Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Israel "willing to negotiate" with Abbas to shore up new Palestinian government

It's hysterical. Israel went against the whole of Europe to reject the coalition Palestinian government which was, itself, set up because Israel refused to have any dealings with the elected Hamas government.

However, even before the election of Hamas, Israel had made it very clear that her ideal solution to the West Bank problem would be a unilateral one, with Israel stating her own borders without any negotiation with the Palestinians. Abbas said at the time that this would trigger war within a decade. The Israelis ignored him.

Now, suddenly, Israel are "willing to talk" to Abbas on the condition that he forms a "credible and serious administration".

The Israelis have performed this dance for the last forty years, mainly to convince naive Americans that they are serious about securing peace but, tragically as always, they find themselves simply unable to find a credible partner.

The important words in Olmert's statement are "credible" and "serious". Should Abbas demand, for instance, the return of Palestinian refugees as international law states is their right, he will be deemed to be neither credible nor serious. Likewise, should he prove to make too many demands regarding the removal of Israel's illegal settlements in the West Bank. No "serious" person would surely ask that so many Israelis uproot, even if the towns that they are being asked to uproot from are illegal under international law. That's the Israeli hymn sheet that Olmert is now demanding that Abbas sing from.

But it will all sound so reasonable and plausible to American ears, who are the audience that this farce is being constructed to please. Olmert, until this point, has made it very clear that he really had nothing to say to Abbas, their very few meetings were concerned - at Israel's insistence - with Palestinian "terrorism", there was bugger all of substance ever put on the table.

However, the election of Hamas changed all that. Israel have connived with the US and the EU to bring down the Hamas government and can't now say that it can't deal with Abbas. So now we get to witness the comedy that are Israel's preconditions for any future talks which "might" take place.

"I am going to make every possible effort to cooperate with him [Mr Abbas] ... There is no question that I want to talk to him," Mr Olmert said.

The objective remained the two-state solution proposed by Mr Bush five years ago, he added. Having exorcised Hamas "terrorists", Mr Olmert said the new government must show it could "upgrade the quality of life in the West Bank, improve security, and fight terror in the most effective way".

Mr Bush said the US fully supported Mr Abbas and the new prime minister, Salam Fayyad, and was "open to the idea" of peace talks. Attempting to underscore Hamas's isolation, he said Mr Abbas was "president of all the Palestinians" and Mr Fayyad was a "good fellow".

Now I notice that a set of vague conditions have been set for Abbas by Olmert, all of which are simply ways of Israel avoiding negotiations. "Upgrade the quality of life in the West Bank" for example is spectacular in it's vagueness, especially when one considers that so much of the West Bank is still under Israeli occupation. Normally one would expect such a thing to be the responsibility of the occupier.

"Fight terror in the most effective way" is simply a way to blame Abbas for every stray Hamas rocket that ever hits Israel. After all, having armed Abbas with his private militia, both Bush and Olmert have watched as he was driven out of Gaza; so no-one can seriously expect Abbas to be able to stop every attack, in the same way as no Israeli PM has ever been able to achieve such a thing. But this condition is set - like most Israeli preconditions - as a means of preventing talks whilst sounding as if you are searching for "a partner in peace".

Not that Bush could be said to be chomping at the bit to get talks started. He would only concede that he was "open to the idea" of talks. Meaning it's not something that he's opposed to, rather than it being something that he desires.

Indeed, it is this as much as anything that tells us that both Bush and Olmert are playing word games. Having removed Hamas from the government of Palestine one would have thought that they would be eagerly seeking to talk with Abbas "the moderate" who Bush claimed was the "president of all the Palestinians".

Watch this space. Bugger all will happen. Olmert has set his preconditions, his hoops that Abbas must jump through, but those hoops will always prove to be just too high for Abbas to reach. Olmert will then be able to say that, whilst Israel desperately wants a "partner for peace", Abbas is sadly failing to prove himself "serious and credible".

And, all the while, Bush will remain "open to the idea" of talks. It is in this way that Israel always manages, with American connivance, to find peace - sadly - just beyond her grasp. And all the while she keeps building, building and building. Stealing more and more Arab land.

We've watched this particular dance for the last forty years, it's really fucking boring.

Click title for full article.


UPDATE:

Very interesting article on the Israel Policy Forum that I found thanks to Anything They Say which seems to make the same point:
Today it is almost amusing to contemplate the professions of horror on the part of right-wing Israelis (and their neocon friends) who scream “bloody murder” about an outcome they helped effect and actually welcome.

