- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 11,862
- Reaction score
- 10,300
- Location
- New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
The September 24, 2010 edition of The Jerusalem Post reported that Likud Minister Michael Eitan is advocating an interim agreement that would entail a partial land transfer to the Palestinian Authority and renewed construction within the major settlement blocs (population areas that Israel would retain in any peace agreement). Construction would be halted in areas Israel intends to give to the Palestinians. The newspaper reported:
In a proposal aimed at giving positive momentum to Israeli- Palestinian direct talks following the imminent end of the 10-month settlement freeze, Likud Minister Michael Eitan is urging the two sides to try to reach a “partial territorial agreement” in the next few months, under which Israel would transfer authority and security responsibilities to the Palestinian Authority in the overwhelming proportion of the West Bank, while Israel would resume building in the major settlement blocs.
Eitan, a former Greater Israel ideologue and settlement founder, recently wrote to Likud members urging a halt to any further building in areas that the government intends transferring to Palestinian control.
Three quick thoughts:
1. This proposal provides another example of pragmatism in Israel's government. If progress can be locked in via a step-by-step approach, such progress should be secured.
2. It makes sense to allow construction in areas that Israel will retain.
3. IMO, any freeze in construction should only occur in areas Israel is actually offering the Palestinians, not areas that the government might agree to give the Palestinians. Otherwise, if there is a gap between what's on the table and the government's compromise position (larger area), the Palestinian leadership could immediately pocket the de facto offer of the larger area and either have an incentive to hold to its positions or toughen them.
Interesting idea. However, after giving back the land what motivation will the PA have to negotiate. What happens if the next West Bank elections winds up with another Gaza situation.
That's a very real concern. IMO, any interim agreement needs to incorporate reciprocity to avoid such a situation. In other words, the Palestinians would need to give something to get something. Otherwise, incentives for rigidity would be increased. I don't believe any interim agreement should entail unilateral concessions. I believe the substance of what Mr. Eitam proposed should be granted only in return for some Palestinian concession(s), not unilaterally.
The September 24, 2010 edition of The Jerusalem Post reported that Likud Minister Michael Eitan is advocating an interim agreement that would entail a partial land transfer to the Palestinian Authority and renewed construction within the major settlement blocs (population areas that Israel would retain in any peace agreement). Construction would be halted in areas Israel intends to give to the Palestinians. The newspaper reported:
In a proposal aimed at giving positive momentum to Israeli- Palestinian direct talks following the imminent end of the 10-month settlement freeze, Likud Minister Michael Eitan is urging the two sides to try to reach a “partial territorial agreement” in the next few months, under which Israel would transfer authority and security responsibilities to the Palestinian Authority in the overwhelming proportion of the West Bank, while Israel would resume building in the major settlement blocs.
Eitan, a former Greater Israel ideologue and settlement founder, recently wrote to Likud members urging a halt to any further building in areas that the government intends transferring to Palestinian control.
Three quick thoughts:
1. This proposal provides another example of pragmatism in Israel's government. If progress can be locked in via a step-by-step approach, such progress should be secured.
2. It makes sense to allow construction in areas that Israel will retain.
furthermore a total freeze of the colonization is an Israeli obligation according to the road map for peace. Even if what Eitan proposes is better than what happens today, it is still contrary to Israel's obligations.
Phase I (as early as May 2003): End to Palestinian violence; Palestinian political reform; Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian cities and freeze on settlement expansion; Palestinian elections.
1. This proposal provides another example of pragmatism in Israel's government. If progress can be locked in via a step-by-step approach, such progress should be secured.
2. It makes sense to allow construction in areas that Israel will retain.
Pragmastism? Ban Ki Moon has repeated today that it was illegal to keep on colonizing in occupied territories and in Jerusalem; furthermore a total freeze of the colonization is an Israeli obligation according to the road map for peace. Even if what Eitan proposes is better than what happens today, it is still contrary to Israel's obligations. A total freeze of the colonization is not a "concession", it is obeying to international law.
