Any Olmert/Abbas deal won’t withstand the opposition

By Ted Belman

Yesterday I wrote The GoI wants to conclude a deal before it falls.

Then Ryan Jones of the Christian News Service wrote to ask

I am writing a story for CNS News regarding Olmert’s apparent intentions to surrender to 100% of the Pals land demands and get it approved before Israel can do anything about it.

I spoke with a political correspondent from Yediot the other day, and he says most Israelis are unconcerned by all these hasty peace moves at present, that they simply don’t believe anything is actually going to happen.

Can you comment on that, in light of your belief that Olmert is going to try to get something stamped by the Knesset in the near future that a future government will be bound to?


I replied.

The Roadmap clearly provides for the stopping of violence and incitement before going on to the next phase. In this regard starting with Condi arguing for a “horizon” to be agreed upon, the peacemakers decided to forget about the precondition and simply agree on the end result and then deal with the violence.

The left in Israel wants to end the occupation on any terms. They would rather defend Israel from behind internationally recognized borders (Green Line) without the stigma of being occupiers than to maintain the stigma and the territory.

All agreements with the Arabs are unilateral ones because their agreements and covenants are worthless.

Recently I wrote, Kadima is proposing to withdraw from J & S unilaterally.

    In my article Its all about ending the “occupation” and not about achieving a peace agreement I concluded “Thus this plan is intended to end the occupation of J & S without a peace agreement.”.

    It seems I was bang on.

Ramon proposes major withdrawal in return for photo-op “accord on the principles of final status agreement”

As I suggested in one of my posts, Olmert seems to be in a rush to fix a “set of principles” or however one wants to describe the end result, even before the Arabs are ready to live up to their side.

It is an assumption on your part to believe such framework must go to Knesset for approval. It may not even go to his cabinet. His inner cabinet is enough. If you could clarify the law on this, that would be helpful. But whatever the law is, his classification of what has been agreed to will not meet the threshold if he thinks the support isn’t there.

Now I just read how this “framework” will then be submitted to the US and the EU for approval. Then no doubt to the UN.

It appears to me to be the intention of all to build enough momentum and consensus for the “framework” that would make it very difficult for Israel to avoid it.

What irks, among many things, is that this is described as a settlement as opposed to a total surrender. The way I see it, Israel is giving away everything. This was no compromise.

Not only has Fayyad reported that Fatah is not yet able to assume responsibility to provide security but now Amos Harel reports Barak: Find technological solution to missile threat before W. Bank pullout

Defense Minister Ehud Barak attributes great importance to speeding up the development of technological defenses against rocket fire on the home front, as he considers this a precondition for any significant withdrawal from the West Bank.

This underscores that implementation is far off. The name of the game is to replace the Roadmap with an agreed deal or “horizon” or “set of principles” or “framework”, if only we can get there.

Such an approach totally ignores the reality of the significant opposition to such a deal both from the the rejectionists in the Arab camp which include Saudi Arabia and Iran and their proxies and from the Jewish nationalists who will also strenuously oppose it.

The deal presently being described is such a bitter pill for the nationalists who are in the majority to swallow, that no mention is made of what it will entail for the settlers.

August 8, 2007 | 2 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

2 Comments / 2 Comments

  1. They would rather defend Israel from behind internationally recognized borders (Green Line)

    Correction: There are no internationally recognized borders. The Green Line is the 1949 armistice line, which left the Arabs illegally occupying Judea, Gaza, and Samaria.

Comments are closed.