, given the strength of the Israel lobby in Congress.
If peace will stand or fall on the ROR issue, no doubt peace won’t be coming this era, if the meaning of ROR for Palestinians is the return of all refugees (and their descendents) to their former place of residence.
You either don’t understand what ROR is or you display willful ignorance. ROR means offering to Palestinian refugees the right to return to their former villages or homes in Israel. It doesn’t mean all eligible refugees will do so. The Geneva Accords estimated that about 400,000 would pursue this right, a development that would be barely a blip within Israeli society (which resettled 1 million Russian Jews within a few years time), especially if international agencies participate in helping resettle them.
@Gonen: Jeffrey Goldberg stated: “The US didn’t want Pakistan to have nukes.”
This is proven a false statement as I have written many years ago.
The conversation is highly hypothetical and Amos Yadlin will never say Israel’s Air Force cannot dectroy the Fordo underground nuclear facilities. He does say: “It’s doable.” And Israel should have the legitimacy of an attack on its side, including support from ally United States. The only way the IAF can pack sufficient power in its strikes is by using a nuclear bomb. You know what the international repercussions will be!
Furthermore, Goldberg loosely uses the argument that Syria has crossed the red line set by Obama on the use of chemical weapons. This too is a highly contentious statement not based on facts. A nice discussion in public, not valued as strategic talks about the real issue of Iran, its nuclear bomb and proliferation in the region.
There are non-nuclear weapons that will do this, the first (and most efficient) of which appeared in 1944.
The problem is the delivery system, and that might be solved by converting a small airliner into a drone and simply blowing the tail off with explosive bolts to extract the munition over the target.
Or by converting a large airliner.
Marshals converted a Tristar to carry and release a satellite launcher six times heavier than a Tallboy bomb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargazer_%28aircraft%29
Wikipedia is edited by patriotic Americans: no mention, anywhere, of who actually designed a cradle capable of not bending the rocket on release and adapted the aircraft to safely release a 44 tonner.
The original Tallboy was used to destroy numerous sites of enormous toughness:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortress_of_Mimoyecques
I’m not saying that Israel has anything like this, merely that it’s not necessary to use nuclear weapons for this purpose.
During the Cold War, the RAF’s Victor bombers were equipped to use (guided) Tallboys and Grand Slams against Soviet (or potentially in 1966, Indonesian) command bunkers as an alternative to nuclear weapons, because they could do more damage to deeply buried targets than the Golden Sun H Bomb.
At high altitude, an aircraft is flying in a narrow band between a low-speed stall and a potential transonic stall. In the case of the U2 at full height, this band is about four knots wide. The Vulcan and Victor bombers had aerodynamics that allowed a much wider speed range at great height (over 50,000′), which meant they could retain control when releasing a very heavy load, leading to instant changes in centre of gravity and aerodynamic trim. If you haven’t got a Victor or a Vulcan, an expendable airframe where you pop the tail off, is probably easier than solving all the various ways in which the release makes the aircraft impossible to control.
I think that the Stargazer releases its load in a shallow dive at around 40,000′ to avoid stalling and the rocket actually glides down to 35,000′ and stability before lighting up and climbing into space.
The older Valiant bomber, like most of its Soviet counterparts, had to do a shallow dive even from 30-40,000′ to release a 14,000lb nuclear bomb without the risk of a stall.
There is lots of disinformation and leaking out there, by various parties with their own political goals, Therefore, I don’t think that any in depth analysis such as this post can be reliable at this point. Although I admittedly come from the opposite spectrum as you, I agree that most likely these talks are a facade, necessary because of political considerations of the US, Israel, and Europe. Logically speaking, there are 3 possibilities:
1. The talks are pretense with nobody expecting a favorable outcome, they are just an attempt to manage the conflict and delay an explosion.
2. Behind the scenes and unknown to the public, there are secret agreements and these talks are just a formality to give time for the parties to prepare their publics for painful compromises. Something like the Begin-Sadat talks.
3, The talks are actually substantive and an attempt to reach an agreement. I consider this the least likely scenario.
In any case I don’t understand your bitter criticism of Netanyahu for entering the talks. You criticize him for making a concession to enter the talks, and you criticize him for not negotiating. Lies, deception and posturing are all part of politics and the art of negotiation in the Middle East, so why does it bother you so much?
As history has shown, only a right winger (or former right winger) can muster the credibility to make peace.
Sadly, Franken is a typical AIPAC Democrat and would never, ever call Bibi a liar.
@ Richard:
1. “decorated IAF pilot”, What decoration did Reuvan Pedatzur ever received ? The following site, lists all the decorated soldiers ever served with the different branches of the IDF. The name of Pedatzur is no where to be found.
