Why Is the Peace Process Dead?
The peace process is dead because a majority in the Arab and Muslim world still has not come to terms with Israel's right to exist.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas announced this week that the Middle East peace process was "clinically dead" because Israel was refusing to accept his conditions for returning to the negotiating table.
Abbas has been demanding that Israel freeze all settlement construction and recognize the pre-1967 lines as the future borders of a Palestinian state.
Recently, Abbas added two more conditions for resuming the stalled peace talks: first, that Israel allow him to import more weapons for his police forces in the West Bank, and second, the release of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails.
Abbas is in fact searching for any excuse not to return to the negotiating table with Israel.
His demand that Israel stop building in the settlements sounds more like a joke: has he just discovered that there are settlements in the West Bank?
Why did his predecessor, Yasser Arafat, negotiate for many years with Israel while the construction in the settlements was continuing? And why did Abbas also negotiate with Israeli leaders before Benjamin Netanyahu was elected prime minister more than three years ago -- while the construction work was continuing?
By demanding that Israel recognize the pre-1967 lines as the borders of a future Palestinian state, Abbas is actually asking that Israel commit itself in advance to giving him everything -- even before the negotiations have resumed.
Abbas's two new conditions - the release of prisoners and import of weapons - came as a surprise even to some Palestinians in the West Bank. It is not even clear how the release of Palestinians who were involved in terror attacks would advance the cause of peace.
It is also not clear how bringing additional rifles and pistols into the Palestinian Authority-controlled territories is supposed to help achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
Abbas is right in saying that the peace process is "clinically dead." The peace process has been dead for some time now.
It died the day a majority of Palestinians voted for Hamas in a free and fair election in 2006.
The peace process died when Hamas expelled the Palestinian Authority from the Gaza Strip and established an Islamic emirate in the area.
The peace process died even long before that. It passed away the day Yasser Arafat said no to former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak at the botched Camp David summit in 2000.
The peace process died when Abbas again said no to another generous offer that was made by Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert.
The peace process died when the Palestinian Authority got involved in suicide bombings and terror attacks during the second intifada.
The peace process died the day Palestinian policemen used their American and Israeli-supplied weapons to kill Israeli civilians and soldiers.
The peace process has been dead ever since the Palestinians ended up with two separate states - one in the West Bank and one in the Gaza Strip.
The so-called Arab Spring, which has brought Islamists and jihadists to power in a number of Arab countries, is another reason why the peace process is dead. Egypt and Jordan, the only two Arab countries which peace treaties with Israel, will soon fall into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood, driving the final nail into the coffin of the peace process.
The peace process is dead because a majority in the Arab and Islamic world still has not come to terms with Israel's right to exist.
Hisham Jarallah is a journalist based in the West Bank.
Reader comments on this item
|Biased and One-Sided - Where's the Facts? [621 words]||Hinda||Sep 6, 2012 17:30|
|A slight addition to why the peace process is dead [128 words]||Scott||Jun 20, 2012 10:04|
|The effects of Islam [131 words]||Sylvie Schapira||Jun 20, 2012 09:31|
Comment on this item
by Burak Bekdil
Where Turkey stands today is a perfect example of how, when Islamists -- mild or otherwise -- rule a county, even the most basic liberties are systematically suppressed.
"A climate of fear has emerged in Turkey." — Hasam Kilic, President, Turkey's Constitutional Court.
The prosecutor demanded a heavier penalty for the victim than for her torturers.
The European Commission identified government interference in the judiciary and bans imposed on social media as the major sources of concern regarding Turkey's candidacy for full membership.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
To understand what drives a young Palestinian to carry out such a deadly attack, one needs to look at the statements of Palestinian Authority leaders during the past few weeks.
The anti-Israel campaign of incitement reached its peak with Abbas's speech at the UN a few weeks ago, when he accused Israel of waging a "war of genocide" in the Gaza Strip. Abbas made no reference to Hamas's crimes against both Israelis and Palestinians.
Whatever his motives, it is clear that the man who carried out the most recent attack, was influenced by the messages that Abbas and the Palestinian Authority leadership have been sending their people.
by Richard Kemp
Would General Allen -- or any other general today -- recommend contracting out his country's defenses if it were his country at stake? Of course not.
The Iranian regime remains dedicated to undermining and ultimately destroying the State of Israel. The Islamic State also has Israel in its sights and would certainly use the West Bank as a point from which to attack, if it were open to them.
There can be no two-state solution and no sovereign Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan, however desirable those things might be. The stark military reality is that Israel cannot withdraw its forces from the West Bank.
Fatah leaders ally themselves with the terrorists of Hamas, and, like Hamas, they continue to reject the every existence of the State of Israel.
If Western leaders actually want to help, they should use all diplomatic and economic means to make it clear to the Palestinians that they will never achieve an independent and sovereign state while they remain set on the destruction of the State of Israel.
by Louis René Beres
The Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO], forerunner of today's Palestinian Authority, was founded in 1964, three years before Israel came into the unintended control of the West Bank and Gaza. What therefore was the PLO planning to "liberate"?
Why does no one expect the Palestinians to cease all deliberate and random violence against Israeli civilians before being considered for admission to statehood?
On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States endorsed a "Mandate for Palestine," confirming the right of Jews to settle anywhere they chose between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This is the core American legacy of support for a Jewish State that President Obama now somehow fails to recall.
A sovereign state of Palestine, as identified by the Arabs -- a Muslim land occupied by "Palestinian" Arabs -- has never existed; not before 1948, and not before 1967. From the start, it was, and continues to be, the Arab states -- not Israel -- that became the core impediment to Palestinian sovereignty.
by Timon Dias
It looks as if this new law is meant to serve as a severe roadblock to parties that would like to dismantle the EU in a democratic and peaceful way from within.
A rather dull semantic trick pro-EU figures usually apply, is calling their opponents "anti-Europe."