US officials: We can't stop Palestinian UN statehood bid if talks fail

[azurnoir]

The United States cannot stop a Palestinian campaign to the United Nations for statehood should peace talks with Israel fail, American diplomats told The Washington Post on Saturday.

Jibril Rajub, a member of Fatah's central committee, told AFP Friday that "the Israeli government has informed us through the American mediator that it will not abide with its commitment to release the fourth batch of Palestinian prisoners scheduled for tomorrow."

"Israel has refused to commit to the names that were agreed upon of prisoners held by Israel since before the 1993 Oslo agreements," he added.

He called the Israeli move a "slap in the face of the US administration and its efforts," and said the Palestinians would resume their international diplomatic offensive against Israel as a consequence.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4504575,00.html

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Oh well.

I feel for everyone who lives in the Middle East. I'm sure by now just about everybody who isn't profiting directly from the fighting and the occupation is so far beyond sick and tired of it as to be unable to see the time they got to being sick and tired of it in their rear view mirrors. And I'm not sure the US meddling has really made anything any 'better' in the long term.

[Jefferson23]

2. Because a prisoner exchange is somehow a balanced measure when giving up your

rights?

Please find your brains and balls, Abbas.

[Scootaloo]

3. Remember, we're constantly told that the Israelis are the ones "showing restraint"

By not committing mass genocide against the Palestinians whenever a rock is tossed. Ask any of our Zionist posters, we all need to kneel down and suck some Israeli balls in thanks for this "restraint."

Frankly I figure, considering the situation, it's the Palestinians showing the patience of Job here. I really can't imagine being in their position and still sticking to the framework of negotiations that the other party clearly has no interest in staying with.

[Jefferson23]

4. I am harsh on Abbas, but this is just crazy wrong imo. You don't end up with the ability

to have a viable state there will never be peace.

The US pressure that is now beginning to show up in the press toward Israel is nothing I am sure
to what has been extended to Abbas...I appreciate that and how isolated they are in the international
community.

[Scootaloo]

5. You've got three sides with three different goals here

Israel wants to basically eradicate any notion of "Palestine." The rhetoric has changed since the 80's but the actual policy really hasn't - the Palestinians are NSP's so far as Israel is concerned - "No Such People." Israel wants to either subjugate the Palestinians into a subordinate position, or push them into Jordan, all while seizing the west bank for themselves.

Palestine wants, at the very least, a Palestinian state set at the Armistice lines (they're not borders for fuck's sake. media needs to learn some facts yo) with a sovereign economy and political system. It demands retention of its territory such as the Jordan Valley and east Jerusalem - again, at the least. There is some open-ness to land trades on other areas, but the Palestinians demand they be equal exchanges.

These two goals are, of course, completely mutually exclusive.

And there's the US who, as far as it matters, really does not care either way - our politicians just want to be the guy in power when the situation is "resolved," so they can show up for photo ops. We really have no deep investment in either side - we play as Israel's lawyer simply because they're the more powerful of the two, and taking their side requires less effort or involvement than trying to bolster the rights and legal claims of the underdog would be. Now that Israel's position is slipping on the subject, we're seeing the US administration start to talk like a neutral party rather than an invested one.

[Jefferson23]

6. Some may say you have a cynical opinion, but I would not agree with them.

That is the US interest, no doubt in my mind about that.

What the result will be is worrisome, as Abbas may take the deal to extend talks at the eleventh hour
walking away with a few crumbs to show for it..we'll see soon enough.

[Scootaloo]

7. I think, at this moment, Abbas is trying to shift US perception

He's drawing bold underlines under his own willingness to stay at the table, and Israel's perfidy in these negotiations. For twenty years the US narrative has always been "talks failed because the Palestinians... blah blah blah." whether it's been true or not, starting with Clinton. By demonstrating Palestinian patience in the face of israeli provocation, Palestinian willingness to deal even as Israel tries to back out of its own deals, Abbas is trying to change that. It doesn't make him a particularly good leader - but I think he's a pretty damn good politician, and seems to have a decent spine to him.

