Printable View
An excellent piece on the proposed Palestinian-Israeli peace conference by Daniel Levy can be found on his blog here.
For those who don't know Daniel, he was an Israeli policy advisor and negotiator during the late Oslo era, a key architect of the "Geneva Accord," and for my money is one of the smartest analysts of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations.
Some very sensible advice, in my view, regarding the upcoming Israeli-Palestinian peace conference:
The letter is signed by Zbigniew Brzezinski (former National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter), Lee H. Hamilton (former Congressman and Co-chair of the Iraq Study Group), Carla Hills (former U.S. Trade Representative under President George H.W. Bush), Nancy Kassebaum-Baker (former Senator), Thomas R. Pickering (former Under-Secretary of State ), Brent Scowcroft (former National Security Advisor to President Gerald Ford and President George H.W. Bush), Theodore C. Sorensen, (former Special Counsel and Adviser to President John F. Kennedy), andQuote:
Because a comprehensive peace accord is unattainable by November, the conference should focus on the endgame and endorse the contours of a permanent peace, which in turn should be enshrined in a Security Council resolution. Israeli and Palestinian leaders should strive to reach such an agreement. If they cannot, the Quartet (US, EU, Russia and UN Secretary General)—under whose aegis the conference ought to be held— should put forward its own outline, based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the Clinton parameters of 2000, the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative and the 2003 Roadmap. It should reflect the following:
• Two states, based on the lines of June 4, 1967, with minor, reciprocal, and agreed-upon modifications as expressed in a 1:1 land swap;
• Jerusalem as home to two capitals, with Jewish neighborhoods falling under Israeli sovereignty and Arab neighborhoods under Palestinian sovereignty;
• Special arrangements for the Old City, providing each side control of its respective holy places and unimpeded access by each community to them;
• A solution to the refugee problem that is consistent with the two-state solution, addresses the Palestinian refugees’ deep sense of injustice as well as provides them with meaningful financial compensation and resettlement assistance;
• Security mechanisms that address Israeli concerns while respecting Palestinian sovereignty.
Paul Volcker (former Chairman of the Board of Governors of the U.S. Federal Reserve System).
Full letter and discussion at Daniel Levy's excellent blog.
Rex,
Remarkable letter and quite realistic in goals.
Here is what will derail it:
The Israelis have consistently ignored or subverted all attempts to force a freeze. I wish and hope that we do push this. But I just don't see that happening from SecState Rice in this administration. Hope I am wrong.Quote:
Of utmost importance, if the conference is to have any credibility, it must coincide with a freeze in Israeli settlement expansion. It is impossible to conduct a serious discussion on ending the occupation while settlement construction proceeds apace.
Best
Tom
Rex, thanks for the link to his blog. Good info.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex Brynen
ICG, 20 Oct 07: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Complete 20 page paper at the link.Quote:
The process that will be launched shortly at Annapolis may not quite be do-or-die for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process but at the very least it is do-or-barely-survive. Positively, a U.S. administration that neglected Middle East peacemaking since taking office appears committed to an intensive effort: it has persuaded both sides to agree to negotiate final status issues – no mean feat after years of diplomatic paralysis and violent conflict. But pitfalls are equally impressive. The meeting, like the process it aims to spawn, occurs in a highly politicised context, with sharp divisions in the Palestinian and Israeli camps. These will make it hard to reach agreement and to sell it to both constituencies and, for the foreseeable future, virtually impossible to implement. Moreover, failure of the negotiations could discredit both leaderships, while further undermining faith in diplomacy and the two state solution.....
Thanks for the link. Here is my prediction, and I must say that I take no responsibility whatsoever for being proven wrong in the future. I will disavow any knowledge of my prediction should it proven wrong, and claim full credit for it should it be proven right.
Jerusalem is the 900 lbm gorilla in the room, and it will prevent anything substantive from coming from this effort. Condi wants to give it away, and Olmert is willing to do whatever it takes to make for an appearance of good process, just like sending infantry to their death two days before he knew he would end the recent war with Hezbollah. For doing this, I will never forgive him. Olmert should have picked up a rifle and said "follow me." Olmert is entirely a political creature, nothing more.
