Israeli-Palestinian peace talks' resumption put in doubt by both sides.

[another_liberal]

Last edited Mon Jul 22, 2013, 08:38 AM - Edit history (1)

Source: The Guardian

Moves towards a resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks were mired in rumours, rebuttals, criticism and confusion on Sunday in an indication of the political and diplomatic swamp facing key negotiators and their mediator, the US secretary of state, John Kerry. In a high-profile dismissal of the embryonic process, Israel's former foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, wrote on Facebook that there was "no solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, at least not in the coming years, and what's possible and important to do is conflict-management". Naftali Bennett, economics minister, insisted construction on Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem would continue, regardless of talks.

The comments by two crucial partners in the Israeli coalition are a sign of deep hostility within the government over the agreement for preliminary talks forged by Kerry on Friday. Meanwhile, a veteran Palestinian negotiator, Yasser Abed Rabbo, denied that a firm decision had been taken to enter talks, saying further clarification was needed on a framework and the Palestinians were still discussing terms with Kerry. According to a Palestinian source, Kerry had written a letter giving a US assurance that the basis of territorial talks would be the pre-1967 border, but it was not clear whether the letter had been delivered. "If we have well-defined terms of reference and a clear time frame – by which we mean the end of the year – we will go into talks," the source said.

Among the few formal statements of the day, the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, told cabinet colleagues that resuming the diplomatic process was "a vital strategic interest of the State of Israel, first of all because we want peace". However, any agreement would be put to a referendum of the Israeli public, he added. The Israeli president, Shimon Peres, congratulated his Palestinian counterpart on "a brave and historic decision to return to negotiations". He added: "Don't listen to the sceptics, you did the right thing."

Among the sceptics were Hamas, the Islamist rulers of Gaza, which described any engagement in talks by the Palestinian leadership as a "betrayal". There was no firm indication of when preliminary talks in Washington might begin. Kerry said in his statement on Friday that if everything went "as expected" the first meeting would take place "within a week or so". The main sticking point continues to be the Palestinian demand that the pre-1967 borders form the baseline for territorial negotiations, a guarantee which Israel refuses to give. If Kerry fails to persuade the Palestinians they have firm US backing on the issue, talks may fail to get off the ground. There is also disagreement over the timeframe. Israel is pushing for negotiations to last up to a year, fuelling concern among critics who believe Netanyahu is seeking to give the appearance of diplomatic co-operation while stalling for as long as possible on any outcome.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/21/israel-palestinian-peace-talks-doubt

---

Tzipi Livni is representing Israel's government at the talks? How serious can Netanyahu be if he chooses a negotiator who not long ago had to cancel a trip to London for fear (reportedly) of being arrested on war crimes charges?

[karynnj]

1. Livni is one the better people in Israel's government

I don't have any idea what the war crimes issue is, but would guess that it was not specific to her. In fact, the surprise would have been if she were the sole negotiator as she is not close to Netanyahu. In fact, an aide to Netanyahu was announced as a co negotiator.

[another_liberal]

4. She shares responsibility for "Operation Cast Lead."

As Minister of Foreign Affairs in Prime Minister Olmert's cabinet, she was responsible for promoting and defending Israel's massive use of military force against the Palestinians in Gaza. It is thought that if she visits an European Union Country, an arrest warrant will be served on her for Collective Punishment against a civilian population, which is considered a war crime under international law.

[L0oniX]

2. News agencies with nothing better to do than report on this shit. YAwn

Maybe a report on how many times Israeli-Palestinian peace talks have failed and why should anyone think that will change.

[karynnj]

3. I woud bet that there are many times the number of artices on Snowden as on this

I am not surprised at the article - and they are not much different than those that said there were zero chance of talks at all. Kerry's statement itself had various qualifiers - such as "if all works out as expected" , but the chances now show that the majority of the pundits underestimated the possibility.

What this does show is that both sides will try to use the media to their advantage. Only if both sides agree on some solution that both can defend as - long term - better than where they are heading without it, is there any chance that there will be a two state solution.

[L0oniX]

6. You might as well ask the American Indian if they will make a deal over land.

[another_liberal]

5. Already being suggested . . .

It is already being suggested that Netanyahu just wants to stall as long as possible, while allowing the facade of holding peace talks. To do nothing except steal more Palestinian land and build more Israeli settlements on it makes Israel look bad. If peace talks are resumed, he can always blame the Palestinians for any lack of progress.

[Mosby]

7. More tendentious crap from the Guardian. nt

[another_liberal]

9. In what way is this article biased or one-sided?

No, it doesn't cast the Palestinians as "Evil-doers," or " Radicals and Terrorists."

Is that what you mean by "Tendentious?"

[Mosby]

12. It starts with the title

"...put in doubt by both sides"

Netanyahu has accepted Kerry's proposal to restart negotiations without preconditions. Both his negotiators Livni and Molho are on board.

On the other side Saeb Erekat and Abed Rabbo (the two main Palestinian negotiators) both made statements Sunday stating that the Washington talks were to discuss the preconditions leading to negotiations, basically contradicting Kerry.

On Monday Abbas (the now unelected dictator of the West Bank) threatened that "all options are open". Israelis will take this statement as a threat that if Abbas does not get his way they will launch another Intifada.


Now let's look at the Guardian piece, who is the first person mentioned?

A disgraced former Israeli FM now on trial for fraud. Who's opinion means basically nothing.

Who do they mention next? An Israeli cabinet member with very little actual clout.

That's just in the first paragraph!

This shit piece by the Guardian is the very definition of Journalistic bias, there was ABSOLUTELY no reason to mention a fucking tweet by Lieberman in the first paragraph no less.

None, unless one wants to demonize Israel that is.

[another_liberal]

15. Netanyahu . . .

Netanyahu is also building new Jewish housing in East Jerusalem as fast as his bulldozers can clear away the Palestinian homes which now occupy that land. Of course he doesn't want any preconditions. That has been his ploy all along, just get the Palestinians to join in meaningless "Peace Talks" which never arrive at a conclusion. That makes the World think progress must be taking place, while a few thousand more Jewish housing units are erected and the Palestinians lose more of their homeland.

Why would Abbas agree to keep on playing that game?

[John2]

8. If you were

the Palestinians, would you trust the United States on anything concerning Israel? At the same time, their representatives in the U.N. is trying to place Israel as a member on the Security Council. They are pathetic. All they are doing is repeating the same American History, we did with native Americans, while Netanyahu replaces Palestinians with Jewish settlers on the land. The only negotiations Netanyahu recognizes is Force. The only guarantee the United States can be trusted with is to force Netanyahu. If I was the negotiator for the Palestinians, that would be my response to John Kerry.

[another_liberal]

10. Abbas is too compromising . . .

Abbas is too compromising and unwilling to really test his strength against Netanyahu. I think he should have called for a general strike of all Palestinians, in the West Bank and in Israel. It is quite hard to make someone do their job when they insist on not working.

[hack89]

11. That is too risky a gamble

what if there is no popular support for a general strike? You are assuming Abbas has the ability to pull it off.

[another_liberal]

13. Or simply acquiesces . . .

No call for a general strike is ever certain to command enough positive response to be effective, however, it is certain Abbas will fail if he waits forever, or simply acquiesces to Netanyahu's expansionist plans.

[hack89]

14. Abbas is fighting two enemies - Israel and Hamas

it is not certain to me which is the greater threat. He know that many in the West Bank support Hamas. He is in a weak and difficult position.

[another_liberal]

16. Hamas . . .

In reality we both know that Hamas should be the government of the West Bank. They won the last elections held there (in 2008) with a sizable majority. Of course, as recent events in Egypt have shown, the Western powers (including Israel and its sponsors) only recognize the results of democratic elections when the right people win.

[hack89]

18. Hamas in charge would be a disaster for the Palestinians

it would mean war.

[another_liberal]

19. What have they got now?

Sometimes even armed resistance is better than continued degradation and servitude.

[East Coast Pirate]

17. Both sides want ALL of the land and always will.

This isn't news.