The Crisis in the Peace Talks Was Pre-Planned by the Palestinians
Jonathan D. Halevi, JCPA
- In March 2014, Saeb Erekat, the head of the Palestinian negotiating team, prepared a 65-page document that surveys the diplomatic process and offers a list of recommendations for the PA to achieve Palestinian sovereignty in the territories demarcated by the 1967 lines. PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has recently implemented some of these recommendations.
- They include submitting a request to immediately join the Geneva Conventions; declaring the impossibility of extending the negotiations after the end of the nine-month period on April 29, 2014; and opposing the Israeli proposal that the settlement blocs become part of Israel in any final settlement.
- The plan also includes activating bilateral committees with Russia, the EU, and the UN, and cooperating with the monitoring committee of the Arab Peace Initiative, to muster support for the Palestinian anti-settlement position; urging the states of the world to uphold the European Union’s guidelines regarding settlement activity; and escalating the peaceful popular struggle against settlements and the [security] fence.
- The PA’s latest moves reflect the long-term strategy Abbas has been implementing, which involves using diplomatic means to obtain international recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state along the 1967 lines without the Palestinians having to make concessions on the fundamental issues of the conflict, particularly the refugee issue and what is called the “right of return.”
- The signing of the 15 international conventions is part of a gradual Palestinian move to statehood which, unlike a unilateral declaration of statehood, does not occur with one move. Abbas has previously made political moves in defiance of the United States and Israel without fearing the pressures and threats directed at him, as in his November 2012 appeal to the UN General Assembly for an upgrade of the PLO’s status to UN nonmember observer state. Now, too, he feels confident in his ability to take unilateral steps without incurring serious damage.
- The Palestinians believe they can use the diplomatic-legal arena to overcome Israel’s power and gradually subject it to diplomatic and economic pressures to unilaterally withdrawal from the West Bank in a way similar to Israel’s unconditional withdrawal from Gaza in 2005.
Click here to read the full article.
Lt. Col. (ret.) Jonathan D. Halevi is a senior researcher of the Middle East and radical Islam at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He is a co-founder of the Orient Research Group Ltd.
@ bernard ross:
I’ve said it before on many other threads that were the Jewish state of Israel blessed with a solid Jewish leadership, all this smoke and mirror drama would be totally unnecessary.
It gets so convoluted that it makes it very easy for one to trip on himself….
I submit that no amount of ‘goodwill’ towards the musloids generates ANY significant positive return..
Similarly, as far as the world goes… Israel could do no right and the Arabs could do no wrong….
Add to that the fact that there is no way to achieve peace except to gain the enemy’s respect and that would be by being FEARED!!!
No goodwill will EVER be achieved by improving the life of the musloids. They will smile to your face and wait for the time when they can run in the streets as a mob (safer that way…) and scream ‘yitbach el yahood’!!!
We are talking about a TRULY pathological virulent species that has interbred for some 1400 years.
They must be CRUSHED, and HUMILIATED.
One must not forget that their ambers of hatred are forever burning. A periodical heavy spiked boot on their neck will serve well to ensure no major flare ups occur.
@ the phoenix: my first approach is whether the drama has an explanation with the context of a long term understanding to end the pal Israel conflict. Too many events have confirmed this basic perspective for me. In fact, the more hostile the rhetoric but small the action, the more likely it is to be true. Hence the GCC condemnation of Israel just now while approving the continuation of talks. Everything must look painful and serious and real. The dilemma for the arabs, if I am correct is how to get their street to accommodate to change with Israel. I do not think it can be a change of heart. I think it has to play out as a continuing conflict with small returns. E;G. the pals get a fake pal state. Now the pals get membership in orgs but that will not change their position in reality. They will however get a lot of what they need, face saving. Israel will get a lot of condemnation but perhaps more land than they hoped to get. If some is annexed the pals continue to make noise but not much violence over time they will accept their new reality. They must be always given a victory on the face of things to get anything out of them. Abbas probably tell that to BB, isn’t abbas making lots of dough? Even the euro sanctions noise might be fake as perhaps they are showing the street that they are serious about spanking Israel but perhaps the sanctions are agreed to be meaningless. Lots of noise about the recent agreement, making the euros look serious to their street, but what really happened in real terms? Looks are likely to be deceiving. I cannot predict the future but I look for trends and developments to confirm the trends. One question that is difficult,e,g, in Syria is what does everyone really want: they appear to be satisfied with a stale mate, a fragmentation, or maybe just a weakening of Irans proxies. OR it can be related to everyone getting access to the med for pipelines and gas. It struck me that everyone might be willing to fragment syria but assad would have to be paid. If it looks like he agrees to fragmentation then he probably is getting a big payoff from the GCC and a guarantee by every one of safe-conduct for him and his money in the future. I think that Israel may have been building serious understandings with the GCC but must be careful of GCC shifting to accommodate with iran.
@ bernard ross:
I am DEFINITELY staying tuned to ‘BR news analysis’
Thank you.
🙂
the phoenix Said:
If the peace talks start up again I would view it like US wrestlemania: lots of ups and downs, one side winning then the next, looks like it’s over, then poof, its back. Everyone knew there would be no deal, but the only one who could NOT sit down to talks and walk away with nothing at the end was Abbas: Hence the need to pay him with the prisoners which was the only way he could sit down. This is the main reason for my view that the prisoner release had to be paid to Abbas for what everyone else wanted(what does BB want). along the way Abbas must look like a fighter for the pals and BB must appear to fight for the jews. If the smoke clears and nothing basically changed then i view it as the need to add drama and placate constituencies. If it does not start again then we must see what BB does, as I believe whatever he does is already agreed to but unable to be publicly agreed to for all the obvious political reasons on the arab side. we must watch it unfold and see what it tells us as it unfolds without prejudgment and objectively. Abbas can give nothing away even if he wanted to and therefore anything he gives must appear to be taken with intransigence by israel, with an accompanying continuation of hostile appearances which would suit abbas best. Anything BB gives must appear to be a victory. Annexing the settlements blocks would appear strong and a victory but unless he annexed all of C it would be a capitulation to accepting the best he thinks he can get.
@ Bernard Ross:
Now let’s see…. Where have we heard that one before…. 😉
So what’s next, mr Ross?