So Israel unilaterally decides which areas it will annex? What's the point of negociating then?
The settlements were always about a land grab. There is nothing pragmatic about seeking an agreement to sanction part of the land grab.
Who decided Israel will retain these areas?
Weren't these negotiations to be without preconditions or did that only apply to the Palestinians?
Also does this mean they are going to stop construction in parts of East Jerusalem or are we to take from this that Israel has no intention of ceding even an inch of Jerusalem to the Palestinians?
Using similar language, one could argue that the Palestinian position on refugees is "about a land grab," namely seeking to use demographic change to do what the Palestinians and other Arabs have not been able to do to date, namely conquer Israel.
The reality is both sides will need to be pragmatic. Each will have to accept a solution that falls short of their maximum demands if an agreement is to be reached.
The parties were in agreement on Israel's retention of settlement blocs and compensating land swaps during both the Oslo and Annapolis rounds of talks. To date, the Palestinian leadership has, on that front, not offered any indication of a change in policy.
Preconditions are about conditions to enter talks, hence the prefix "pre." Erecting barriers to talks when one lacks the power to gain one's needs through alternative means is both short-sighted and counterproductive.
On the other hand, during negotiations, any party can and should raise the full range of its issues/concerns. If agreement is to be reached, each side's core needs will have to be accommodated. Raising needs and other conditions during negotiations does not amount to preconditions to negotiations. Doing so is part of a typical bargaining process.
Compromise formulas are possible including but not limited to joint sovereignty in East Jerusalem, Israel's ceding East Jerusalem's predominantly Arab neighborhoods, etc.
There is no indication whatsoever that the Palestinians have any intention of using the right of return in such a matter. In fact, past negotiations showed they were more than willing to greatly diminish the right of return to where it would pose no risk of creating the situation you claim they seek.
The only maximum demand Israel's past proposals fall short of is the maximum demand for no technical independence. I mean they're willing to surrender a few small, indefensible, and unruly settlements deep inside Arab population centers, but is that really a concession? Honestly, they have more reasons to abandon those settlements as opposed to keeping them.
I should also note this interim agreement does not include land swaps. That creates a problematic situation where Israel gains legal cover for annexation of the settlement blocs without having to cede any bit of its own territory.
Except what you were just saying is that major settlement blocs would go to Israel. That certainly sounds like a precondition.
The problem with all of this is, like I said, with the settlement blocs around East Jerusalem and continued construction in East Jerusalem. If some form of joint sovereignty or land cession was in the cards than Israel should definitely be freezing construction there, rather than continuing to demolish Arab homes to replace them with Jewish ones. Also any cession of East Jerusalem territory would create a complicated problem with some of the settlements around it.
There is no indication whatsoever that the Palestinians have any intention of using the right of return in such a matter. In fact, past negotiations showed they were more than willing to greatly diminish the right of return to where it would pose no risk of creating the situation you claim they seek.
Earlier on Tuesday, Fatah official Marwan Barghouti said that "without requiring Israel to return Palestinian refugees, negotiations are worthless . In an interview with Al-Hayat, Barghouti said Israel's leadership is "not serious and not trying to achieve peace."
PA official gives Israel, US week to find freeze solution
On whole, the article's content suggests that the Palestinian leadership is likely looking for a way to blow up the talks.
It also highlights continuing rigidity on the part of the Palestinians. For example, the idea that the U.S. should pressure Israel over boundaries when, in fact, both parties will need to negotiate agreed boundaries is just another hint that the Palestinian leadership retains rigid positions.
UNSC 242 allows for adjustments. There is no Palestinian entitlement to exact 1967 boundaries, borders that were not secure. In the end, both sides will need to be sufficiently flexible to strike the compromises necessary to reach an agreement.
As the Palestinians will gain little from blowing up the talks and, over time could lose much if Israel ultimately is compelled to unilaterally disengage, one has to wonder whether the Palestinian leadership is merely seeking an excuse to end the talks and blame Israel doing so.