And speaking of Clinton, he's the one who cinched my opinion of the US' cynical photo-op policy. When Arafat and Rabin were working on Oslo, Clinton swept in at the last moment, got his picture taken, and tried to play as if it had been his plan all along - were it not for the word "Oslo," you would forget that the Norwegians were involved at all, much less that they were the ones who did the heavy lifting. Later on, he lamented about Arafat "ruining him," i.e., ruining Clinton's chances at getting his picture in the history books as the president who "solved it all."

[Jefferson23]

8. I hope you're right about Abbas..you give him more credit than I do.

True, he looks like the accommodating party, but that is only by default, he
has no cards to play with. To suggest that he is being accommodating as a strategy
is something I see no evidence for, if that is what you meant. Could he capitalize on it
later, maybe. It is hard for me to even guess how the US will react if no arrangements
are agreed upon. Obama does not need to worry about being re-elected, and if he
decides to spell it out pretty clear through Kerry that Israel was primarily responsible
for the failure..that will represent in my mind, a huge shift that opens the door for Israel
being more vulnerable and further isolated on the international stage. With that said,
I find it hard to believe a deal won't be forged, as much as an asshole Netanyahu is, I do
believe he wants to do business with Saudi Arabia, and they want the same.


Not that I hold Abbas' leadership as responsible for the political relationship between the US and Israel, I don't.
The US /Israel alliance is powerful, and no one should consider it a small feat to over come.

If Kerry can broker a deal that results in much less than a viable state, historians, the reputable ones,
will take care of their alleged successes and all their motives, in time...they always do.

The worry now of course is, how badly will they get screwed and can it be prevented.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

10. I disagree with you on that the USA has no investment. The US had been invested in Israel as

a cold war proxy for decades, which may now be returning to regular status with Vlad the Inputin's land grabs, in addition to being a counter to Iran, Iraq and just our general dog in the geopolitical fight. Why else would the USA ignore Israeli apartheid for as long as it has while giving Israel $$ to buy its armaments?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

9. He apparently has neither.

I'd be surprised if Abbas actually hasn't already ceeded both of them to BiBi as some sort of preconditions to continue pretending he is relevant.

[Jefferson23]

13. The corruption and incompetency of Erekat too...no one to count on. n/t

[azurnoir]

11. PA: Talks can go on if Israel frees 1,000 prisoners

The Palestinian leadership presented an offer to American mediators – that Israel release 1,000 more prisoners, of the Palestinian Authority’s choosing and in exchange, peace talks would be extended until the end of 2014. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas also demanded that Israel freeze settlement construction and transfer some Area C regions to the Palestinian Authority’s control.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/pa-talks-can-go-on-if-israel-frees-1000-prisoners/

[Jefferson23]

12. Even if it went into the thousands, would not change what worries me for the Palestinians as he

negotiates, this is what you don't promise for prisoner releases:


In return, the Palestinians would continue to abide by their obligation to refrain from applying to UN and other international bodies for the duration of the talks.


Prisoner releases are not going to be the catalyst to build a viable state, imho. I appreciate that the US/EU are
placing enormous pressure on him with their boots on his neck, to say the least.

[shira]

14. Great incentive for Palestinians to reject everything & just wait for UN to give them a state...

Why negotiate peace and make any concessions when they can just get what they want for nothing?

Seems the Palestinians are in the driver's seat.

What this message means to Israel (about not being able to stop the UN) is that no matter what they offer, Israel will be blamed for failure in the talks. A win-win for the Palestinians.

You guys should be celebrating.

[Mosby]

15. Or just keep dragging out the talks while requiring more concessions

Releasing prisoners to facilitate nothing but talks was a really bad precedent imo. When time runs out again Abbas will request more "good faith gestures". It's a great little con he's got going on.

I think the threat of going to the UN for state recognition is a bluff. For one you can't just erase 242 and 338 so this would create some sort of legal dispute between the GA and SC. If there was a way past that then you have the refugee issue, with their new state it follows that the refugees would be relocated to Palestine and after a time UNRWA would be dissolved. If they assert "right of return" to Israel for the refugees then Israel would mount a legal challenge so the Palestinian leadership would be risking a formal legal refutation of that principle, which, as you and I both know has very little legal basis. Lastly the settlers wouldn't just be sitting around, they would file en masse property claims under international adverse possession laws. After all they've been squatting for multiple decades. Some might ask for citizenship. Others might use 242 as legal cover and claim they can stay in Palestine because of the lack of a negotiated settlement. Same with the IDF, in that case they have legal documents like the interim agreement that state they can assert control in certain areas until a settlement is reached between Israel and Palestine. Abbas could dissolve the PA to try and release him from his obligations but I'm sure this would create a whole new set of problems.

