The appointment of James Jones as a mediator in the Middle East doesn’t bode well. The previous military man appointed to the region, Gen. Dayton, hasn’t worked out so well. The problem with the mediators is that their job is to report progress. If the Palestinians won’t adjust their demands but Israel can be pressured to, well that’s what they’ll do.
It is interesting that President Bush apparently has a sense of America’s limitations.
“America can’t impose our vision on the two parties,” Bush said.”If that happens, then there’s not going to be a deal that will last.”
Still what’s troubling is that President Bush has contradictory impulses, earlier in the article he says
President Bush on Wednesday told CNN he would personally “facilitate” peace negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis, saying the formation of a democratic Palestinian state was the best way to bring peace to the region.”A democracy on Israel’s border is important for Israel’s security and that very democracy is important for the Palestinians to have a hopeful life,” Bush said. “It is also important for the broader Middle East.”
If a democracy is a precondition for peace, why isn’t the United States first working on setting up mechanisms of democratic government in the PA controlled areas before encouraging discussions on final status issues.
Then, at the end of the article, we read Palestinian negotiator
Saeb Erakat said the two sides can “absolutely” fashion a peace deal by the end of next year.However, he said, the deal must come in the form of a package that resolves at least six points: Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the right of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel, Jerusalem as the shared capital of a future Palestinian state, settling on borders, security and water supply.
Israel will add the condition that the conflict must end, Erakat said.
In other words all Israel demands is that the conflict must end? Isn’t that the point of any “peace” negotiations, why should that be an Israeli demand? In fact, wasn’t the end of the conflict already promised by Yasser Arafat back in 1993 and enshrined in his letter to then PM Rabin?
The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators.
So once again Israel is being assumed to make concrete concessions to achieve what had already been agreed upon in the past. Worse, that’s what’s considered an Israeli “demand.”
But then isn’t it odd to negotiate with someone who doesn’t even believe in your right to exist?
(via memeorandum)
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