After all, what had been a precondition for talks and is now being used as a condition for continuing negotiations had not been raised with any previous Israeli government.
Nevertheless, the Palestinian leadership may well have made a strategic choice to find a way to end talks while blaming Israel for the outcome in order to avoid difficult but necessary choices if an agreement is to be achieved.
The Palestinian leadership knows that Israel cannot accept their demand for recognition of a "right" of return to Israel for Palestinian refugees and their descendants given the legal and demographic ramifications involved with any such recognition.
Hence, Palestinian rigidity on that position would lead to failure of the negotiations and accountability for such failure would rest with the Palestinian leadership for its implacability.
On the other hand, what is a weak Palestinian government appears to lack the courage and foresight to make what would be a deeply unpopular decision among Palestinians, namely to abandon the longstanding maximum demand of a "right" of return to Israel. Instead, Palestinian refugees and their descendants would only have a right to move to the new Palestinian state. But that's a decision that will need to be made if an agreement is to be reached. No sovereign state can reasonably be expected to accept terms that would underwrite its own demise. Israel is no exception.
The primary President Abbas gave for rejecting the Olmert initiative concerned the demand concerning refugees.
More recently, Prime Minister Fayyad rejected a joint statement that referred to "two states for two peoples" precisely because such a statement would bar any prospect of a return of refugees (and their descendants to Israel).
90%+ of the West Bank (and that's before land swaps) is anything but a granting of the Palestinians "small" parts of the West Bank. Israel does have security needs and those needs will have to be accommodated much as Palestinian needs for land for a state will have to be accommodated. Otherwise, there will be no agreement.
The key term is "interim." An interim agreement would not constitute a final settlement.
It's not a precondition. It is not something that bars the start of negotiations. Instead, given past Palestinian and Israeli agreement on that issue, it is a very likely outcome. To date, the current Palestinian government has given no indication that it has changed its position on that issue.
Building within the boundaries of existing settlements is not the same thing as building new settlements/settlement outposts. A growing population (birth rate > mortality rate) has basic needs. No responsible government can or should deliberately ignore the basic needs of its constituents.
Also, Jerusalem is not the West Bank. Nonetheless, it remains more likely than not that a compromise (joint sovereignty, ceding of Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, among other possible options, etc.) on East Jerusalem will be agreed (and certainly a compromise will be required to reach agreement).
Ultimately, compromise from both parties will be needed if an agreement is to be reached. Neither party can expect that it is entitled to fulfillment of all of its demands. Tradeoffs will be required.
Earlier on Tuesday, Fatah official Marwan Barghouti said that "without requiring Israel to return Palestinian refugees, negotiations are worthless . In an interview with Al-Hayat, Barghouti said Israel's leadership is "not serious and not trying to achieve peace."
PA official gives Israel, US week to find freeze solution
Talk about cherry-picking. Could you not find a similar comment from Fayyad, Abbas, or someone else who is actually part of these negotiations? The sloppy wording also makes it hard to understand exactly what he is asking for here.
Talk about cherry-picking. Could you not find a similar comment from Fayyad, Abbas, or someone else who is actually part of these negotiations? The sloppy wording also makes it hard to understand exactly what he is asking for here.
I do not automatically trust any source that regards MEMRI as reliable and objective, considering it has been shown to have clearly and deliberately mistranslated words to portray Palestinians as blood-thirty murderers. Never mind that it is run by an ex-spook. You are going to have to find something a hell of a lot better than that.
I do not automatically trust any source that regards MEMRI as reliable and objective, considering it has been shown to have clearly and deliberately mistranslated words to portray Palestinians as blood-thirty murderers. Never mind that it is run by an ex-spook. You are going to have to find something a hell of a lot better than that.
Moderator's Warning: |
Moderator's Warning: demon of light has been thread banned.
Moderator's Warning: Demon of Light has been thread banned.
Moderator's Warning: Demon of Light has been thread banned.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?