Anyone taking seriously the Palestinians’ current diplomatic offensive against Israel — by way of a UN resolution on settlements and international recognition of Palestine as an independent state — should think again. In a must-read piece in the New York Review of Books, Robert Malley and Hussein Agha offer a unique insight into Palestinian thinking. Their bottom line:
“In the hope of alarming Israelis, some Palestinians toy with options they haven’t seriously considered, don’t believe in, or cannot implement. … It’s a curious list: unilaterally declaring statehood, obtaining UN recognition, dissolving the PA, or walking away from the idea of negotiated partition altogether and calling for a single, binational state. Not one of these ideas has been well thought out, debated, or genuinely considered as a strategic choice, which, of course, is not their point. They are essentially attempts to show that Palestinians have alternatives to negotiation with Israel even as the proposals’ lack of seriousness demonstrably establishes that they currently have none.”
Palestinian diplomats quietly explain that even if the PA eventually declares independence unilaterally, it does not aspire to go beyond the rhetoric of the declaration and the whirlwind of diplomatic recognition they anticipate will follow. They think such a step might put them in a better position to negotiate with Israel on the outstanding issues that remain unsolved without realizing that such a dramatic step — taken from Ramallah by the PA rather than from Algiers by the PLO as happened 23 years ago — may trigger far worse consequences this time.
Israel might take unilateral actions to respond, which would expose the inadequacy of Palestinian proclamations and further reduce for the future the space available for a Palestinian sovereign entity. Israel could easily show the hollowness of such a declaration by challenging the PA to establish sovereignty for real — and Palestinians have no intentions, let alone a plan, to even begin doing so at border crossings, checkpoints, on the airwaves, in their airspace, on their shores, and in many other areas where independence may be affirmed (controversially, one may add, in the absence of agreement with Israel) by the exercise of sovereign attributes.
The Arab world — already under pressure on account of developments in Tunisia and uncertain succession challenges from Egypt to Saudi Arabia — might only act in so far as their actions will safeguard the regimes. As usual, their support will be rhetorical — with some diplomatic backing here and there — but hardly decisive. There may be some pledges of cash; whether the money comes is a different, and altogether sadly familiar, story.
Meanwhile, rejectionists in Gaza, Damascus, and Tehran will probably see this development as an opportunity — to wreak havoc, to fan the flames of conflict, to corner the PA for its acquiescence to Israel, and to establish themselves once and for all as the authentic standard bearers of the Palestinian cause.
Clearly, then, the only way forward seems to be the old one and the one that Palestinians currently avoid — direct negotiations with Israel to solve all outstanding issues. Instead, the PA and its diplomatic apparatus pursues the beaten path of failure — change the international balance in your favor so as to weaken your opponent’s negotiating ability, in the hope that this strategy will obviate the need for direct talks. Hence the quest for a UN resolution on settlements — to get the UN, not direct negotiations, to solve borders and territory.
Palestinians are woefully unprepared to handle both the likely consequences of a unilateral declaration and the Israeli response — not to mention the practical implications of independence. They also fail to see that all the successful diplomacy in the world will not undo what history did since 1947 to their ambitions.
What they want, in other words, is sovereignty without responsibility — a goal that reveals their game.
Hussein Agha and Robert Malley may not see it this way, of course, but their exposure of how hollow and unserious the current PA strategy is does a great service to those who are considering support for either Palestinian unilateral independence or, for that matter, the current Palestinian effort to get the UN Security Council to condemn settlements.
Settlements will not go away with a UN resolution. Palestine will not be independent just because its president said so and many heads of state around the world upgraded Palestinian missions to embassy status in La Paz, Santiago, or even Moscow.
Only direct talks will achieve this — with a full appreciation that history cannot be undone, no matter how unfair it may look to you.
Well, what else to expect from a new administration loaded with former Clinton lackeys? We ‘is’ expecting different?
Glad to see Contentions embracing polling, even if you ignore the portions of the poll that contradict you.
Meanwhile, Gallup says only 26% believe anyone on Obama’s team is involved in the Blago mess. Anybody care to guess what portion of that 26% think Obama is a muslim, or a radical socialist, or believe Palin is smart? Exactly.
December 15, 2008
One in Four See Obama Staff Illegally Tied to BlagojevichStill, confidence in Obama near highest level since his election
by Frank Newport
PRINCETON, NJ — About one out of four Americans, including half of Republicans, believe that members of President-elect Barack Obama’s staff engaged in illegal activities relating to the charges that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was trying to profit from naming Obama’s replacement in the U.S. Senate. Still, Gallup’s latest daily report of the public’s confidence in Obama’s ability to be a good president is at 68%, near the highest level since he was elected on Nov. 4.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113416/One-Four-See-Obama-Staff-Illegally-Tied-Blagojevich.aspx
“The “not aware of what was happening” seems to fly in the face of the revelation that Rahm Emanuel was relaying to Blago the President-elect’s wish list of senate candidates. Or was the President-elect being imprecise and simply saying he was not aware of wrongdoing?” — Jennifer Rubin.
Either you’re feigning confusion or you’re not real bright. The context is clear, and he elaborated in subsequent answers.
