The Diplomatic Process

By Ted Belman

Who better than Dennis Ross to explain the diplomatic process as it pertains to the ME.

Ross explains in his Foreign Policy interview just below that “We’re not on the brink of any kind of breakthrough.” and he explains that therefore diplomacy focuses preventing the climate from worsening and possibly improving it.

    There’s no such thing as a status quo, particularly in this part of the world. It’s never static. What you can’t afford is to have a stalemate when those who reject the very idea of a two-state solution are able to exploit it to increasingly undermine the prospect of it. I think the premise of your question is right — we’re not on the brink of a breakthrough. And yet it’s important to try to find ways to overcome the stalemate.

Abu Mazen represents the constituency that prefers non-violence and moderation.

    If those who believe in nonviolence and coexistence can point to the fact that Israeli control is being reduced and that their way is ultimately going to be the one that produces a state, then there’s a payoff.

Thus there is pressure on Israel to encourage belief that a deal is possible so that the Palestinians won’t turn to the UN,which would solve nothing, and don’t turn to violence and the Hamas way.

Evidently Israel accepts the need to provide “gestures” and she even refrains from large scale building except for the odd bone that they give the hawks to appease them and keep theM quite more or less.

It was explained to me today by insiders that the the Israeli public and the current government really wants to cut a deal and have peace. But they assured me that Israel won’t compromise on Security. I countered that there was a sizable Israeli public and growing steadily, that they prefer to pursue peace through strength and to keep the land. Why give it up?

They countered that Israel constantly assuages the wrath of the Manin stream Media, the Europen Union and the US. She fears that it could get out of hand and that the US won’t necessarily protect them with a veto. Let’s say Israel provokes them by following some of the policies our commenters espouse, and as a result a resolution is put before the UNSC declaring that sanctions or military force should be used because in their opinion Israel’s actions threaten peace.

Just as Ross says,

    There isn’t a Republican or Democratic approach to Israel; there’s an American approach to Israel. I think that’s been consistent,

there is also an Israeli approach, rather than a Labour/Kadima approach v a Likud approach, which has been consistent since the ’67 victory namely, land for peace. This will not change no matter who is in power.

Without a game changer event, this will not change.

When the ruler says to the Jew, teach my camel to talk or I’ll kill you, the Jew says give me a year to do it and the ruler agrees. Another Jew asks how can you agree to that and the Jew says lots of things can happen. Either the ruler dies within the year or I teach him to talk or the camel dies. In the meantime, I bought a year.

And maybe the Palestinians will take over Jorda and invite all Palestinians to move there.

January 23, 2012 | 5 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

5 Comments / 5 Comments

  1. That settles it. No negotiations. If the Quartet and others can’t see this, what the hell is the matter with them?

    Now you’re coming around to the truth of the matter. The quartet CAN see this and do this anyways. Now you can decide on your own “what the hell is the matter with them”.

  2. I mentioned earlier an approach that I’ve decided to adopt in my writings supporting Israel.

    In essence it is: No negotiations without a peace treaty. I thought, what is wrong about this whole thing which never leads to progress? What country in its right mind would give up territory to a people who continually threaten them? Giving up territory in Samaria and Judea will give Arabs another location to fire rockets at the Jews. In other words, the Arabs get a big something without giving anything in return.

    The Arabs say they will never make peace with the Jews. That settles it. No negotiations. If the Quartet and others can’t see this, what the hell is the matter with them?

  3. There sre a lot of people better than Dennis Ross to “explain” the Middle East”. Ross is a creature of the US State Dept. He thinks like a diplomat, acts like a diplomats, and breathes “diplomacy” as if it were the very oxygen that sustains his life. To write that Abbas prefers moderation is to ignore his whole life. Abbas is a terrorist who for now acts as the “good cop” in a very familiar scenario.
    Belman’s dream that Jordan will act as a release valve for the Palestinians is a dream. Jordan will simply become one more enemy as soon as it’s kings overthrown.
    The reality is that Islam, without a fundamental change in it’s ideology, will never tolerate Jewish state in the Middle East. Some form of accommodation — I will not even use the word “Peace” — will only occur at least two generations down the line when Arab oil is exhausted and a generation emerges (maybe) that remembers not it’s origins.
    In the meantime Israel must remain strong and impregnable. that this is dome existential impossibility is leftist propaganda designed to sap Israel’s will. It is similar to the Communist rant “better red than dead” that the left mouthed in the fifties to undermine American and western resolve.

  4. The Arabs haven’t had any “fundamental rights” in Israel for over 1000 years — under the Caliphates, wherein they gained their rights by conquest of the Christian and Jewish inhabitants of the land. The conflict comes from a desire to drive out the Jews and occupy the Jewish holy sites. I know how the conflict ends: The Jews win.

  5. No matter the various “sophisticated” approaches taken to try to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict are doomed to fail. The main reason, in my modest opinion is the simple fact that those involved in elaborating all those so-called “wonder” recipes for some eventual solution are just trying to impose quick-fix, half baked accords on the diplomatically weaker side which is Israel. Those “honest brookers” just ignore and roll-over historical, moral and legal aspects of the conflict as well as facts on the ground. They want to find and take credit for a solution for which they themselves will not have to pay the price of failure for. They are not interested in looking for a “just” settlement but one who they think is the most convenient and serves their short term interests best. I declare here and now..there is no solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The conflict is not only just about land or borders is anchored in the fanatical believe by the Arabs that Israel deprives them of what they think are their fundamental rights..and prevent them to achieve Islamic hegemony the are ordered by the Coran to achieve.