U.S.: Israel, Palestinians 'very close' to direct Mideast peace talks - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel NewsThe Obama administration said Thursday it is near to securing an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians to resume direct peace talks, while some U.S. officials said an announcement could be imminent.The State Department said an agreement was "very, very" close but that details were still being worked out. Speaking privately administration officials familiar with the matter said an announcement could come as early as Friday or Saturday. Those officials spoke on condition of anonymity due to the delicacy of the ongoing diplomacy.
State Department says all parties, including the Quartet, will release separate but simultaneous statements saying the stalled talks will resume early next month.
U.S.: Israel, Palestinians 'very close' to direct Mideast peace talks - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
View attachment 67112211
The negotiations will be based on similar one's in the recent past.Important to understand the details. Will this negotiation start with all of the PA preconditions
U.N. troops along with the P.A. security forces(who have been cooperative with the Israeli security forces) and the idf working jointly together, would be very effective.If an agreement will call for UN troops at the border, the travisty im south Lebanon should be a deal breaker
This is a good question, I believe if a 2 state solution is reached. And the citizens of Gaza are allowed to leave their enclave, and travel to and from the newly established state, have an oppurtunity to get better jobs, better education, better healthcare and sniff the freedom of a wider world, they will see the light. This will weaken the hamas government. If hamas refuses to step down, the P.A. must be armed for a military conflict, U.N. troops comprising of soldier's from other arab countries in a supporting role is also a good idea, hopefully it doesn't come to this. But the Gaza issue can be taken care of after the 2 state solution(as that is the large chunk of territory that the majority of Palestinians will be residing in).Lastly how does the PA negotiate for the people of Gaza.
This will show the world Israel is willing to compromise, and will garner it more support.Seems like this this will be one more step in the demise of Israel which most of the world would celebrate.
This is a good question, I believe if a 2 state solution is reached. And the citizens of Gaza are allowed to leave their enclave, and travel to and from the newly established state, have an oppurtunity to get better jobs, better education, better healthcare and sniff the freedom of a wider world, they will see the light. This will weaken the hamas government. If hamas refuses to step down, the P.A. must be armed for a military conflict, U.N. troops comprising of soldier's from other arab countries in a supporting role is also a good idea, hopefully it doesn't come to this. But the Gaza issue can be taken care of after the 2 state solution(as that is the large chunk of territory that the majority of Palestinians will be residing in).
Looking at it from our prespective, the border with Gaza cannot be opened to allow free travel as long as Hamas are in power. Doing so will mean a new era of suicide bombers in the heart of Israel, even if you will let them enter through Egypt - Jordan, when they will reach the west bank they will have easier access into Israel after a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians will be signed. In order to ease the lives of the people of Gaza, the Hamas must abandon its way of terror or that the PA will retake the control over the strip and clean it from terrorist groups as it does (or at least trys to) today in the west bank.
The two-state solution has always been a farce designed to manipulate the USA into weakening Israel on the behalf of Muslims and to provide political cover for that to be accomplished until the final assault on Israel can take place. Indeed, it’s designed to reduce Israel to the indefensible Auschwitz borders. In fact, given the current state of affairs in the Middle East today, nothing could be more detrimental to Israeli and US interests, which is why the Obama administration is pursuing them, of course. Not to mention that even if threes states become imposed on Israel, because Hamastan will never be reunited with the so-called West Bank without a war, it still would not end the endless jihad being waged against Israel because the jihad is permanent.
Yeah, well, lotsa luck there, since mideast peace talks have been SO productive in the past. :roll:
Seeking to achieve a final agreement within a year is an extremely demanding aspiration. It probably won't happen. But perhaps some meaningful progress can be achieved.
Putting a one year timeline or any deadline is almost certain to either cause frustration or allow one or the other party to just run the clock.
To be fair, Secretary Clinton did not establish a one-year deadline. She expressed hope that an agreement could be achieved in that timeframe. IMO, no timelines should have been mentioned, as doing so can foster or nurture unrealistic expectations. Once those expectations are not fulfilled, a disincentive to sustain the process could emerge. Hopefully, meaningful progress will be achieved and the parties will persevere until they can reach a mutually acceptable peace agreement.
Perhaps you are right. It was my understanding that the one year was out there and that Obama would try and impose a solution if the date was not going to be hit.
I don't believe any attempt will be made to impose a solution. Early on, there had been rumors toward that end. But as far as I know, that naive and counterproductive notion has been put aside. The U.S. will offer bridging proposals if the two parties ask for U.S. suggestions, but it won't attempt to impose a solution.
Such a line of reasoning would transform what is a highly complex and difficult political dispute into an irreconcilable theological one, It would accomplish little more than to perpetuate confrontation. Few arguments can be made that perpetual confrontation is preferable to reduced tensions.
It would accomplish little more than to perpetuate confrontation. Few arguments can be made that perpetual confrontation is preferable to reduced tensions.
Under such a perspective, Israel would never have achieved peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan.
Israel can and should ensure that its critical interests are achieved in negotiations.