Obama was saying he was not aware that games were being played with his former Senate seat. He had delivered a list of people he thought would be good replacements, but was not involved in the decision making process.
What a lame attempt at fabricating a scandal.
RonReagan:
Polls may be helpful in elections, because they seek to provide information about a coming, defined event in which those polled represent a sampling of those who are goint to determine the event.
Polls about support or opposition to a policy may be of interest, particularly to those of our political “leaders” who believe their job is to follow, not lead.
Of least importance are polls about what the populace thinks about a developing scandal or other news matter. What such polls reflect, at best, is the awareness of some or all of the available information about the event. At worst, they reflect what the media is currently harping on.
So your giving us summaries of polls and then deriding us because our positions don’t reflect the majority view of those polled is worthless for two reasons. First, we can read the polls for ourselves, and unlike you, what we think is not determined by what we read in the polls. Second, you will find yourself in a difficult position when a majority of those polled take a position against Obama and the D’s on an issue. For example, a majority of people think the auto industries should not be bailed out. I assume you now find yourself agreeing with the wisdom of the polled? And when Obama’s popularity begins to slip and people find that they were the victims (naturally) of an extraordinarily popular delusion, I assume that we will see you leading the bandwagon for impeachment. So much for power to the polls, RonReagan.
What’s so disturbing about this situation is that–if there was no untoward behavior on the part of O’s team re the Blago Senate Sale–the EXPECTED and justifiable response, from the start, should have been, “Of course we’ve been in touch with the Governor about filling my vacant Senate seat.” That would be a simple admission of participation in politics, and in no way would implicate O or his team in the Blago scandal.
So why did they choose the stonewall/obsfuscate/parse path instead?
RB hits the nail on the head.
RonReagan,
In case you haven’t been following things for the last couple of years, 0bama was born to a Muslim father, making him a Muslim in the eyes of that religion. As I understand it, for a Muslim to follow any other path requires that he officially renounce Islam, and change his name, NEITHER OF WHICH 0bama has done (he says he “accepted Christ” about 20 years ago, but that is not the same as “renouncing Islam”).
Therefore, 0bama IS, technically, STILL a Muslim. Always has been (at least, since his birth).
Remember, 0bama is a lawyer, and lawyers make their living by twisting words and spreading confusion. In that case, 0bama does a good job.
And have you ever heard Sarah Palin speak on energy policy? She will dance rings around anyone on 0bama’s staff in that arena. Sure, she was out of her element with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric, but that doesn’t mean anything. It’s sort of like saying that, because a person can write trite, insulting posts on a website, that person is not a moron. That is a non-sequitor.
So go out there and “spread the wealth”, and stand behind your hero 0bama, and see what this fraud does to the country over the next 4 years.
To RonReagan, Stan, and others of their ilk:
There is no need to “fabricate” a scandal here. The scandal is right there in front of us. The question is whether any in the Obama camp are tainted by the scandal–either by direct action in pay-to-play, or by knowing of Blago’s corrupt practices and doing nothing to stop them. Conservatives authors I have seen have been careful to say that we have no substantial evidence that the Obama camp engaged in illegal or even strongly inethical behavior. The point rather is that *we do not know*, and all of the facts need to come forward. The disturbing parts of the story are these:
1. The response of the Obama camp. There *has* been a rather shifting response from the Obama camp, and the refusal to answer questions on the matter is presumably intended to bring this into the Christmas season when no one will be paying attention anymore. This combination of confusion and stalling is not becoming for a President-elect who has promised to do everything differently and above-the-board. Perhaps we were supposed to know all along that all the “new politics” stuff was pap. Is that what you’re saying? If not, it’s legitimate to point out that this was not exactly the transparency and “new politics” we were promised. .
2. The response of the media. I think it’s fair to say that there has been a rush to exonerate the Obama camp of any wrongdoing, and a remarkable credulity displayed by the media. The same media figures who treated anything the Bush administration said as presumed false are treated anything the incoming Obama administration says as presumed true, and presumed true with such power that the matter need no longer be questioned or investigated. This is not even “Trust by verify.” This is “trust and refuse to inquire further.”
I agree and second Ahithophel’s (#11) comment above. That is exactly correct.
Great comment Ahithophel.
Meanwhile, the Chicago S-T reports today that “President-elect Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is reportedly on 21 different taped conversations by the feds — dealing with his boss’ vacant Senate seat.” No way this scandal passes without the Office of the Pretend President getting a subpoena.
Thanks Rod, and I apologize for a few typing errors. I was in a rush.
And James, thanks for the information. I wonder if Rahm knows, or will be allowed to listen to, what is on those 21 conversations. One way or another, I’m sure the Obama camp is trying to reconstruct those conversations and get very clear on what was said. This must be why (or at least one of the reasons why) they delayed their “full account” of contacts for a week.
Sarah Palin wasn’t exactly “out of her element” in the Gibson and Couric interviews. Read the full transcripts of those interviews, compared to what was edited for broadcast, and what do you find? That the purpose of editing is to make the interviewer look good at the expense of the interviewee.