But neither one (Condi or Olmert) is powerful enough to have specific language that gives away Jerusalem (Likud is too strong for that), and without it, Palestinians will not be satisfied. End of story. Nothing will come from this. Either there will be no agreement, or the agreement will be so maleable as to mean anything the reader wants it to mean.
In fact, on my reading of the report, I think this is basically what it says. Condi is better to spend her time on something meaningful like trying to get the Maliki government to actually be a government. The State Department, well, they should do the same as Condi. Spend their time on something meaningful. I believe there is a war in Iraq at the present, the last time I looked.
Again, I take full credit if I'm right and forget all of this if I'm wrong.
I think it will be very difficult for Annapolis (or, more accurately, the negotiation process that follows it) to make any forward progress. Although both leaders would like to move towards a deal (as they understand it), both are in politically weak positions. Moreover, as the ICG report notes, it will be absolutely essential that the US take an active role in advancing language, formulations, principles, and bridging positions. One of the problems of the 2000-01 negotiations era was that Washington was often reluctant to do so--I often wonder what might have been had the Clinton Parameters been advanced at Camp David, or a month or two later, instead of being left until the very last moment (December 2000).Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny
On Jerusalem, I'm not sure what you mean by "giving it away." Israel's annexation of occupied East Jerusalem is not, of course, recognized by the US or the rest of the international community, and was formally rejected by the UN Security Council in UNSCR 478 (1980).
In accepting the Clinton Parameters in December 2000, Israel accepted the return of those areas of East Jerusalem that still had a Palestinian majority:
If there is ever a deal, I suspect it will be along these lines. Of course, there are an enormous number of details that would have to be negotiated--a couple of friends and colleagues (former ambassadors Michael Bell and Mike Molloy) have been running a major project on this which attempts to show how such issues might be addressed in the Old City.Quote:
The general principle is that Arab areas are Palestinian and Jewish ones are Israeli. This would apply to the Old City as well. I urge the two sides to work on maps to create maximum contiguity for both sides.
Regarding the Haram/Temple Mount, I believe that the gaps are not related to practical administration but to the symbolic issues of sovereignty and to finding a way to accord respect to the religious beliefs of both sides.
I know you have been discussing a number of formulations, and you can agree on any of these. I add to these two additional formulations guaranteeing Palestinian effective control over Haram while respecting the conviction of the Jewish people. Regarding either one of these two formulations will be international monitoring to provide mutual confidence.
- Palestinian sovereignty over the Haram and Israeli sovereignty over [the Western Wall and the space sacred to Judaism of which it is a part][the Western Wall and the Holy of Holies of which it is a part]. There will be a firm commitment by both not to excavate beneath the Haram or behind the Wall.
- Palestinian shared sovereignty over the Haram and Israeli sovereignty over the Western Wall and shared functional sovereignty over the issue of excavation under the Haram and behind the Wall as mutual consent would be requested before any excavation can take place.
By "giving it away," I mean simply nothing more than they have it now, and they wouldn't in the future. Whether something is recognized or not by whomever is irrelevant to my point. There have been lot's of agreements to do lot's of things that have never obtained (come to pass). My main point is looking forward rather than backwards in trying to come up with a prognostication. I stand by it ... so far.
There is more to it than just Jerusalem. Israel is not willing to great sovereignty to the Palestinians. Everyone talks of a 2 state solution but does anyone really thing the PA is going to be controlling their borders and importing weapons? Then there is the issue of Palestinian right of return, the Palestinians have not been able to let this one go and the Israelis can’t grant this one since it threatens the very nature of the Jewish state.
So until the Israeli will really allow Palestinian sovereignty and the Palestinians give up the right of return and they both find some way to compromise on Jerusalem, no real progress is going to happen. Anyone want to bet on all of that happening anytime soon?
Stu-6,
Yes, of course, you're right. I don't mean that Jerusalem is the only issue. I just picked out one (I considered to be the biggest). You list others, and perhaps I mentioned a micro-reason while you mentioned a set of macro-reasons. But we end up the same place.
Probability of all that happening as you asked?: Range of 1E-6 to 1E-5
They should spend their time on Iraq.
