Years ago in 2009 Thomas Friedman wrote an oped called Call White House, Ask for Barack. In the the oped Friedman says U.S. should disengage from the conflict saying it has become a bad play with both sides not having enough interest to end the conflict saying "If the status quo is this tolerable for the parties, then I say, let them enjoy it. I just don’t want to subsidize it or anesthetize it anymore." Friedman also points out the only time peace agreements were signed like with Egypt was after the parties approached themselves. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/o...p=2&adxnnlx=1257782480-+b/At7nm919gqoCzmQ6t9A Six years later and what he said still applies. On the Israeli side creeping de facto annexation due funding and construction in illegal settlements including isolated settlements that everyone recognizes will probably not stay continues with no end in sight. The last time genuine negotiations not marred with distrust on both sides was between Abbas and Olmert. Both sides admit they were months away but were unable to come to an agreement on a couple issues like Ariel settlement block which sits on fertile land reserves, Har Homa, and defining the holy basin. This was due to Olmert resigning due to corrupt allegations and Tzipi Livni losing 2009 elections. Bibi since elected 2009 has refused to go back to point of 2008 talks. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/magazine/13Israel-t.html?_r=0 However, the Israeli side is not the only one to blame. The PA has become a failed institution. It's first president(I can't get himself to call Arafat a leader) Yasser Arafat was a complete failure. Arafat never seemed to give up violence as a tool against Israel with Arafat launching second intifada after failure of camp david talks which he played a major if not biggest role in why they and Oslo Accord failed. Arafat is also the reason why Hamas won 2006 elections. This was due to Arafat turning PA into another Arab corrupt(billions of dollars in aid money was stolen by him and PA officials) autocratic government. These two legacies corruption(which meant Hamas provided more to the Palestinian people through social work than PA) and autocracy of PA ;are major reasons why Hamas won election. Arafat's successor Abbas has proven somewhat of a leader. Unlike Arafat, Abbas has opposed the use of violence with Abbas one of the first PA officials condemning second intifada. One of the reasons why the West Bank has been quiet since end of second intifada with most attacks lone gunmen attacks is due to PA security cooperation with Israel. Abbas also did manage to reform PA bringing law and order with much help due to Sayyed Fayyad(whose efforts at state building was compared by former pm and president Shimon Peres to his mentor David Ben Gurion; Israel's first prime minister and considered foundering father of Israel) to West Bank with "one Authority, one law, one gun" which he tried earlier under Arafat in 2004 after being appointed as prime minister. However he resigned after Arafat blocked his efforts. Abbas also did some corruption reforms under Fayyad. However, they didn't continue after fayyad resigned and the PA remains corrupt with many members of what is known as the old guard members of the PLO that came to West Bank after PA established and embezzled altogether billions of dollars of foreign aid. There is also the question of legitimacy. If for some reason Abbas was able to actually negotiate a deal with Bibi, Abbas would probably not be able to carry it out since he was lasted in 2005 as president of PA on a four year term and there has no parliamentary elections for PA since 2006. Abbas and the PA is viewed as not legitimate for another reason. To many Palestinians PA is acts as instruments for Israel. To most Palestinians on the ground, the PA hasn't done anything to end occupation. Instead creeping defact annexation of West Bank through settlements and actions associated with it like house demolition have continued on the ground if not increased. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/opinion/friedman-goodbye-to-all-that.html http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/09/in-a-ruined-country/304167/ http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3843457,00.html Like Friedman said "I just don’t want to subsidize it or anesthetize it anymore." So should United States just stop funding both sides and let them solve it, and have them come to United States when both sides leadership is ready for genuine talks? What I mean by that is this. On the Israeli side, stop spending billions of dollars of military aide to Israel. They should keep getting regular spare military parts and equipment to keep their army running since they do have legitimate military threats(note same should apply to Arab countries since they have worse human rights records especially Saudi Arabia). There also is the issue of settlements. By international consensus and majority of international law scholars they violate international law. Settlement products should be labelled(which E.U.) does if not banned. Hundreds of millions are funneled to these settlements through charitable foundations. That should be illegal. http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/07/20/time-to-crack-down-on-settlement-funding/ If United States did this, they would have to do the same to the Palestinian side by ending funding of PA. The PA was suppose to be a temporary transitional government for a Palestinian state. However, instead it has became an corrupt autocratic gov similar to other countries in region and in the eyes of the Palestinians a tool of the occupation. The case of Rawadi; the first planned city in the West Bank for the Palestinians is a microcosm that illustrates the failure of the planned 5 year transition to a Palestinian state after Oslo Accords in 1993. 