Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Barry Rubin sui direct talks

Un po' di educato pessimismo. Ma soprattutto un paio di dati di fatto
che sarebbe bene conoscere e tener presente, a scanso di presenti e
future ulteriori slavine di nonsenso.
:::::::
The big story of the moment is the announcement that there will soon be
direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA).
Perhaps, but for the moment Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has
merely issued of an invitation to come and talk. Generally, such an
invitation would only be issued when both sides have accepted and all
the details are nailed down. Nowadays, however, such cannot be assumed.
On the one hand, the U.S. government has not been so competent in recent
times. On the other hand, the PA can well find new excuses for not
coming or additional demands that would have to be satisfied first. Will
the Fatah barons agree to let "President" Mahmoud Abbas talk?
The Quartet statement says, "Direct, bilateral negotiations that resolve
all final status issues should lead to a settlement, negotiated between
the parties, that ends the occupation which began in 1967 and results in
the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian
state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its
other neighbors."
We will see if this new round of negotiations actually happens or not. 
The other thing we need to see are the terms for the talks. Are they
designed as a give away to whatever the PA demands? Are they
well-organized in some coherent structure? Is this a set-up to allow the
Obama Administration to claim credit for getting direct talks going
(after messing up and contributing to their not getting started for
about 16 months?
It is amusing to see articles claiming that this is a victory for the
Obama Administration. If the U.S. government had been doing such a good
job it would have been able to announce the resumption of elections in
April 2009, after the visit of Abbas to Washington. The president did
indeed announce the resumption of negotiations in September 2009 and
nothing has happened in a year.
Moreover, it is amusing to read accounts of the resumption of talks
without any mention of the fact that the sole reason it has taken so
long has been the PA's resistance to negotiations.
Leaving out those two facts, how can anyone possibly understand the
situation or predict what will happen in future?
The same applies to two underplayed facts about the timing. Israel's
one-year freeze on building inside settlements is coming to an end. For
making this concession, Israel received nothing. Now it will be
"rewarded" with the opportunity to renew the freeze. Of course, keeping
good relations with the United States makes this worthwhile but the fact
that the PA received a gift and still did not fulfill its part is worth
comprehending.
The other issue regarding timing is the Obama Administration's desire to
claim negotiations as proof of its diplomatic achievements for the
November elections. Presumably, this will go along with the completion
of combat troop withdrawal from Iraq--also timed to bring electoral
benefits--as proof of how good the government is doing.
Inexplicable from the point of view of common sense is the imposition of
a one-year deadline for the direct talks. Experience should have taught
by now the foolishness of such artificial timetables. After all, the
Oslo process failed to meet each deadline and took a total of seven
years before failing.
Ironically, those who in 2000 insisted that negotiations had to hurry
because PA leader Yasir Arafat had to have "something to show" his
people in terms of success now say that it was some terrible mistake to
rush Arafat, as if that was the reason he rejected peace at Camp David
and in the proposal of President Bill Clinton.
Still one more issue is dealt with in an amazingly naive way. How is
there going to be a "democratic, and viable Palestinian state living
side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors"
when about half of that supposed state--the Gaza Strip--is based on a
radical Islamist regime that seeks genocide against Israel? Is it just
going to go away? Are the Palestinian masses there going to rise up in
support of the negotiated agreement? More likely they will rise up in
the West Bank against it.
Finally, I suggest that someone in the media and politics actually
begins to talk about what Israel wants out of a negotiated agreement. We
hear constantly about Palestinian demands--a state, 1967 borders, east
Jerusalem, return of refugees--as if these were the only things on the
table. Yet if Israel's demands--recognition of Israel as a Jewish state,
security guarantees, resettlement of refugees in Palestine,
non-militarization of a Palestinian state, end of the conflict--are
ignored that will sabotage the talks.
Remember, too, that even assuming there was a negotiated settlement,
Hamas, Hizballah, Syria, Iran, and the Muslim Brotherhoods, among
others, would try harder to wreck it. The level of terrorism and
conflict would rise even more. Iran, for example, would not stop
developing nuclear weapons. The ideas that everything is linked to the
Arab-Israeli conflict or that resolving the conflict would bring
stability and moderation to the region are simply not based on a serious
consideration of the area and its politics.
It would be a great thing if the two sides achieved a permanent, just,
and stable peace agreement. But it is an ordeal to hear the nonsense
about to be launched about peace being at hand, the Palestinian urgent
desire for a state and "end to occupation," the ignoring of the
Gaza/Hamas factor, the black-out on discussing Israel's demands, and
much more.
As I finish this article, by coincidence I hear Fox radio news explain
that both Israel and the Palestinians are eager for peace. Sigh.
Direct talks aren't going to lead to any major progress. If the United
States and Europeans are approaching this cynically--let's do this so we
can claim to be great statesmen and keep things quiet while we work on
Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan--that isn't so bad. The danger would come if
they believe their own propaganda and think that papering over real
conflicts and pressing Israel is going to produce meaningful peace,
enhance regional security, and serve their strategic interests.
-- 
Tb (bieco illuminista)

 Gia' previsto. Non ci stupiscih. Grazie.
Un Taurasi ghiacciatoh per il signoreh, prestoh!
-- 
Tb (bieco illuminista)

 ontherocks, mi sa che me ne devo andareh...
Mi spiace per lo scarso professionismo del servizio. Avrei qui del
nettare di giudeah. Non è molto velenosoh. Se vuoi ti ci metto un po' di
limoneh.
-- 
Tb (bieco illuminista)