Read Full txt at : http://www.peacemakergame.com/blog/Quote:
Pittsburgh and Tel Aviv, November 21, 2007 — With the Mideast Peace Summit in Annapolis, Maryland just days away, 100,000 Israelis and Palestinians living in the actual conflict zone are about to try their hands at solving the peace puzzle—one game at a time. In an unprecedented giveaway, the Peres Center for Peace is distributing 100,000 free copies of the interactive game PeaceMaker to people in Israel and the Palestinian territories.
PeaceMaker is an award-winning interactive game that allows players to get inside the unpredictable politics of peace, discovering firsthand the huge challenges of leading a country, a people, and an international process. PeaceMaker players must choose to play either as the Israeli Prime Minister or Palestinian President. In the course of a typical game, players encounter real-life incidents affecting the Mideast, from protests and political pressures to violent acts, and the player must decide what to do next in order to achieve a virtual peace.
Approximately 75,000 copies will be sent to subscribers of the Israeli daily newspaper Ha’aretz on November 27, with 10,000 copies of the game distributed through the Palestinian newspaper Al-Quds. An additional 15,000 copies of PeaceMaker will be distributed to Palestinian and Israeli high school classrooms and taught by specially trained teachers in the coming months.
More at : http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/927824.html
Demo at : http://www.peacemakergame.com/demo.php
I probably should apologize for being just that but if I do, I would have to probably start helping my wife with the dishes. That said, I fail to see how these gaming devices are going to cut the mustard - sort of reminds me of the time the Hippies were going to levitate the Pentagon to end the Viet Nam war. These pieces of metal, plastic, glass, rubber and electricity are not going to bring person-to-person contact. Let me see the warts on a man's face and we can talk turkey, otherwise we both sit alone with our thoughts and emotions and either get mad or give up. It's a good idea, don't get me wrong, but perhaps some chess boards and a free candy bar for each player might be in order here to bring people togather, not some sterile electronic device where everybody sits safely at home pecking away in cyberspace.
I'm not a huge fan of the game (I've got too many quibbles with its realism), and I doubt that its distribution will change many attitudes. However, it must be said that the Peres Center does outstanding work promoting so-called P2P ("people-to-people") activities. The Director, Ron Pundak, has done outstanding work for Palestinian-Israeli peace--indeed, he was among the original negotiators of the Oslo Accords.
Coincidentally, Ron sent this email around a few days ago.. its a long post, but worth reproducing for the many varied activities it recounts:
Quote:
Just Another Day at the Peres Center for Peace
Wednesday --just another day at the Peres Center for Peace.
In the morning, the inaugural meeting of the initiative "Wo.Me.N. the Women's Media Network" was held in the offices of one of our Palestinian partner organization. The meeting was attended by leading Israeli and Palestinian female journalists from the top-ranked broadcast and written media sources in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Israel. The women discussed their objectives for the professional network. A second meeting is set to be held in November, comprising the project's 16 Palestinian and Israeli participants.
In the afternoon, at Shenkar College of Engineering & Design in Tel Aviv, we held a professional training seminar for Palestinian businesspeople from the field of textile manufacturing, in cooperation with our partner PalTrade (Palestine Trade Center). Sixteen manufacturers from across the West Bank (Hebron, Bethlehem area, Tulkarem, Nablus, Jenin and Ramallah) took part in this 2-day seminar comprised of professional sessions that focused on use of cutting-edge computer programs for pattern design and other elements in the production process. During the afternoon of the first day, the participants received warm greetings from Mr. Dov Lautman, President and former Director-General of Delta Textiles.
Also on Wednesday morning, the Peres Center held the first meeting in a series of five encounters for a group of Israeli and Palestinian experts in agriculture, post-harvest care, marketing, and agricultural policies. The project is jointly undertaken with a Palestinian partner, and the initiative's research study has been submitted to "Action Against Hunger —Spain" (ACF-E). Within the framework of this project, joint research has been undertaken regarding the marketing of agricultural products from the Palestinian region of Tubas to Israel and abroad, and the meeting therefore focused on how to advance such business relations. At the end of the meeting, the participants proposed an initial business model, whose main goal is to support and expand the existing joint work of Palestinian and Israeli agriculturalists. The next meeting will be held in November.