12 years later it's not the PA(nor Israel which under international law is obligated to provide for the occupied population which instead effectively most Palestinians from building in area C which is 60% of West Bank) which has received billions of dollars in international aide building the first planned Palestinian city in the West Bank. Instead it's a private multi billionaire Palestinian businessman; Bashar Masri building it. 12 years it's not being built in a Palestinian state, instead it's a city that is dependent on Israel for their sinks to turn on(pipeline to Rawadi is in area C which is under full Israeli control; it was delayed by Silver Shalom and managed to get approved by March of this year; this nearly caused the city to fail). http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/w...i-west-bank-palestinians-israel.html?_r=0'New http://972mag.com/high-court-palestinians-have-no-planning-rights/107697/ http://www.btselem.org/planning_and_building http://www.btselem.org/planning_and_building/settlement_planning_policy http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-02-21-israel-palestinians_N.htm After the Iran-nuclear accord is signed, United States along with France will probably sponsor UNSC resolution with a time period Palestinian state. If this doesn't work(due to a variety of problems like Bibi's gov which include parties like Jewish home probably won't agree to another round of negotiations based on UNSC resolution for Palestinian state, there are other problems too like legitimacy of Abbas that means it probably won't work) should United States as Thomas Friedman put it "If the status quo is this tolerable for the parties, then I say, let them enjoy it. I just don’t want to subsidize it or anesthetize it anymore."?
This is a good article, with one exception.. The Second Intifada happened because Ariel Sharon took a stroll thru the Haram al Sharif with a thousand Israeli soldiers.. That was certain to provoke and frighten the Palestinians. BTW.. Har Homa used to be a forrest.. You should see it now.
I'm in rare agreement with Friedman on this, too, but think that there is no way to negotiate with Bibi; that the US should allow the UN to recognize a Palestinian state without vetoing it. Any comments on this article? http://original.antiwar.com/ramzy-b...ship-did-abbas-destroy-palestinian-democracy/
No telling.. I just think Bibi has no intention of ever entering any peace agreement as long as there are Arabs in Palestine.
It is not exactly so... it is rather based on a <quid pro quo>...but, if you think this way... it will be one of the rarest moments I am in agreement with you!
Are you familiar with Martin Van Cleveld? He is Israel's foremost military historian and he thinks the West Bank is of no strategic value to Israel.
The second intifada didn't happen due to Ariel Sharon visiting temple mount. The visit was also coordinated with PA security forces and assured as long as Sharon didn't enter mosque there would be no violence(which Sharon didn't enter mosque during his visit). To be fair his visit was provocative(as shown by 1,000 soldiers needed for him to make the visit) and did help cause second intifada by inflaming tensions. However, as despicable Sharon was,Arafat did plan the second intifada after coming back from camp david by setting up riots starting at end of September (Israelis reaction to it didn't help with many considering it excessive with 1.3 million bullets used during first days of riots; an amnesty international report also said 80% of Palestinians killed during first month were in demonstrations where Israeli security service lives weren't in danger) . Several PA officials like Imad Falouji communication minister to PA at time made a speech in December 2000 that intifada was planned in July after failure of camp david talks. Mamduh Nofal former commander for democratic front for the liberation of Palestine also has said Arafat planned intifada. Mosab Hassan Yousef son of Sheik Hassan Yousef one of the founders of Hamas who later became an agent for the Shin Bet(wrote a book about that called son of Hamas) have also said that Arafat started intifada. Suha Arafat; Arafat's widow also said after failure at camp david he planned the uprising. I don't think Arafat intended for second intifada to escalate it to suicide bombers attacking Israeli civilians during worst days of intifada. At camp david Arafat left disappointed with Ehud Barak although offering more any previous prime minister it was a very flawed offer( consisting of 91% of West Bank and not including any Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem itself only some of the Arab villages that were annexed to Jerusalem after 67 war) that fell short of a Palestinian state consisting of Gaza and all of West Bank with East Jerusalem as their capital. Shlomo Ben Ami one of the Israeli diplomats during camp david would later say if he was a Palestinian he would have not have accepted camp david offer. Arafat probably expected a repeat of the first intifada. The first intifada which for the most part consisted of IDF fighting demonstrators for throwing stones(with Yitzhak Rabin then calling for bones of those demonstrators to be broken). Due to widespread sympathy for the Palestinian and many Israelis abhorred of their actions for intifada(many human right groups like Rabbis for Human Rights and B'tselem were founded during first intifada) caused Israel to start negotiating with PLO and bring them to the West Bank to form the PA (the PLO didn't have anything to do with starting first intifada with first intifada a sporadic uprising after a truck accident in Gaza). Arafat was probably expecting that the demonstrations would led him to an offer he wanted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Intifada http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/09/in-a-ruined-country/304167/ http://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/14/fmr_israeli_foreign_minister_if_i
He can go fly a kite in Holland... Here every inch of Land... in reality the whole Mandate belongs to Israel according to art 80...
He's a prominent journalist, has won Pulitzer price 3 times for his work. He has written a couple good books like From Beirut to Jerusalem and The World is flat.
Article 80 says no such thing. For article 80 to apply West Bank would have to be under an international trustee which it's not. The mandate also ended when the British left Palestine in May 1948 and Israel proclaimed it's independence shortly afterwards fulfilling goal of mandate(a Jewish home in Palestine the Jews weren't promised a home in all of Palestine they were promised a home in Palestine which the state of Israel indisputable is a Jewish home in what was Palestine thus fulfilling the mandate). Martin Van Cleveld is not the only expert that has said that like Yaakov Peri(former Shin Bet head), Shlomo Brom former director of IDF strategic planing saying "Israel is a state without strategic depth, regardless of whether its border is along the 1967 lines or the Jordan River. It can create “artificial strategic depth” by “building its relationship” with its neighbors." Nehemiam Dagan's(Fmr. Chief Education Officer and Fmr. First Commander of Coordination Headquarters) quote probably sums up Israel's security situation "Netanyahu’s claim that Israel’s 1967 borders are indefensible is inaccurate. “We were small and we won” several wars in which conditions were less even less advantageous. “The borders are defensible.” Shaul Arieli former brigade commander in Gaza says something similar “In 25 years, we had five wars with Egypt, from different territorial positions, and before there was a peace agreement, no borders deterred them from going to war against us. Control of the territory can be replaced with advantages of other security arrangements.” http://www.israelnsp.org/what-they-say/defensible-borders.html Btw Israel's own declaration of Independence says the mandate is over. "WE DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 194, until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948, the People's Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ, the People's Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called "Israel"." http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPo...tion of Establishment of State of Israel.aspx 1. Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties. 2. Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be interpreted as giving grounds for delay or postponement of the negotiation and conclusion of agreements for placing mandated and other territories under the trusteeship system as provided for in Article 77. http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter12.shtml
The UN recognized Palestinians as non-observer member state 3 years ago. I agree that there is no way to negotiate especially with Bibi's government. I also agree with article that Abbas has become a failed leader(however would disagree and say Arafat did more to danger Palestinian leadership). Abbas is reportedly stepping down for real this time in stages(first resigning as head of PLO, then fatah, and then PA) with(internal) elections. The problem is that PA doesn't have credibility with their people. PA still remains a very corrupt institution that has not had elections for parliament or presidency in several years. Maybe Abbas's replacement will reform PA, but doubtful. A UNSC resolution reportedly being worked on United States and France is a good step. However, it would be difficult to implement due to Israel's current government. http://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-informed-arab-leaders-he-is-retiring-from-politics/ http://www.jewishjournal.com/world/...ropose_new_palestinian_state_resolution_at_un
