Olmert, Abbas clash over agenda of trilateral summit

Condoleeza Rice is flying into Israel next week to have talks with Olmert and Abbas determined to prove that the US is making progress in solving the Israel/Palestine crisis.

There is a small problem however. There are certain subjects that Olmert is determined to remove from the discussion.

According to government sources, however, Olmert is refusing to discuss three major elements of any final-status agreement - Palestinian refugees, the status of Jerusalem and an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 armistice lines - because he believes that raising any of these issues would doom the talks to failure.

I can accept that the refugee question is perhaps one that can be put on the back burner for the moment, despite their rights being enshrined in international law that requires that they either be repatriated or compensated.

However, I am left wondering what Olmert wants to talk about if the subject of a withdrawal to the pre-1967 armistice lines is off the table. This is the entire basis of any settlement of the dispute and if that can't be discussed then one is left wondering what the point is of having any talks at all.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni also believes that final-status issues should not be discussed now, lest they cause the talks to fail and spark renewed violence, as was the case after the Camp David summit of July 2000. She believes the talks should focus on establishing a Palestinian state within temporary borders, as proposed in the second stage of the road map peace plan.

This is an old Israeli trick where "final-status" issues are put on the back burner, despite the fact that these issues have already been decided upon by the UN.

UN resolution 242 has already pointed out the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" and called upon Israel to withdraw "Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict". And yet we find ourselves, forty years later, with Israel still refusing to even countenance discussion of withdrawal. Why is this allowed?

Olmert and Livni also insist that any discussions be purely theoretical, with implementation conditioned on fulfillment of the road map's first stage: dismantling Palestinian terror organizations.

This is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse. The Palestinian terror organisations exist because of the occupation. As the British found with the IRA, it is unrealistic to ask them to lay down their arms before they see some concrete political benefit in doing so.

There is also a fundamental ignoring of the fact that the occupation is, in itself, an act of violence.

The Israelis, once again, are seeking to have talks about Palestinian violence whilst ignoring the violence that is inherit in occupying another people by force. It seems to be almost a national blindness, a blindness which only leads Israel into more conflict, the best example of which was their recent war against Hizbullah - an organisation that didn't exist until Israel invaded and occupied Lebanon.

Israel talks of Hizbullah as if it was created in a vacuum, as if Israeli actions had nothing to do with Hizbullah's existence.

In doing so, they are ignoring Newton's third law: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Palestinian terror organisations exist as a reaction to the occupation. It is therefore impossible to discuss dismantling them without discussing the ending of the occupation.

The arrogance of the occupier is amply demonstrated in the following statement:

"There is no doubt that Abu Mazen [Abbas] will have to make compromises on these issues, given Israel's positions, and it is not clear that he can get them past the Palestinian street," one source said.

There is the immediate assumption that Israel must get her way based simply on the fact that she is the occupier and the most powerful of the two groups. It is this mindset that led to violence in the first place. Indeed, this mindset is a form of violence. "You will do what I say because I say so".

The Israelis talk a good game and are very good at portraying themselves as facing a violent opponent with whom they only seek reasonable discourse. However, if one peels away the layers, one realises that Israel is actually talking the language of empire, in reality no different from the dialogue that the British once sought to have with India. It is a language that assumes that their viewpoint must prevail based upon their cultural and military superiority.

They will be no more successful in their quest than the British were in Ireland. And, like the British before them, how many years of violence and terrorism they face will be entirely down to how long they insist that another people's wills be subjugated to their own.

Based on the attitudes of Olmert and Livni we're not likely to see peace any time soon.

Click title for full article.

tag: Israel, Palestine, Road Map, Condi, Rice