Throughout that same day, as has been the case with nearly every day over the past four years, 12 Palestinian children were referred by their doctors to the Peres Center's "Saving Children" program, an initiative that allows Palestinian children to benefit from consultations and surgical procedures in Israeli hospitals when such treatment is unavailable in the Palestinian Authority. Five Palestinian children visited and/or were admitted to Israeli hospitals for diagnoses, treatment, and/or surgery.
In parallel, 40 Palestinian doctors who are undertaking fellowships in a variety of specialties and sub-specialties, continue to be trained and worked in multiple Israeli hospitals. Additionally, on Wednesday, a working session was held at Augusta Victoria Hospital in East Jerusalem with representatives from the Peres Center in order to discuss the progress of the development of the first Palestinian center for cochlear implants =96 microchips surgically embedded in a hearing-impaired patient's skull, saving the patient from permanent disability. Until the Palestinian center is established, these hearing-impaired children and youth are brought to Israeli hospitals for this complex surgery, via the "Saving Children" program.
Also during the visit to Augusta Victoria Hospital, Peres Center representatives were given a tour of the hospital's renovated wing, which is being built with funds recruited by the Peres Center. This wing is the first specifically dedicated to Palestinian children suffering from cancer. According to the plan, Palestinian doctors, nurses, and technicians who work in this wing will be trained in Israeli hospitals, through the facilitation of the Peres Center.
Then, during the afternoon hours, two meetings were held at the offices of the Peres Center for Palestinian and Israeli coaches' coordinators from the "Twinned Peace Sport Schools" program. The first meeting was held for coordinators from the "Twinned Peace Basketball Schools" program, and following their meeting, some 20 Palestinian and Israeli coordinators from the "Twinned Peace Football Schools" program met (the coaches came from Kiriyat Gat, Nehora, Kiriyat Ekron, Beit Shemesh, Shapir, Jericho, Sderot, Ein Rafa, Beit Safafa, Bethlehem, Tulkarem, Abu Tur, and Aqbat Jaber Refugee Camp). The Peres Center's "Twinned Peace Sport Schools" program includes 55 dedicated coaches from both sides, who jointly participated in a two-day seminar held a month and a half ago in preparation of the new academic year. The 2007-08 program includes some 2,500 Palestinian and Israeli boys and girls who benefit from sport training (football or basketball), Peace Education activities, auxiliary educational support and joint Palestinian-Israeli sporting and social activities.
And really, it was just an average Wednesday at the Peres Center for Peace
Dr. Ron Pundak
Director General
The Peres Center for Peace
I think the conference in Annapolis is more about strengthening the US-Isreali-Arab alliance against Iran and trying to bring Syria into the fold.
I think the only issue that may be resolved is the Golan Heights.
ISN Security Watch, 26 Nov 07: Annapolis Misses The Point
Quote:
....While well-intentioned, the US has missed an opportunity to establish the basis for genuine progress toward a grounded and resilient post-summit Palestinian-Israeli negotiations process through failing to focus the attentions of the parties in the lead-up on the mechanisms required for successful bilateral negotiations.
The conference has wasted considerable time, delaying the start of actual negotiations by several months as the two parties fenced, completely unnecessarily, over how to present key issues in the conflict in the final summit declaration.
With the sporadic involvement of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other US officials contributing to the failure of both parties to find common ground, those issues, which should have been left to full negotiations - Jerusalem, borders and refugees - have been unnecessarily thrust to the forefront of the pre-summit debate.....
This is probably an indicator of my academic youth but why does it always seem that academia in an of itself never fails to place success or failure of any venture mainly based on ( Structured, definitive, unfailingly directed) leadership without which there is no hope of said success.Quote:
While well-intentioned, the US has missed an opportunity to establish the basis for genuine progress toward a grounded and resilient post-summit Palestinian-Israeli negotiations process through failing to focus the attentions of the parties in the lead-up on the mechanisms required for successful bilateral negotiations.
I have seen a lot of conflict both on high levels and small levels and for the life of me it seems like those resolutions which actually stick more often than not were more hip-pocket, human error prone good ol flea market bargained ones.
