The Cellar - Middle East Peace Talks - 2010

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Middle East Peace Talks - 2010 - deja vue (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=23503)

Middle East Peace Talks - 2010 - deja vue

I do get the feeling this round of talks could actually go somewhere useful.
Both parties have things in their own best interests that they want changed now.
Netanyahu's decision about extending the moratorium on new settlements
will supposedly be the best indicator of serious progress.

But as much as I respect the NYTimes, I feel Mark Landler's heading on this article is somewhat misleading.
There's nothing of substance inside the article relating to his allegation of Clinton having political ambitions.
For once, we are not operating under the Peter Principle in the leadership of the US State Dept.

It's sort of a long article, but a good read...IMHO

NY Times article
By MARK LANDLER
Published: September 4, 2010

Quote:

The talks could cement the legacy of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton as a diplomat, or pose risks to any political ambitions she may harbor.

In Middle East Peace Talks, Clinton Faces a Crucial Test

Quote:

Mrs. Clinton will be in the thick of the negotiations between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, when they meet on Sept. 14 in Egypt. Her role, several officials say, will be to take over from the administration’s special envoy, George J. Mitchell, when the two sides run into serious obstacles.

It may prove the greatest test yet for Mrs. Clinton, one that could cement her legacy as a diplomat if she solves the riddle that foiled even her husband, former President Bill Clinton. But it could also pose considerable risks to any political ambitions she may harbor.

Quote:

“One of the best indications that this could succeed is that Hillary Clinton is willing to get involved,” said Stephen J. Hadley, who served as national security adviser to President George W. Bush. “Because that makes me think two things: She thinks it’s possible and, because she is as skilled as she is, it increases the likelihood of success.”

Lamplighter the who thing is a sham, there is no way they are going to accomplish squat. It is a lost cause until Israel gives them a state in the truest definition, stops building new settlements, and the Hamas renounces violence and drops support from Iran, the Hama's proxy source.

None of that is going to happen.

Otherwise it is nothing more than a Blues Brothers Wish Sandwich.

What's a Wish Sandwich?

"A wish sandwich is where you have two pieces of bread and you wish you had some meat!" :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYyBZE0kBtE

Merc, Sham - No, but on the rest I think you are absolutely right.
So I'm on my way to the store for a loaf of bread.

Maybe the UN should send a King and an Uber-President to take over both places and set things right once and for ever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter (Post 680865)

I think the president of Iran has volunteered, but I don't trust him to do what is in the best interest of both peoples. :p:

Sure it is a sham because every sitting president has trotted out a dog and pony show attempt to fix what is broken, nearly ever single one has fallen flat with both side at an impasse. In the mean time it is sold in the circle of politics, both national and international, as the US playing peacemaker. I don't think anyone has been fooled that it would ever work, esp those in the state department. It is a total and utter sham of political kabuki theater on an international and national stage. If we just pretend like we are in the middle maybe someone will believe it. I don't think anyone believes it. I don't.

That's what I meant about a King and an Uber-President.
Both sides need to be in fear of a 3rd party.

Israel is the stronger military power, and needs to be the first to move completely to a genuine 2-state solution.
They also need to stop the land grabs completely. The "settlements" are as provocative as are the Hamas "rockets".
My 3rd-party's solution would be to give the settlements a non-negotiable 30-eviction notice and then level them.

Carter had this right from the beginning, but he drew venom here in the US because he was being critical of Israel. It was almost akin to dissing Oprah.

The 2-state solution seems to be gaining acceptance in Israel now because it is in Israel's best interest too.

Let's keep buying bread....

Here is an small interesting article about Ariel, a "settlement" that will play an extremely important part in the total negotiations:

NY Times article

A West Bank Enclave Is on Edge
By ISABEL KERSHNER
Published: September 9, 2010

Ariel was founded in 1978 in a West Bank security move.

Quote:

When scores of leftist Israeli academics, prominent writers and intellectuals said that they would not lecture at the Ariel University Center or in any other settlement, many here said that nobody had asked them to come.
But the protest broadened again this week when an American advocacy group, Jewish Voice for Peace, said that more than 150 international film and theater professionals, including Julianne Moore, Theodore Bikel, Vanessa Redgrave and Tony Kushner, had endorsed its statement in support of Israeli artists against performing in the settlements, which are viewed by much of the world as a violation of international law.

Here is the problem and the solution to real peace:

Quote:

In January, to mark Jewish Arbor Day, Israel’s conservative-leaning prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, planted a sapling in Ariel. He declared it the “capital of Samaria” and an integral part of Israel. But Oren Ben Uziyahu, the owner of a toy store in Ariel, said that in return for genuine peace, most people would “leave behind their fake leather couches” and give up their Ariel homes. “It is reasonable to assume,” he continued, “that in the end, Ariel will have to go.”

...and the music grinds to a halt...

In my OP above, it was Netanyahu's position on freezing Isreal's construction of new settlements
that seemed to be the key in what could happen during the Israelis / Palastinian talks.
Now we see that Netanyahu and the Israeli cabinet are either "unwilling or unable"
And once again, Sec of State Clinton comes up looking competent, albeit frustrated.

NY Times
U.S. Drops Bid to Sway Israel on Settlements
By MARK LANDLER
Published: December 7, 2010

Quote:

After three weeks of fruitless haggling with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
the Obama administration has given up its effort to persuade the Israeli government
to freeze construction of Jewish settlements for 90 days,
a senior administration official said Tuesday.

The decision leaves Middle East peace talks in flux,
with the Palestinians refusing to resume direct negotiations absent a moratorium,
and the United States struggling to find another formula to bring them back to the table.
It is another setback in what has proved to be a star-crossed campaign by President Obama.

Quote:

Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians issued a response to the news.
But administration officials said the United States made the decision
after consultations between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Netanyahu.
The two had hammered out the agreement on a 90-day freeze,
which Mr. Netanyahu later said he could not sell to his cabinet
without written security assurances from the Americans.

Quote:

A preview of the administration’s next move could come in an address on Middle East policy
that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is scheduled to deliver on Friday at the Brookings Institution.
But the administration’s strategy appeared to be unsettled.

For now, the administration will revert to brokering indirect talks between the Israelis and Palestinians.