Obama wants concurrent Israeli talks with Palestinians and Syria

[bemildred]

The Obama administration is preparing a Middle East peace process that will include simultaneous bilateral talks between Israel and the Palestinians, and between Israel and Syria. The plan is based on the Arab peace initiative that offers establishing normal relations between Israel and Arab League states in exchange for withdrawing from the occupied territories and establishing a Palestinian state.

The United States will put together a "security package," including demilitarization of the territories from which Israel will withdraw and the option of stationing a multinational force in them for years.

The Obama administration believes that a breakthrough in the peace process between Israel and the Arab states would restrain Tehran's influence and contribute to the diplomatic effort to block Iran's nuclearization. The regional peace plan will be the focus of President Barak Obama's meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah in the White House later this month.

Senior Palestinian Authority officials told Western diplomats Thursday that PA President Mahmoud Abbas will be invited to the White House after the Jordanian king's visit to discuss the Palestinians' participation in the initiative.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1078889.html

[notesdev]

1. And this futile effort will cost us how much?

Taking bets that:

a) this 'peace process' will be the same miserable failure as the ones initiated by every President since Eisenhower; and

b) it will come with an outrageous price tag while we can least afford it


Drop me a line if you have cash to put up against either assertion, I'll cover it.

[Idealism]

2. Syria and Israel will reach a settlement over the Golan Heights under the Obama Administration

Palestinians and Israeli's? Probably not :(

[bemildred]

3. Peace talks are futile? nt

[notesdev]

4. I submit as evidence, the historical record -nt

[bemildred]

5. The historical record is that some peace talks work and some do not.

I infer you mean that you think that these peace talks will be futile. And I respectfully submit that you don't know that until it happens.

[notesdev]

6. I refer to this particular case

Where every President this side of Truman has attempted the very same thing and failed. Unless you can make a convincing argument why This Time Is Different, one must expect this to be a failure, and of course an expensive one to boot.

[bemildred]

7. "Past performance is no guarantee of future results".

I understand a certain cynicism about these things, I share it, but I would ask what you suggest is to be done instead?

[notesdev]

8. They will sort it out

when they are good and ready, and not a moment sooner, no matter what anybody does. It is arguable that our constant attempts at intervention actually discourage any real peace process, since we lavish money on various factions for going through the motions. If they actually solve the problem, that gravy train would stop.

We should accept the current reality and welcome - but not expect - a change, if it comes.

[bemildred]

9. Well, I'm glad you will welcome change if it comes. nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. What may make this time different is willingness to put pressure on Israel

Peace talks have failed in the past because Israel has not been willing to make the necessary concessions, and the US has not put pressure on it to do so.

Israel *still* is not willing to make the necessary concessions, but this time it looks like the US may be willing to put pressure on it to do so.

As to price tag and expense - the advantage of putting pressure on a country you subsidise to the tune of billions a year is that it can actually *save* you money rather than costing it in the way that sanctioning e.g. Iraq or Iran does.

[shira]

11. The Clinton parameters at Taba was the US plan 8 years ago which Israel agreed to

and it was labeled "the ceiling" by President Clinton, as far as Israel could go. Arafat completely rejected it and went to war instead. Worse, Arafat was congratulated for rejecting it and excused for going to war. All's forgiven, let's try again and expect different results - right?

You expect Israel to agree to more than "the ceiling" this time around?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. I think it's unlikely but possible.

I think that if Israel doesn't agree to return enough land to make a Palestinian state viable - which Barak didn't - then there won't be peace.

I think it unlikely that Israel will agree to do so - it certainly won't do so willingly - but if Obama sticks to his guns and acts as a more even-handed broker than Clinton did, it's not inconceivable (although I don't think it's likely) that he may be able to force it to do so.

Treating Israel as an adult is doomed to failure. But if Obama treats it as a recalitrant child and threatens to send it to bed without supper, there may be peace.

[LeftishBrit]

12. 'The same miserable failure as the ones initiated by every President...'?

What about the Israel/Egypt one - that seems to have been pretty successful!

Admittedly it can't be all done by America, and the rival leaders have to make compromises. Which neither Likud nor Hamas are very good at. But neither were the Paisleyites or the IRA. And in the end they did compromise.

We in the UK are very appreciative of Bill Clinton's and George Mitchell's contributions to *our* peace process. As well as strongly of of all the Irish parties themselves finally getting down to it.

As I said in another thread, I prefer an attitude of 'Yes We Can' to 'No They Can't.'