Besides it's been tried just about every other way, what the hay
Let them try it on their own with us facilitating.
:wry:
Makes sense, why notQuote:
I think the conference in Annapolis is more about strengthening the US-Isreali-Arab alliance against Iran and trying to bring Syria into the fold.
:o
I may be a bit cynical but why should anyone expect any progress at a dispute between two parties when the host/mediator is the closest ally of one party and viewed by the other as an enemy? Isn’t it more usual to employ an honest broker who is not in either camp?
I had assumed this conference was to try and reward/elevate Abbas, at the expensive of Hamas, and try and persuade anyone - not paying too much attention - that we are being even handed.
I would love to be proved wrong and that Israel/US are trying to do something real to reduce the suffering of the Palestinians.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/916695.html
"Last update - 21:07 24/10/2007
Rice says 2-state solution in Middle East in jeopardy
By The Associated Press
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian dilemma is in jeopardy and described a narrow window of opportunity to push Israel and the Palestinians toward peace.
In a House of Representatives hearing interrupted by anti-war protesters, Rice said the upcoming peace conference in the United States will give hope to moderate Palestinian forces. She blamed Iran for fanning flames in the region, including what she called troubling new Iranian support for Hamas militants. "
I believe that you are dead on target..Quote:
Originally Posted by JJackson
Brookings Institution, 14 Jan 08: Its Not About IranQuote:
Originally Posted by Firestaller
Quote:
As President Bush travels through the Middle East, the prevailing assumption is that Arab states are primarily focused on the rising Iranian threat and that their attendance at the Annapolis conference with Israel in November was motivated by this threat. This assumption, reflected in the president's speech in the United Arab Emirates yesterday, could be a costly mistake.....
......Arab governments are less worried about the military power of Hamas and Hezbollah than they are about support for them among their publics. They are less worried about a military confrontation with Iran than about Iran's growing influence in the Arab world. In other words, what Arab governments truly fear is militancy and the public support for it that undermines their own popularity and stability.
In all this, they see Iran as a detrimental force but not as the primary cause of militant sentiment. Most Arab governments believe instead that the militancy is driven primarily by the absence of Arab-Israeli peace.....
International Security, Fall 07: "Muting the Alarm over the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict"
The New York Times versus Haaretz, 2000-06
Complete 37 page paper at the link.Quote:
...the prevailing view in the United States is that the Palestinians are overwhelmingly responsible for the continuing violence and political deadlock, and therefore there is little reason or justification for significant changes in the long-standing U.S. policy of nearly unconditional support of Israel.
This article argues that a major explanation for this widespread but erroneous U.S. consensus is the largely uninformed and uncritical mainstream and even elite media coverage in the United States of Israeli policies, a consequence of which is that alarm bells that should be sounded loudly and clearly are muted. In contrast, the debate in Israel is much more far-ranging, and includes a substantial body of dissenting opinion—especially among the elites—arguing that Israel bears a considerable share of the responsibility for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Although this is still a minority view, candid criticisms of Israeli policy appear regularly in the Israeli press and news magazines, as well as in public statements by leading scholars, writers, retired military officers, intelligence officials, and even some politicians.
Because public discourse in Israel is often self-critical and vigorous, there is at least the possibility of change in the policies that have thwarted a comprehensive peace settlement with the Palestinians. Even so, most Israeli critics take for granted that the prospect for substantial change in Israeli policies would be greatly enhanced if demanded by the U.S. government and accompanied by serious and sustained pressures. So long as U.S. public discourse about Israel and its policies toward the Palestinians remains so one-sided, however, this is unlikely to occur—no matter who the president is or who controls Congress—because on this issue, there is no discernible difference between the Republican and Democratic Parties or their leading presidential candidates....
Good article. The overall conclusion of the final paragraph is unfortunately true.
