U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell is here in Israel again, and it’s not stirring much excitement or even interest. On Sunday he met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with the latter saying Mitchell had “interesting ideas” on how to get Israeli-Palestinian talks going again but not saying what the ideas were.
On Friday Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas reiterated to Mitchell his refusal to talk with Netanyahu absent a total ban on Jewish building in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and East Jerusalem. Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said the fact that Israel had positions at all—on not giving up every inch of the West Bank, on the demilitarization of a future Palestinian state—made negotiating with Israel impossible.
Based on his statements to Time magazine’s Joe Klein last week, it can be surmised that President Barack Obama is not all that surprised by Mitchell’s inability to get anything moving. “This is just really hard,” Obama told Klein.
“Even for a guy like George Mitchell…. Both sides—the Israelis and the Palestinians—have found that the political environment, the nature of their coalitions or the divisions within their societies, were such that it was very hard for them to start engaging in a meaningful conversation…. From Abbas’ perspective, he’s got Hamas looking over his shoulder and, I think, an environment generally within the Arab world that feels impatient with any process.
“And on the Israeli front—although the Israelis, I think, after a lot of time showed a willingness to make some modifications in their policies, they still found it very hard to move with any bold gestures….”
It is easy to poke holes in Obama’s evenhandedness here: the fact that while Netanyahu has been ready at all times to negotiate with Abbas, with not even his most right-wing coalition partners objecting to negotiations per se, it is Abbas who has stonewalled; the fact that it was not “after a lot of time,” but very quickly—in a matter of months since taking office—that Netanyahu made quite bold gestures of reversing his lifelong opposition to a Palestinian state and then announcing an unprecedented ten-month settlement freeze in Judea and Samaria, none of which has sufficed to lure Abbas back to the table.
It is also easy to cite the usual political reasons for the stalemate—that Obama, by hitting Israel hard on the settlements issue particularly in his Cairo speech in June, forced Abbas into an uncompromising stance where he could not appear less Catholic than the pope; that the Palestinians, more generally, saw Obama as an ally and were disappointed when he showed understanding for some of Israel’s positions. All of which is valid—but only grazes the truth.
Looking more deeply into what has “gone wrong”—and has kept going wrong ever since the formal Israeli-Palestinian diplomatic process began in 1993—would require taking account, for a change, of the cultural difference between Israel and the Palestinian side.
It was less than three weeks ago that Netanyahu complained to the White House and State Department about Palestinian incitement—and not by Hamas in Gaza, but by the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Netanyahu was reacting to two particularly egregious incidents. In one, Palestinian prime minister Salam Fayyad paid homage to three Palestinian terrorists who had been killed by Israeli forces after murdering an Israeli rabbi and father of seven. In the other, Abbas named a square in Ramallah after Dalal Mughrabi, the Palestinian woman terrorist who led the “Coastal Road Massacre” in 1978—the worst terror attack in Israel’s history, killing 37 including 10 children. (More details about the Palestinian Authority’s lionization of these killers here and here.)
Obama, for his part, had no public reaction to Abbas and Fayyad’s behavior, did not mention it in his interview to Klein, and clearly was not deterred by it from sending Mitchell for another round of attempted diplomacy. As Obama did say to Klein: “we are going to continue to work with both parties to recognize what I think is ultimately their deep-seated interest in a two-state solution in which Israel is secure and the Palestinians have sovereignty and can start focusing on developing their economy and improving the lives of their children and grandchildren.”
In other words, even-steven—both sides wanting their peaceful place in the sun. The possibility that peace is not a value for the Palestinian Authority in the way it is for Israel—that there may be an unbridgeable gap between a Western democracy and a non-Western entity that glorifies and perpetrates terrorism—does not, from the evidence available, exist in Obama’s, or Mitchell’s, mental lexicon.
But it is high time that it did, high time that the administration start giving its democratic ally, Israel, more credit and start reexamining the assumption that achieving sovereignty for the Palestinians—Dalal Mughrabi Square and all—is an American interest. Which is, alas, too much to hope for from this administration.
Fatah and Hamas are fighting over money and power.
Hamas and Fatah have once again demonstrated that the power struggle that has been raging between the two parties for the past three years is not over who is going to bring democracy and prosperity to Arab population living in the West Bank and Gaza. Nor is it over who is going to build schools, universities and hospitals. They are not fighting over what is good for these population. They are fighting over money and power. The two sides despise one another so tremendously that some Arabs have been arguing that Hamas and Fatah hate each other more than they hate Israel. More at :
http://israelagainstterror.blogspot.com/2009/10/m…
Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas)
The nature of the leadership of the proposed Palestinian state can be deduced from the profile of its potential leaders, who have become role models of inter-Arab treachery, subversion and terrorism. Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) – a graduate of KGB training and of Moscow University and the engineer of hate education – was expelled from Egypt (1955), Syria (1966) and Jordan (1970) for subversion. He played a key role in the PLO violent attempts to topple the government in Beirut and PLO collaboration with Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Can Israel make peace with Abbas ? A substantial annual net-emigration/flight, by moderate Palestinians, attests to the Palestinians' own expectations of the proposed Palestinian state. Consult: http://israelagainstterror.blogspot.com/2009/08/w…
The article Game Theory in the Middle East sheds some light on why the "peace" process doesn't bring peace.
