Palestinians have come to conclusion that Israel and its supporters just talk for the sake of talking and do not wish to end this conflict. Notice I said Palestinians and NOT Mahmoud Abbas. They (Palestinians) have been toyed with not only by Israelis and Americans, but also by their own leaders, by other Arab countries, each for their own political reasons, and also by Islamic Republic of Iran.
If sixty years ago the UN told the Palestinians and the Israelis to go and negotiate a peace based on two state solutions, and sixty years later they are still at the exact same place that they were, what make them to do this now?
Does the Palestinian have something this time around to offer for the negotiation to go forward that they did not have for the last 60 years? Probably not.
Does the Israelis have more incentive to offer the Palestinian their statehood? Definitely yes.
The problem is that the Palestinians do not have anything to offer at the peace negotiation or anything that they could negotiate with, or any bargaining chip, except to say what they want. For instance if Israel would not give the lands before 1967, and say, we can only give you 90% of them, could the Palestinian counter offer and say okay will give you??? this??? and you give us the whole 100% of the 1967 land. No, they can not, since they do not have any chips to negotiate with. And because Palestinians believe, by virtue of their rights and a few UN resolutions to the idea that Palestine must have its 1967 boarders in order to say we have a just peace.
That is the essence of the problem. The Israelis has taken so much from the Palestinians that they have not left anything for negotiation. Palestinians have nothing to negotiate with, as they say no bargaining chips. Then you might ask how this could be solved? As always most difficult problems have simple solutions;
That simple, Israel must go back to 1967 boarders, and that would solve most of the problems, everything this side of the boarder will stay in the Palestine, and everything on the other side will stay in Israel. Settlers will have a choice to live in the New Palestine country and live like the Arabs living in Israel, or go back to Israel. Except the older problem of the refugees, which goes back much further? That problem also should be look at in the simplest way, some ideas have already surfaced, compensation for those people and their family, in fact it should be a very generous compensation offer that they (refugees) can not refuse.
‘Absence of Courage’
A Palestinian official argues that international donors are pledging millions to Gaza and the West Bank because they hope their generosity will compensate for their lack of political will.
- Share:
-
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Amid international skepticism and ongoing regional tensions, 87 countries and international organizations have pledged $7.4 billion in aid to help build a Palestinian state. Monday's Paris meeting of the donors comes on the heels of last month's Annapolis talks, a White House effort to revitalize Israeli-Palestinian negotiations before the Bush administration leaves office. The money, which is expected to pass through various channels, including international aid organizations and the Palestinian government—that is, the government of Mahmoud Abbas and not the now-defunct Hamas-led government in Gaza—was donated in response to this week's World Bank report, which noted that "even under the most optimistic scenarios significant aid will continue to be required" to ensure the economic stability of the West Bank and Gaza. Afif Safieh, a Palestinian diplomat who heads the Palestine Liberation Organization Mission in Washington, spoke to Vivian Salama about the likely impact of the aid package and the latest political developments in the Palestinian territories. Excerpts:
Vivian Salama: What is your reaction to the news of the aid package?
Afif Safieh: Since the international community did not show the political courage needed in Annapolis or in the pre-Annapolis period, which necessitated some confrontation with the Israeli territorial appetite, they are now showing financial generosity because of the absence of political audacity and political courage. They feel the collapse of the Palestinian society and the Palestinian economy will generate additional chaos to a region already plagued with it, so this is the result.
What is the alternative and/or the lacking initiative, in your opinion?
I would have preferred the political courage and the diplomatic courage which is needed to support the Palestinian state, but this would have meant a political confrontation with the Israeli political leadership. This is what countries in the international system want to avert. They compensate the lack of political courage with financial generosity. Now, the report made by the World Bank says that if the roadblocks and strangulation of [Palestinian] society and the economy of society continues, even with external financial help, our economy will continue to shrink and decline by 2 percent every year. We have the potential of going back to levels of growth which will be double digit if you give [us] the capability.
Do you see Israel as a partner?
The Israelis are until now reluctant to reduce the number of roadblocks, most of which have no security value except to plunge us into economic decline. Here I invite you to explore the expression that was originally coined by Sarah Roy, a Jewish-American writer, the daughter of survivors, a Harvard scholar, who invented the concept of de-development of Palestine—meaning that the deliberate Israeli policy [was] to plunge us into economic decline, and that's what's happening.
The Bush administration—namely [Secretary of State] Condoleezza Rice—has pledged its devotion to the creation of a Palestinian state before the end of its term. Are you optimistic, and is this new aid package what is needed to get this process off the ground?
I believe in the sincerity of President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. I find the statement made by Secretary Rice that the creation of a Palestinian state is an American national interest [is] an important political statement which reflects the reality of the analysis by a growing body. I believe Bush when he told President Mahmoud Abbas in New York in September [that Bush] is growing increasingly impatient by the absence of progress. Since we have been unreasonably reasonable, I don't think his impatience is addressed to my side of the argument. The question is will [Bush and Rice] vent their annoyance with the obstacle towards advance. Unfortunately so far there is no indication. Not only did the Israelis invest all their genius to lower expectations in the weeks that preceded Annapolis, but immediately after Annapolis they invested all their brilliance into torpedoing the modest results that emerged. Annapolis was supposed to retrigger a credible diplomatic avenue.
Does the aid package at least make you optimistic?
We are often asked, "Are you optimistic or pessimistic?" Even though I don't feel we Palestinians have the luxury of pessimism, even though I believe that it's only optimists who make history, I am often reminded that the definition of a pessimist is an informed optimist.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
- Share:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