Quote:
There are few indications that the leaders of either the Republican or Democratic Parties understand the necessity for policy changes. The combination of U.S. public and governmental ignorance, domestic politics, fundamentalist Christian ideology, right-wing Jewish inºuence, and a commendable but simplistic overall U.S. moral commitment to Israel has produced an astonishing immobilism in U.S. policy, in reckless disregard for the easily observable and plainly disastrous consequences for the Israelis and the Palestinians, as well as for critical U.S. national interests. Yet, without a reeducation of U.S. officials and the public at large, it is unlikely that there will be serious changes in U.S. policies—at least not before a catastrophe occurs, and maybe not eventhen. Acrucial place to begin this process of reeducation would be in the pages of the New York Times.
WINEP, Dec 08: Security First: U.S. Priorities in Israeli-Palestinian Peacemaking
Quote:
.....Earlier this year, when Annapolis-related efforts were in high gear, the Bush administration had no less than three U.S. generals operating in the Israeli-Palestinian arena, tasked with supervising the implementation of past commitments, overseeing Palestinian security training, and devising a security concept for future regional peacemaking. This unique initiative prompted The Washington Institute to take a closer look at the security aspect of diplomacy that is attracting such intensive U.S. focus. To that end, we invited three well respected former U.S. officials—security experts J. D. Crouch II, Walter B. Slocombe, and Gen. Montgomery C. Meigs (Ret.)—to comprise an Israeli-Palestinian security assessment project charged with undertaking an independent analysis of the U.S. role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process with specific reference to the question of security.
At the time, we believed that their findings would be useful to U.S. officials planning for a possible breakthrough in negotiations for a final-status agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Such a breakthrough did not occur, however, and this study has evolved accordingly. Instead of focusing on the appropriate U.S. contribution to the security aspects of an ultimate Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, the assessment team focused instead on security as a precondition for the achievement of mutual confidence and trust—both of which are required for the parties to resume serious negotiations and later implement an agreement in the event of a breakthrough.
The team reached three main conclusions: (1) the peace process can only succeed once the Palestinian Authority fields security forces willing and able to fight terrorism, giving Israel confidence to draw down its own forces in the West Bank; (2) U.S. efforts to promote peace should therefore include a substantial investment in the training and equipping of such Palestinian forces; and (3) no deployment of third-party troops, including NATO forces, will relieve the Palestinians from the requirement of securing their own territory. The team’s specific recommendations for implementing these principles are sober, practical, and born of the political realities of the Middle East.....
One thing I was hoping this article would reveal is the historical significance and legitimacy of the Palestinian people and their right to the land. This seems to be one of the, if not the, major problem for the religious right and other neocons to accept, and the information out there is scant or difficult (for me) to find. Are there any good academic sources/books that explain this well?Quote:
"Muting the Alarm over the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict"
Preferably not Wikipedia, as that is a "problem" for the professors at AMU. Any sources you guys may give will be greatly appreciated and I'm sure will be used in my future Middle Eastern Studies courses.
-----
I have read Rashid Khalidi's "Palestinian Identity", but of course I'm accused of Leftist, Pro-Palestinian bias whenever I bring it up in conversation.:rolleyes:
ICG, 20 Jul 09: Israel's Religious Right and the Question of Settlements
Quote:
Benjamin Netanyahu is in a bind. Israel is facing arguably unprecedented pressure to halt all settlement activity, led by a new and surprisingly determined U.S. administration. But the prime minister also heads a distinctly right-wing coalition and faces intense domestic pressure from settlers and their allies. However important, what will emerge from current discussions between Washington and Jerusalem will only be step one in a long process designed to achieve a settlement freeze, settlement evacuation and a genuine peace agreement with the Palestinians. Understanding how Israel might deal with these challenges requires understanding a key yet often ignored constituency – its growing and increasingly powerful religious right.....
Before joining SWJ, I had never heard of these Annapolis conferences on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Their conclusions, pointing to the need of "reeducating" the politicians, apparently succeeded although "under wraps", once Obama's current positions towards Israel are in contradiction to his campaign promises. Nonetheless, what had begun still during the Bush administration – the US backed training of PA/ Fatah security forces, supposedly to strengthen Mohamed Abbas as a "Peace Partner" vis-à-vis Israel, has resulted in a backhanded blackmail move against her, paid up by US tax money, and played up by her once "staunch" ally… The text below was published both in the Jerusalem Post and in Caroline Glick's blog on May 28, 2009. Given such picture, this week's threat by the PA of unilaterally proclaiming a "Palestinian State" within two years, inevitably smells like "US sponsored".
