On whole, the article's content suggests that the Palestinian leadership is likely looking for a way to blow up the talks.
which has precisely been their intent since the moment they were dragged into them. There is no evidence, direct or indirect, to suggest otherwise.
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.
IMO, it does far more than that - it summarizes the inherent lie that the Palestinians are prepared to make peace with Israel under any terms short of victory. There can be no peace between nations with the right of return. It is a weapon of demographic subversion that is designed to allow the Palestinians to win through demogrpahicsd and the subversion of Israeli institutions what they cannot win through bullets and bombs.
That was the reason the right of return was inculcated in a perpetual refugee population unlike in any other conflict, and that is the reason why so much effort has been made by the Palestinians to inculcate this expectation of this as a "core demand" that must be met under any peace agreement rather than educating their population towards peace and compromise, as Israel did in the 90s.
The right of return as a core demand is a game breaker. And was designed as such. While it is interesting to watch anti-Israeliers try to deny this reality, it is really quite tragic, as those who bear the largest burden for this continued rejectionism are the Palestinian civilians in the territories and in refugee camps that suffer the most. All this talk of "justice" and "law", with absolutely no concern for those they purport to be advocating for.
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.
of course. We all know what an actual workable agreement would look like. Some territorial compromises to allow Israel tor etain settlment blocks that would be deal breakers if they tried to evacuate them (those on the seam line, plus possibly Arial) and which provide Israel with territorial depth necessary to establish more defensible lines. Shared control over Jeruslem, with Israel retaining Jewish neigbourhoods and some mechanism for archaeological preservation and maintenance of holy sites. No right of return but some mechanism for compensation for those whose property was lost due to the war. Agreements on water and shared resources. Potential customs and trade agreements. limitations on Palestinian offensive warfare capabilities, with likely transitional Israeli security presence in certain areas (e.g., Jordan Valley), potentially facilitated by an international presence) Etc.
While this does not meet Palestinian maximalist demands and may be "an injustice" "unfair" "illegal" or whatever, it would result in an independent viable Palestinian state, in which Palestinians can pursue their national aspirations. It would end the decades of conflict, and allow the nesxt generation of Palestinian children to grwo up in a more normal, more civil environment, where they can look forward to a better future.
But we all knwo this will never happen, and that every "pro-Palestinian" poster on this board (and elsewhere) opposes such an outcome, for reasons of "law", "justice" or other such equivocation.
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.
what wonder? This is precisely what is going on. The Palestinians have always been willing tyo bank concessions, and even to offer those of their own, but only insofar as those concessions do not have any adverse impact on their continued efforts to destroy Israel. That is the Palestinians' core redline - anythign and everything that would make it more difficult to pursue Palestinian control over Israel is unacceptable, even though they pretend this isn't so for the wider international audience. Which is exactly how we can get such incoherent nonsense from Bhargouti with a straight face. Because to them, pursuit of the destruction of Israel above all else has been the never-chenged goal, and is self-evident.
The object here has always been to avoid talks, enter into them if dragged, but do everything possible to cause talks to fail while ensuring that Israel is blamed for the talks. If that could be manouvered into more concessions to keep talks going, fine. bank more concessions. But talk is just talk, and so long as the Palestinians do not have to give up anything of consequence or actually reach an agreement, they are happy to keep going while banking concessions.
Abbas is no moderate. He never was, even though we have tried to pretend that he is. We (and Israel) are doing the same thign with him as we did with Arafat. Ignoring reality in pursuit of an elusive peace in the hopes that by not speaking something it doesn't really exist.
It cannot work.
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.
and if this is granted he next demand will be immediately forthcomming, with nothing ever offered in return, unless it is perceived to be in Palestinian interests in their larger strategic game of destroying Israel.
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.
They have made that choice, but not for the reason you suggest. It is not that they want to avoid making difficult choices, it is that they have no interest in the outcome. It is not that Abbas doesn't want to expalin to Palestinians that their future is in an independent Palestinian state, it is that he does not believe that the state justifies relinquishing the struggle to "liberate historic Palestine". There is no evidence at all to the contrary in any action he or other Palestinian leaders have ever taken.
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.
which is exaclty why it has always been a core demand. Because it allows for "talks" to continue ad nausium for tactical reasosn while ensuring that there will never be an agreement. Dressing it up in "law" and "right" and "justice" just provides them a cover for doing so without the blame being placed where it rightly belongs for the failure of any talks.
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.
should rest. But it won't. It always rests with Israel. Just like camp david and taba and Olmert's proposals. Everything is always Israel's fault because the Palestinians just want independence and big bad Israel is denying that to them. Which of course just allows the Palestinian leadership to continue to sacrifice their people on this destructionist altar in myopic pursuit of the delusional utopian fantasy that is Israel's destruction.
And like every other time, the Palestinian leadership will face no consequences when it scuttles talks this time. Even if the world finally sees that the Palestinians are really the party to blame, they STLL will not do anything because Abbas is a "moderate" and the alternatives suck even more ass than he does.
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.
of course not. But re-examine what the Palestinians real objectives are, and honestly see whether any evidence at all exists that the Palestinians are even remotely interested in a state if that state involves relinquishng claims to Israel.