RSS Feed MenuMy latest column for The Week argues that just as in 2000, when Yasser Arafat abandoned peace talks and went to war, today the inflated expectations of the Palestinian people will again prevent their leaders from making the realistic compromises necessary to achieve a peace deal.
The new Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, is not a psychopath, and that is supposed to be enough.
But the structural incentives facing Palestinian leaders have not changed. The deal Arafat was offered in 2000 must look pretty good in comparison now, but it will not be renewed. So once again a Palestinian leader is faced with an identical quandary: the deal he can get will be a huge disappointment to his people, or at least to the best-armed faction of his people. If he signs, he will face an uprising.
Abbas has enough sense not to respond as Arafat did: He will not launch a doomed war in hope of better terms. But he won’t sign either. Instead, he’s demanding a round of preliminary Israeli concessions (construction halts) as a quid pro quo for agreeing to resume talks.
Click here to read the rest.
LFC // Mar 18, 2010 at 12:52 pm
I think peace is possible, but only through separation of Israelis from Palestinians. Israel will probably impose borders and wall themselves off from the Palestinian people.
I really can’t see a path to a negotiated settlement. Between the Jewish religious zealots who believe their land is given to them by God, and the Palestinian extremists who have been indoctrinate since childhood to view all Israelis as evil and deserving of death, any agreement would pretty much be doomed once these groups starting attacking the other side. (If they simply attacked each other, it wouldn’t be a problem, but it will be the innocent who take the brunt of it.)
There’s another obstacle to peace on the Palestinian side, and it’s the reason Arafat was never going to accept any agreement. The strong Palestinian leaders (and Abbas isn’t one) have all owed their positions to continued chaos. Peace and the subsequent need to build a functioning country is really, really hard. Blaming somebody else and sending others to perform terrorist attacks is significantly easier. If peace breaks out, they’ll lose their positions.
ottovbvs // Mar 18, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Yes David we know you’re in favor of an entirely equitable solution for the Palestinians…….the end of this isn’t negotiations with Abbas who, as you point out, is a joke…….it’s negotiations with Hamas……and I can imagine what you think of that idea……the problem for the Israelis is that time is simply not on their side……they are more isolated diplomatically than at any time in my lifetime and are exacerbating the problem with ever more provocative acts by the current extreme rightwing govt……the Europeans are getting increasingly fed up with their behavior and the guilt trip is a currency of diminishing value……Iran will acquire nuclear weapons because they can’t be stopped short of US/Iranian war which the US is simply not going to undertake no matter how much you and other neocons fantasise about it……the Arabs (notably Hamas and Hezbollah) have learned how to use assymetric warfare to neutralize the Israeli’s massive military advantage……..taking a 20 year window Israel is in an incredibly vulnerable position despite their current apparent military advantage….. this has nothing to do with your, mine or anyone elses personal feelings it’s strategic reality
Carney // Mar 18, 2010 at 2:37 pm
The problem with a wall, LFC, is that the “Palestinians” will lob rockets and mortars over it, as they do now. How much more murderous mischief will they get up to if they are a fully recognized sovereign state, and every time Israel responds it is crossing an international border?
ottovbvs // Mar 18, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Carney // Mar 18, 2010 at 2:37 pm
……Oddly enough I agree with you about a wall……waste of time from Israelis too btw who are currently putting lots of effort into building them and looking more like Erich Honecker every day……the only way you get a settlement is that both parties are left semi happy and at the end of the day this basically means a return to 67 borders, a Palestinian state, and massive international investment in it, Jerusalem as a condo etc…….but I’m telling you time is not on the Israeli’s side so in that sense they need a settlement more than the Palestinians…..not that they can be convinced of that of course (actually quite a few Israelis do see this dilemma, it’s commonly talked about, but not the Netanyahu crowd)
Carney // Mar 18, 2010 at 10:24 pm
ottovbvs, you are completely wrong.
The “Palestinians” and other Arabs did not by any means leave Israel alone in 1967 or before, so the 1967 borders are obviously no formula for peace.
And before then the Arabs we now call “Palestinians” were not fighting for a “Palestinian” state; they were fighting to destroy Israel.
As for Honecker, his wall kept Germans in who wanted to flee. The Israeli wall keeps Arabs out who want to break in and murder. Huge, huge moral difference.
right_on // Mar 19, 2010 at 9:53 am
How about giving the Palestinians what they are entitled to under international law?
Frum uses the phrase ‘inflated expectations’ where the rest of the world uses a much simplier word, justice. Don’t be surprised when your grandchildren disown you.
ottovbvs // Mar 19, 2010 at 11:01 am
Carney // Mar 18, 2010 at 10:24 pm
……What am I wrong about?…..that the only basis for a settlement is one that leaves both participants semi happy?……time is on Israel’s side? ….. I do wish you zealots could separate the wood from the trees
S.L. Toddard // Mar 19, 2010 at 1:35 pm
“Nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded.”
- President George Washington
“Not seldom it has seemed as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States.”
- Russell Kirk
Carney // Mar 19, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Washington was talking about Jefferson et al’s enthusiasm for Revolutionary France and populist Britain-baiting. And that Kirk quote was probably the nadir of Kirk’s public discourse. Naturally, the anti-Semites bray and spam it everywhere.
ottovbvs // Mar 19, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Carney // Mar 19, 2010 at 2:06 pm
” the anti-Semites bray and spam it everywhere.”
……Apparently there’s a lot of anti semites in Israel who think more highly of Obama than of Netanyahu……I suppose these are “self hating” Jews