Quote:
http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2009/...s-of-eil-2.php
"America's Betrayal of Israel" or "Israel and the Axis of Evil"
…Beyond Obama's timeline, over the past week, two other developments made it apparent that regardless of what Iran does, the Obama administration will not revise its policy of placing its Middle East emphasis on weakening Israel rather than on stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. First, last Friday, Yediot Aharonot reported that at a recent lecture in Washington, US Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton, who is responsible for training Palestinian military forces in Jordan, indicated that if Israel does not surrender Judea and Samaria within two years, the Palestinian forces he and his fellow American officers are now training at a cost of more than $300 million could begin killing Israelis.
Assuming the veracity of Yediot's report, even more unsettling than Dayton's certainty that within a short period of time these US-trained forces could commence murdering Israelis, is his seeming equanimity in the face of the known consequences of his actions. The prospect of US-trained Palestinian military forces slaughtering Jews does not cause Dayton to have a second thought about the wisdom of the US's commitment to building and training a Palestinian army.
Dayton's statement laid bare the disturbing fact that even though the administration is fully aware of the costs of its approach to the Palestinian conflict with Israel, it is still unwilling to reconsider it. Defense Secretary Robert Gates just extended Dayton's tour of duty for an additional two years and gave him the added responsibility of serving as Obama's Middle East mediator George Mitchell's deputy.
FOUR DAYS after Dayton's remarks were published, senior American and Israeli officials met in London. The reported purpose of the high-level meeting was to discuss how Israel will abide by the administration's demand that it prohibit all construction inside Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria.
What was most notable about the meeting was its timing. By holding the meeting the day after North Korea tested its bomb and after Iran's announcement that it rejects the US's offer to negotiate about its nuclear program, the administration demonstrated that regardless of what Iran does, Washington's commitment to putting the screws on Israel is not subject to change. All of this of course is music to the mullahs' ears. Between America's impotence against their North Korean allies and its unshakable commitment to keeping Israel on the hot seat, the Iranians know that they have no reason to worry about Uncle Sam.
As for Israel, it is a good thing that the IDF has scheduled the largest civil defense drill in the country's history for next week. Between North Korea's nuclear test, Iran's brazen bellicosity and America's betrayal, it is clear that the government can do nothing to impact Washington's policies toward Iran. No destruction of Jewish communities will convince Obama to act against Iran.
Today Israel stands alone against the mullahs and their bomb. And this, like the US's decision to stand down against the Axis of Evil, is not subject to change.
as David stated elsewhere, fixed lines tend to dominate matters Israeli and Palestinian. So, he who is in the middle tends to be shelled.
LTG Keith Dayton's 7 May 2009 Soref address contains nothing like what was reported on the Caroline Glick blog - unless my eyes blinked at the wrong time.
Nor, do the "blogged" comments (alleged to Dayton) appear in two Israel Policy Forum (IPF) reports in May:
Keith Dayton Reports on Palestinian Security Capability, and the Need for Palestinian Statehood (20 May 2009).
Profile: Yediot Acharonoth on Lt.Gen. Keith Dayton (22 May 2009).
As noted above, I may have missed something (no problem in being proved wrong); but I would like to see the original documentation of LTG Dayton's text - not what someone alleges he says.
I will start believing in a US pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel conspiracy when Rahm Emmanuel resigns as WH CoS in protest against it.
The Annapolis process was the series of peace negotiations between the then Olmert government in Israel and the PA, started under US auspices (but with little subsequent direct US involvement) in November 2007. The negotiations were reported on pretty much daily in the Israeli press throughout the period, albeit with little detail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Air-On
There seems to be a widespread consensus in the Obama Administration that a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in the interests of the US, Israel, and the Palestinians alike--a view still shared by many, and likely most, Israelis and Palestinians. Recent polls show that while many Israelis (40%) think Obama's policies lean towards the Palestinians, but an even larger proportion of Palestinians (61%) thinks it leans towards the Israelis.
Sadly, there is slippage on both sides in the degree of public support for the most likely (Clinton Parameters / Geneva Accord -type) solution. I suspect that this is because of the lack of mutual confidence between the two sides, and it doesn't make the process any easier.
As for the PA security forces, it seems self-evident that the PA needs paramilitary capabilities if it is to contain violent threats to Israel. The gradual but now significant relaxation of IDF checkpoints in the West Bank is clear evidence that the Israeli security establishment has some confidence that this is paying off. The improvements in domestic policing/rule of law also have some political benefits for the Abbas and Fayyad, although this is counterbalanced to some extent by the popular perception that the PA has become a gendarmerie protecting Israeli interests.
Respected Members,
I stand corrected.
First, I mistakenly referred to the so called "Annapolis Process", instead of the particular news (to me) about the work of the three former U.S. officials—security experts J. D. Crouch II, Walter B. Slocombe, and Gen. Montgomery C. Meigs (Ret.) mentioned in Jedburgh's post:
Then Jmm99 wrote:Quote:
.....Earlier this year, when Annapolis-related efforts were in high gear…. The Washington Institute to take a closer look at the security aspect of diplomacy that is attracting such intensive U.S. focus. To that end, we invited three well respected former U.S. officials—security experts J. D. Crouch II, Walter B. Slocombe, and Gen. Montgomery C. Meigs (Ret.)—to comprise an Israeli-Palestinian security assessment project charged with undertaking an independent analysis of the U.S. role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process with specific reference to the question of security.
At the time, we believed that their findings would be useful to U.S. officials planning for a possible breakthrough in negotiations for a final-status agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Such a breakthrough did not occur,
True, I read it through, and I agree that it contains nothing of the kind. However, Caroline Glick's article indicates her source as the respected Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot from a few days before May 18, the date of her posting:Quote:
LTG Keith Dayton's 7 May 2009 Soref address contains nothing like what was reported on the Caroline Glick blog - unless my eyes blinked at the wrong time.
I could track Caroline's information down, but I will not, because I am here to learn and educate myself, and not to stir "one lined" polemics (thank you for the hint, Daniel and Jedburgh). Reading Jedburgh's link to General Dayton's speech was enough for me to decide to double my daily ration of salt grains ;) .Quote:
last Friday, Yediot Aharonot reported that at a recent lecture in Washington, US Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton, who is responsible for training Palestinian military forces in Jordan, indicated that if Israel does not surrender Judea and Samaria within two years, the Palestinian forces he and his fellow American officers are now training at a cost of more than $300 million could begin killing Israelis.
All the above notwithstanding, I remind you all about the outcome of last weeks fatah's convention. That may be all due to internal politics, and the facts on the ground may also be as promising as General Dayton reports, but you will all agree that "them's fighting words", won't you?
...and when will that not be the case? Palestinians and Arab regimes are always big on fiery rhetoric, which is why their actions are far more important than their words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Air-On
All the Palestinian politics is defined by their struggle. They can't give up the image that easily, without paving the way for the real lunatics and looking like "sell outs."
Something 95% of the "white folks" seem to completely miss (exceptions being the very few guys like Rex) is that creating two states is and almost always has been far from impossible. The basics of any near future agreement will look very like what was proposed to the Jordanians, as far back as 1971. The real problem is grounding the new Palestinian state in some form of internal political stability, so as it does not instantaneously become a failed state like Gaza actually is.
or Ms Glick too much, but IPF ran Yediot Acharonoth's profile on LTG Dayton (the 22 May link in my prior post). The last paragraph in that quote from YA does read (which is a comment by the journalist, not LTG Dayton):
It is entirely possible that other parts of the YA article (or a comment to it) contained the "Judea-Samaria 2-year" language as an expansion on this last sentence by the journalist.Quote:
Israel can no longer continue to exist in a state of multiple personalities. Either it flows with the American policy that leads to a Palestinian state, or it ceases cooperation with Dayton. You can't have it both ways. This is the perfect example of lack of any planning on the part of the prime minister or those surrounding him. If you don't want to go with the American flow, and their regional policy is unsuited for you, why wait for the battalions to form into an army which will eventually turn its weapons against you?
My point was that I could not find language by LTG Dayton to that effect.
Glad to see you are in the middle. :)