2. University Professor ? He’s a Dr. not a professor.
For you anyone who’s part of the establishment, whether the Israeli or the Egyptian one, isn’t a credible source. This leads to a very narrow minded discussion, I find no interest in participating in one.
Pedatzur involvement within the Irone Dome debate was brought as an example to his lack of logic. If you want to relay on such Analysis it is your prerogative, i rather deal with substance not with fiction.
I would appreciate if you’ll hoist the personal insults, it seems to be your modus operandi when dealing with Israeli commentators, with whom you disagree. Responding in kind based on how little you know about those whom your quote (in this case Pedatzur or the rate of default bank account’s within the Israeli Jewish and Arab communities) , isn’t a big deal, i chose not to.
@Gonen: If you’d bothered looking for this easy to find bio of Pedatzur you’d have avoided the errors you made in your claims:
BTW, Pedatzur’s military rank is Major. Not as high as Yadlin’s, but I’ll take an honest major over a dishonest general any time.
Are you still holding with your former claim he isn’t credible? Or as credible as Yadlin? Further, Pedatzur has no motivation to lie about Iron Dome whereas Yadlin has every reason to do so. Also interesting that you claim someone with a PhD in his field, IAF experience, & a respected columnist writes “fiction.” The only fiction I’m seeing is yours.
@ Richards, with all due respect
1. You claimed Mr. Pedatzur was a “decorated pilot” (Your words not mine) he’s not. It appears you don’t understand the difference between a pilot to a decorated pilot. Within the IDF (IAD is a branch of the IDF same rules apply) there are 3 decorations and 4 citations that can be awarded to a solider/officer, Pedatzur received none. nowhere in his bio a decoration or citation is mentioned, Hence your claim that Pedatzur was a “Decorated Pilot” is absolutely wrong.
2. You claimed that Reuven Pedatzur was a professor, he’s not, he’s a PhD not a professor. Do we need to go over the differences ? and just for the record Pedatzur PhD is in political science, he’s not an analyst, he’s expertise has nothing to do with missile nor does it have anything to do with International relations/Strategic Studies (Such program is available at Johns Hopkins University and Tel-Aviv University)
As for the credibility of his analysis, when Pedatzur (or you if you so wish to claim in his place) would be able to explain what happened to 500 rockets fired by Hamas and reached nowhere, i will take it seriously, until then I do not consider him a serious analyst. Just to clarify: this is the problem with Petatzur Iron Dome critique: Hamas claims to have 30% success rate of firing into Israeli cities (Israel admit’s that’s the number). Hamas also claims it fired during Operation Pillar of Defense a total of 1560 rockets, 30% of the total is about 500 which should have hit Inside Israeli cities. The number wasn’t closed even by Pedatzur statement, who argued that the police states it dealt with a 109 rocket related incidents (the explosion of a single rocket creates multii-incidents).
When someone makes such a fictitious statement – i am sorry, i do not take him seriously. If you chose otherwise, this is your site and your prerogative.
The only fiction here is provided by you with respect to Mr. Pedatzur’s credentials, you were unable to provide any proof to back your claims. and for some reason you are unwilling to admit you were wrong in both statements.
I have nothing to add on this subject and will be very surprised if you would be able to come with a proof to back your claim about Pedatzur credentials, or Pedatzur’s strange iron dome critique. actually if you will i will join Guy Maroz (channel 10) initiative and will head jump for a short swim in the Yarkon River.
The State Department web site has the transcript of a background briefing for the press, so the names of the “Senior Whitehouse Spokesman” and the “Senior State Department Spokesman” are redacted.
But here is the money-shot from the Whitehouse Flunky explaining what Kerry is trying to do:
“I think we’ve all been very clear about how things could develop if we couldn’t get negotiations started again. The Palestinians, as you know, went to the UN last September and got a significant amount of support for elevating their status. The United States opposed that, but was in the minority. And the Palestinians throughout the course of this year have been making clear that if they couldn’t see progress on the peace front, that their intention would be to seek other elevations of their status, whether at the UN or other international organizations, which is not something that the United States supports but is something that could have created a significant amount of friction with Israel and really interrupted the progress we want to see in the region.
So it’s no secret that one of the motivating factors, I think for everybody, was to avoid that sort of train wreck that would have happened, that might have happened, if we weren’t able to get negotiations started. And I think – again, I mean, there are no guarantees in anything, but so long as this process is moving forward I think the risks of that sort of thing are reduced, if not entirely eliminated.”
There you have it: the USA doesn’t **really** expect anything to come out of these negotiations.
All it is doing is trying to use these negotiations as a roadblock to stop Abbas going to the UN and – after that – to the ICC.