So in sum while it sounds good to say "if we don't get our way with the prisoners we are going to the UN for a state neener neener" it's a very risky proposition, and taking risks is something that the Palestinian leadership don't do well if at all, especially with Abbas's "legacy" on the line.

[shira]

16. You're right. Good luck on them erasing 242 and 338. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

17. "Or just keep dragging out the talks while requiring more concessions..."

Oh the irony is so rich.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

18. "Great incentive for Palestinians to reject everything..."

Yes, shria, reject everything...

Colonization of their lands.

Two sets of laws.

Harassment by illegal settlers.

Protection of Illegal settlers by IDF as the harass.

Illegal confiscation of more lands.

Illegal murder at the hands of the IDF.

Daily humilitation.

The Nakba.

Apartheid.



These last two comments by you and Mosby are a clear indication that you two should team up and take your comedy tour on the road.

[shira]

19. If Palestinians so desperately want their own state to end all that suffering....

...then why haven't they accepted one already? They've had many opportunities since the 1930's.



Do you think the Tibetans, Kurds, and Basques would have rejected so many offers for their own state?

I know, tough questions but try...

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

20. If Israel wanted to let the Palestinians have their own state they wouldn't be colonizing the

Palestinian territory: moving 500k illegals in.

I hope that the UN does grant the Palestinians their state and gives Israel an ultimatum in the process.

[shira]

21. You dodged the question. This goes back to the 1930's. Why do u think the Palestinians rejected...

...the 1937 Peel Plan, 1947 Partition Plan, 2000 Clinton Parameters, Olmert 2008...?

The Tibetans, Kurds, and Basques have never been offered their own state like the Palestinians have numerous times.

Tough question, but you can do it.

=============

I also can't let you get away with the 'colonizing' statement. Jews are indigenous to Judea/Samaria going back over 3000 years. It's not like they're moving illegally into some part of Uganda. You know better than to try that shit here.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

22. There is no question to dodge. The Palestinians deserve their state.

The Israelis need to stop with their bullshit and standing in the way of it. Their apologistas need to take it someplace else.

[shira]

23. You dodged it again. Pity you never have any answers to the most straightforward questions.

As for apologistas, seems you're the one doing that as you defend Palestinian rejection of their own state going back over 75 years.

[azurnoir]

24. Lol colonists are those that colonize land not sovereign to their country under that countries flag

you can wail on about how someone who's parents, grand parents, great grand parents, great great grand parents, back for a couple of millennia or more were born in Europe are 'indigenous' to the Levant and there for they have a right to take it for their own, but if that is the case then do the Russians have a right to take Sweden too as their own or the Japanese to Korea?

[shira]

25. There is no legal declaration that makes E.Jerusalem exclusive Palestinian sovereign territory.

You know this, so why pretend?

And legally speaking, the Mandate for Palestine gives Jews the right to settle in Judea/Samaria, their ancestral homeland.

[azurnoir]

27. The UN partition did not give the West Bank which you call Judea/Samaria

much like the settlers and Rightwing Israeli's do to Israel-ancestral homeland as you claim or not, as for East Jerusalem that was never part of modern Israel either except by rule of the gun and brutal force

[shira]

28. So you agree, the land in question is not exclusive Palestinian land....

There is no legal binding document that says any such thing.

There is however the Mandate for Palestine which gives Jews the right to settle in Judea/Samaria, their historic ancestral homeland.

At best, the land is disputed.

[azurnoir]

29. Nice try but that is not what I said

the West Bank is not now nor was it ever part of modern day Israel period, no matter how many of it's civilians Israel transfers in or how Palestinians it transfers out of the area of the West Bank it was given temporary custodianship over
The antiquated Mandate for Palestine was invalidated when Britain allowed the UN partition, but it is interesting to see how apparently desperate some are to make appear valid Israeli colonialism

[aranthus]

26. Except that the UN has no power to give anyone a state.

And if the UNGA were to vote on something like this, that just gives the Israelis more incentive to annex Judea and Samaria.