That being the case this could hopefully be the beakthrough many have been hoping for for a long time!
What you mean transform into a theological one? It has always and will always be a theological one. The jihad against Israel is a part of the greater global jihad in which Israel is the canary in the coal mine.
I prefer to accept reality instead of deluding myself with political correctness by pretending that the jihad being waged against Israel, the West, and indeed all unbelievers around the world isn’t permanent, as history more than demonstrates that I’m right and that you are wrong.
Those Hudnas aren’t worth spit, as Israel isn’t at war with Jordan and Egypt, it is at war with the ummah. If the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Egypt after Mubarak dies next year, how much do you think those Hudnas will be worth?
If Iran gets nukes and successfully runs the USA out of the Middle East, how loyal to America do you think Jordan will remain?
Not to mention that since it is impossible that the so-called peace process will result in peace, then why even pursue it?
Because we are bored and don’t have anything better to do?
Because Obama hates Jews...
Because it deflects unwanted attention away from Obama’s failure to stop Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons? Because it will provide another convenient opportunity to blame Israel for its inevitable failure?
And what about Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, and Iran, will they suddenly all end their genocidal jihad against Israel...
Hell, creating a third Palestinian terrorist state wouldn’t even stop the so-called Palestinians living in the West Bank from ending their jihad against Israel, much less the rest of them.
Hence, unless the intention is to weaken Israel, then why even pursue it?
To be fair, Secretary Clinton did not establish a one-year deadline. She expressed hope that an agreement could be achieved in that timeframe. IMO, no timelines should have been mentioned, as doing so can foster or nurture unrealistic expectations. Once those expectations are not fulfilled, a disincentive to sustain the process could emerge. Hopefully, meaningful progress will be achieved and the parties will persevere until they can reach a mutually acceptable peace agreement.
The only real solution is to remove the current leadership and hold elections that ALL citizens of Palistine/Israel can participate in...
The representatives of the Quartet reaffirm their strong support for direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians to resolve all final status issues. The Quartet reaffirms its full commitment to its previous statements, including in Trieste on 26 June 2009, in New York on 24 September 2009, and its statement in Moscow on 19 March 2010 which provides that direct, bilateral negotiations that resolve all final status issues should "lead to a settlement, negotiated between the parties, that ends the occupation which began in 1967 and results in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors."
The Quartet expresses its determination to support the parties throughout the negotiations, which can be completed within one year, and the implementation of an agreement. The Quartet again calls on both sides to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions and inflammatory rhetoric. Welcoming the result of the Arab Peace Initiative Committee in Cairo on July 29, the Quartet notes that success will require sustained regional and international support for the negotiations and the parallel process of Palestinian state-building and the pursuit of a just, lasting and comprehensive regional peace as envisaged in the Madrid terms of reference, Security Council resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative. The Quartet Principals intend to meet with their colleagues from the Arab League in September in New York to review the situation. Accordingly, the Quartet calls on the Israelis and the Palestinians to join in launching direct negotiations on September 2 in Washington, D.C. to resolve all final status issues and fulfill the aspirations of both parties.
New York, 20 August 2010
realistically, what could israel expect to realize from these talks that it does not already have?
Peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan suggest otherwise.
There is a theological aspect to the Hamas issue, as Hamas anchors its rejectionism in religion. Hamas is not likey to accept compromise and, if the peace process is to include the Gaza Strip, that matter will need to be resolved. Otherwise, Hamas will obstruct peace.
No one suggested that Islamist radicals are not waging war against the U.S., Israel, West.
Your error is assuming that all Muslims are doing so.
That simply has no basis in fact.
There are different schools, nuances in thought, a wide range of cultural/historical experiences, etc., all at play, each of which influences perspectives.
There are radical revolutionary movements. But there are pragmatic ones, as well.
Salafists and Sufis, among others, do not think alike in terms of worldviews, goals, aspirations, flexibility, etc.
I highly doubt Israel's people believe those two agreements are worthless or that the interval of tranquility they have brought is meaningless.
The rewards to all parties have been significant and tangible.
The difference in opinion concerns how to limit the risk of that development.
But there is no urgent need for such an operation today, tomorrow, or next week.
Difficult does not mean impossible
Even if agreement is not reached, and formidable obstacles exist, perhaps some incremental progress can be made.
Over time, incremental progress can lead to a building of trust/nurturing of a new coexistence narrative/willingness to compromise.
In turn, that experience could allow for a final settlement to be reached.
Egypt's peace agreement didn't happen in a matter of days. Slow and persistent diplomacy led by Henry Kissinger beginning at the end of the 1973 war paved the road for President Sadat's dramatic visit to Israel, the Camp David Agreement of 1978, and peace treaty of March 1979. Numerous setbacks occurred along the way.
Increasing stability in the Middle East is in the U.S. national interest
Helping reduce threats confronting Israel, a key strategic ally, is in the interest of the U.S.
Increased stability benefits the U.S. and it makes eminent sense for the U.S.
The idea that the U.S. is involved out of some naive and idealistic altruism is ridiculous.
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?