• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Madrid Quartet Statement

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,862
Reaction score
10,300
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Yesterday, the Madrid Quartet (UN, EU, U.S., and Russia) issued a statement that read, in part:

The Quartet reiterated its urgent appeal to the parties to overcome the current obstacles and resume direct bilateral Israeli -Palestinian negotiations without delay or preconditions... there will be a commitment by both sides that the objective of any negotiation is to reach an agreement within a timeframe agreed to by the parties but not longer than the end of 2012.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/124734.pdf

This call for direct bilateral negotiations without delay or preconditions is a positive development. If a negotiated agreement is to be reached, the parties need to negotiate such an outcome. Unnecessary delays that have little to do with preparation for negotiations and preconditions are barriers to diplomacy. I also believe the Quartet did well to state that the end date of the end of 2012 is an "objective" rather than a firm deadline. That creates flexibility should the parties need somewhat more time.

In the end, it will be interesting to see how the parties respond. Israel has already given some positive indications. In contrast, the Palestinian leadership, still pursuing its strategic choice of circumventing negotations, is sticking to preconditions that would preclude diplomacy.

 
Yesterday, the Madrid Quartet (UN, EU, U.S., and Russia) issued a statement that read, in part:

The Quartet reiterated its urgent appeal to the parties to overcome the current obstacles and resume direct bilateral Israeli -Palestinian negotiations without delay or preconditions... there will be a commitment by both sides that the objective of any negotiation is to reach an agreement within a timeframe agreed to by the parties but not longer than the end of 2012.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/124734.pdf

This call for direct bilateral negotiations without delay or preconditions is a positive development. If a negotiated agreement is to be reached, the parties need to negotiate such an outcome. Unnecessary delays that have little to do with preparation for negotiations and preconditions are barriers to diplomacy. I also believe the Quartet did well to state that the end date of the end of 2012 is an "objective" rather than a firm deadline. That creates flexibility should the parties need somewhat more time.

In the end, it will be interesting to see how the parties respond. Israel has already given some positive indications. In contrast, the Palestinian leadership, still pursuing its strategic choice of circumventing negotations, is sticking to preconditions that would preclude diplomacy.


From what I have read this seems to be certainly at the moment not taken seriously at all. For a start there was no onus put on Israel to freeze settlements and secondly it is felt that Obama in his speech at the UN has shown his hand that his bias is firmly with Israel and that the US is not an honest broker in any negotiations.

The situation appears to be that Israel is basically alone - I read somewhere 80% of the world believe that Palestine should have a state. Given that that was the original idea - a foolish one when a combined US/UK delegation had found that the two people's would only continue fighting if given states and ought not to be given such until these issues were resolved. Of all the reports into the 'Palestine' situation, that seems to have been the most accurate. But given that that was the proposal out of which Israel and these problems arrived, it seems a discredit to the world that the Palestinians themselves 63 years later are still occupied and do not have their own State recognised by the organisation which is always given responsibility for Israel's legitimacy. Two States not one was the idea.

Anyway I think this is just seen as spin, not offering anything new in a process which has been seen to offer nothing. Obviously as Israel has the US on it's side and the US is still, for the time being, the world's superpower, this will allow the situation to carry on and deteriorate.

France has seen that this process is dead. It is more sad that the UK the country which probably has the most responsibility for allowing this mess to be created is still hiding behind the US rather than moving towards Europe where I believe if we worked together with France, some possibility of managing to find some peaceful, workable and amicable outcome would be more likely. Obviously it is up to UK citizens, the majority of whom are already if favour of a Palestinian state as a recent poll showed to nudge their government in that direction.

But the failure is also moral – on the part of Britain, as much, if not more than, any other power. As the Mandate power in Palestine for 25 years, Britain had an obligation to create and foster self-governing institutions. It left without doing so. More than half a century later, supporting the Palestinians' aspiration to statehood at the UN is the very least Britain should do.

Venting his frustration, the late Israeli statesman Abba Eban once said of Palestinian leaders that they never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. The same cannot be said of Mahmoud Abbas, who seized the moment yesterday and threw down a gauntlet to world leaders in New York. In not supporting UN membership for Palestine, if that is what the British Government decides, it is we – to our shame – who will be reproached for missing this historic opportunity now.

Leading article: Will Britain fail the Palestinians for the second time in a century? - Leading Articles, Opinion - The Independent
 
Palestine will not become its own State. The U.S. will veto all action in that regard. Obama is just the latest tool for that project. :shrug:
 
If a negotiated agreement is to be reached, the parties need to negotiate such an outcome.
The aim of the Quartet is correct as is the promised US veto...a permanent and comprehensive peace accord between Israel and Palestine.

Negotiations. There is no other valid mechanism to establish a sovereign and viable Palestinian state. The creation of South Sudan is the latest example of nationhood gained via difficult negotiations and a final mutual agreement. Anything less than creative/comprehensive/conclusive solutions to the I/P articles of disagreement is a fools chase.
 
Back
Top Bottom