The name of their game was, is, and always will be making sure that Israel has “no partner” with whom to negotiate. Their worst fear is of Palestinians like Mahmoud Abbas who is a credible negotiating partner. They were undoubtedly relieved to hear that, as Roni Shaked reported in today’s Yediot, “the Prime Minister's advisers [declared] the Palestinian Authority dead, [saying] there is no one to talk to… and that the Bush administration will not put pressure on Olmert at this stage to come up with ideas for renewing the negotiations with Abbas and promoting a diplomatic horizon.”

I understand that this is a difficult point to assimilate. But the fact is that Israeli (and American) right-wingers are rooting for the Palestinian extremists. And that is why, today, with Hamas fully in control of Gaza, they are as happy as Red Sox fans when the team is eleven games up on the Yankees on Labor Day.

Read the whole thing here.

2 comments:

Unknown said...

mainly to convince naive Americans

Typical Euro-pomposity. You are stating you believe the majority of my country, which vastly supports Israel, is naive for doing so. You and your kind openly support terrorists. I'll take my "naivete" over your support for radical Islamic terrorism (which is what support for Hamas is) any day of the week, thanks.

bbas demand, for instance, the return of Palestinian refugees as international law states is their right, he will be deemed to be neither credible nor serious.

Well, since such a request would be neither credible nor serious...

Likewise, should he prove to make too many demands regarding the removal of Israel's illegal settlements in the West Bank

Well, Israel has removed many of their settlements in the past, so history proves that they are willing to do so. I think they should and will eventually give them all up. The Palestinians however have shown that they don't seem particularly interested in any kind of negotiated settlement to the conflict. I'm sure that too is George Bush's fault.

Israel have connived with the US and the EU to bring down the Hamas government

Those poor terrorists.

Now I notice that a set of vague conditions have been set for Abbas by Olmert

And it's such an unreasonable request to ask the PA to deal with the terrorism emanating from within its borders.

After all, having armed Abbas with his private militia

I think you have been misinformed. The Palestinian national security forces are not Abbas' "private militia", they are the nation's legitimately recognized security service. Hamas on the other hand, is a terrorist organization clandestinely armed by Syria and Iran.

But it will all sound so reasonable and plausible to American ears

Because we are so naive of course, not like the culturally superior Europeans.

Having removed Hamas from the government of Palestine

Just to be clear, the Hamas perpetrated coup in Gaza, and the resulting counter-coup in the West Bank, is to be blamed on Israel and the US? Too funny.

Kel said...

Typical Euro-pomposity. You are stating you believe the majority of my country, which vastly supports Israel, is naive for doing so.

I believe that most Americans accept an Israeli narrative on the Middle East that is simply wrong. Israel does not want peace, she wants land; which is why for forty years she been unable to find this mythical "partner for peace" that she claims to be searching for. Americans accept that she is seriously looking for such a partner, ignoring forty years of contrary evidence. I think I am generous when I refer to that as naivety, because the other reading is that the US is actually complicit in the lie.

Abbas demand, for instance, the return of Palestinian refugees as international law states is their right, he will be deemed to be neither credible nor serious.

Well, since such a request would be neither credible nor serious...

So you are saying that international law is "neither credible nor serious"? Are you for real?

Israel have connived with the US and the EU to bring down the Hamas government

Those poor terrorists.

Who demanded the election that brought Hamas to power? The US did.

So how can the US - who are promoting democracy in the Middle East - attempt to bring down a government which was elected as the result of an election that they insisted upon? Do you believe in democracy or not?

Now I notice that a set of vague conditions have been set for Abbas by Olmert

And it's such an unreasonable request to ask the PA to deal with the terrorism emanating from within its borders.

My point is that the conditions are vague precisely so that Israel can claim that they have not been met. Israel does not want to negotiate, she never has.

And if Israel cannot deal with terrorism emanating from within Palestine, it is ludicrous to imagine the Palestinian Authority - with vastly inferior resources - could do better. Again, it's simply a demand that has been made because it cannot be met. It's a get out clause so that Israel can avoid negotiation. But it sounds reasonable to people like yourself. Israel doesn't want to negotiate and NAIVE Americans like yourself accept her reasoning.

Having removed Hamas from the government of Palestine

Just to be clear, the Hamas perpetrated coup in Gaza, and the resulting counter-coup in the West Bank, is to be blamed on Israel and the US? Too funny.

How does a democratically elected government perform a coup upon itself?

And Israel - with US encouragement - were supplying arms to Abbas in the hope that he would take on Hamas. And Israel and the US had both adopted a policy of starving the Palestinians for daring to vote for Hamas and also of withholding all tax revenue of the PA in order to better facilitate that starvation. And you find the notion that Israel and the US are involved "too funny"? Now you're not being naive, you're being moronic.