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/04/2…
Abbas is a quisling, a collaborator. Israel gave him the kit to wipe out the elected government in Gaza, which instead fought back successfully.
There’s no other explanation for Abbas dismissing the Goldstone report. Anyone who still believes Israel’s is “the most moral army in the world” needs to read paragraphs 38 through 75 of that report.
Obama, like William Dumb NOT Smart, is an anti-Semite, an Israel-hater from the time even before he took office. His Black NAZI of an Uncle, Jeremiah and his crack 'ho mommy saw to that.
Abbas has every reason to believe,given the universal disdain in which israel is held, that the majority on the security council- with the support of the vast majority,in the U.N.- will pass a resolution demanding that Israel withdraw to the 49 armistice line(popularly known as the pre 67 borders).a resolution will be passed demanding Israel's withdrawal to what Abba Eban called "the Auschwitz borders".If it is not vetoed- punishing sanctions will be implemented when Israel refuses to comply with the U.N. resolutions and Israel's leaders will be referred to the world court for prosecution.This,anyway,is what Abbas believes- and he may be right.
[...] Read more at FrontPage Magazine. [...]
Indifference to problem is the meat which politicians thrive on to sustain themselves in the public eye. They just do not understand how boring they've become, though. They all fly about like constipated pigeons littering the landscape with a white powder substance.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Palestine News, Vince Humphreys, D Runner, Christian Crusader, JDigest News and others. JDigest News said: #jerusalemnews When Peace Is Not a Priority – FrontPage Magazine http://tinyurl.com/yzfauup [...]
Turkey's Prime Minister, Erdogan, publicly read an Islamic poem: “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and Muslims our soldiers…”
Islam is an expansionist, colonizing, totalitarian military 'religion'. The so-called peace process is a wicked LIE!
In 1980 PLO Leader Arafat explained the peace process: "Peace for us means the destruction of Israel . We are preparing for an all-out war, a war which will last for generations."
The PLO Charter calls for the destruction of Israel.
On the same day Oslo "Peace" Accords were signed in 1993, PLO leader, Arafat stated: "Since we cannot defeat Israel in war we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish sovereignty there and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel."
The Arab League's Charter states its goal is to eradicate the Zionist entity.
Every Israeli Land surrender results in vastly increased Islamic terror and war! The murderous peace process: Land for War! As a result of Israeli land surrenders, every Israeli is under missile threat from either Hizbullah or Hamas, or both.
Demanding a Muslim terror state reducing tiny Israel at mid-section to 9 miles wide indefensible, Auschwitz borders is wickedly seeking a Second Holocaust!
Israel, NEVER surrender to the global jihad! Never surrender to the evil forces that seek Jewish annihilation!
I love twitter, and I tweet probably way more than I should. I’ve followed you on twitter. I use twitter more than ever nowadays and my blog feels abandoned!
Great article. There’s a lot of good data here, though I did want to let you know something – I am running Ubuntu with the up-to-date beta of Firefox, and the design of your blog is kind of bizarre for me. I can read the articles, but the navigation doesn’t work so good.
Hi – very great website you have created. I enjoyed reading this posting. I did want to issue a remark to tell you that the design of this site is very aesthetically sweet. I used to be a graphic designer, now I am a copy editor for a marketing firm. I have always enjoyed working with computers and am attempting to learn code in my free time (which there is never enough of lol).
I was scanning something else about this on another blog. Interesting. Your linear perspective on it is diametrically contradicted to what I read in the first place. I am still reflecting over the diverse points of view, but I’m inclined heavily toward yours. And no matter, that’s what is so super about modern democracy and the marketplace of thoughts on-line.
Wow that is pretty cool.
What is really being missed from state to state inmate searches? Is it just a problem if the inmate is in the middle of being charged with a new crime or moving to another location?
Just browsing around and found your site. Very nice post. Will be adding you to my RSS reader.
Considerably, the article is actually the freshest on this notable topic. I agree with your conclusions and will thirstily look forward to your upcoming updates. Just saying thanks will not just be sufficient, for the great lucidity in your writing. I will at once grab your rss feed to stay informed of any updates. Good work and much success in your business efforts!