The new “peace process” will end in disaster

By Ted Belman

Tzipi Livni spoke yesterday to the NATO-Israel Symposium. The speech could have been written by the State Department as they both are on the same page.

According to them the world is divided between moderates and extremists. The US has been peddling this tripe for at least a year. You know, rally the moderates to oppose the extremists.

That they are “moderates” is put forward as an axiom to avoid having to prove it. Besides “moderate” is a relative term. The “moderates” have yet to prove they are real moderates or allies.

    They use various means and methods to promote their agenda. Among them the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the spread of incitement and hatred literature, and also the manipulation of the democratic system for their own means. Both in Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority we have seen how terrorist organizations have penetrated into the political democratic processes, acquiring false legitimacy through the back door.


Except for the WMD part, this fits Fatah to a “T”. Why is winning an election “acquiring legitimacy through the back door”? Ever since Oslo, Fatah has promoted hatred and incitement. Furthermore, you don’t have to be an extremist to “manipulate the democratic system for their own means”. Everybody does. Look at Israel.

She said we have common cause with the “pragmatic Arab world” and the “pragmatic Palestinians”. That’s the first time “pragmatic” has been the adjective of choice instead of “moderate”. Perhaps that is a recognition that they are not moderate so we have to hope they are at least pragmatic. Arafat was pragmatic also. He believed in victory by stages. You know, the phased plan. That suggests to me that a hudna is coming.

I believe that this change in terminology is due to the fact that it is impossible to maintain the fiction that the PA or Fatah or Abbas are moderates. Hence they are pragmatists.

    With the pragmatic leaders in the Palestinian Authority, we share a common vision and common objectives. We share the vision of two states, two homelands, giving an answer to the national aspirations of both sides, living side by side in peace and security. It is no longer perceived as a zero sum game.

    It would, however, be naive to assume that there are no differences of interests between the two sides. Therefore we must pursue a process and dialogue in order to bridge the differences. At the basis of such a process we must understand that the coordination of expectations is most important for success.

    In the process, we want to bridge two gaps.

    The first gap relates to the open issues between the two sides. We want to reach understandings on these open issues, based on the willingness of both sides to compromise. This includes also an understanding that both sides must also give up on some of their historical dreams.

    The second gap is the gap between the understandings reached and the ability to implement them. There is no disputing the fact that there is a gap between the will of the pragmatic Palestinian leaders and their capability to execute.

The Roadmap required the Palestinians to get their house in order before they had the right to negotiate core issues. The current approach reverses this order. The Palestinians have the opportunity to conclude core issues in principle before having to get their house in order.

    Israel is prepared to engage in the process and the dialogue already now, with the understanding that the execution of any agreement depends on the implementation as stated in the Road Map. Insisting on the implementation of the Road Map is not an obstacle, but the opposite, it enables us to advance towards the realization of two states living in peace and security. The world cannot afford to allow the development of another terror state. Just as a Palestinian state is an Israeli interest, so Israeli security must be a Palestinian interest.

So what started out as a reward for getting their house in order has now become an inducement for same.

Rather then disarming the PA as was required by the Roadmap, we are arming them to fight the extremists. The fact that we are not even insisting that they end incitement, suggests the will or the ability of the PA to do so doesn’t exist.

The “pragmatists” may never have the will or the ability to make Palestine a peace loving state. Having agreed to a declaration of principles, Israel will be forestalled from building settlements in designated Palestinian land or seeking alternate solutions. In effect Israel will have agreed to principles that will have great effect on the ground and it will have received nothing in return. The fact that the Palestinians may forego the “right of return”, to me is of no value. There is no “right of return” to forego.

In the normal agreement, there are always provisions for what will happen in the event of default. There will be no such provisions here.

It seems to me that reversing the order of stages in the Roadmap will only benefit the Palestinians. They receive significant concessions from Israel, arms and training from the CIA and gobs of money from everybody, without having to do anything.

Why would they ever want to implement it.

October 23, 2007 | Comments Off on The new “peace process” will end in disaster

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest