Israeli and Palestinian negotiators to meet in Jordan
(Photo by: Jonathan Ernst / Reuters)
Israeli and Palestinian negotiators will meet in Amman, Jordan, this Tuesday for direct talks. This will be the first time the two sides have met since President Mahmoud Abbas walked out on negotiations in 2010.
According to Jordanian Foreign Minister Spokesman Muhammad al-Kayed, the purpose of the meeting is to “achieve a Palestinian-Israeli peace accord that embodies the two-state solution and addresses all final-status issues by the end of 2012.”
It’s hard to imagine – after Israel has already offered the Palestinians all the territory it could possibly give up for peace, only to have those offers repeatedly rejected – that either side would be interested in another round of fruitless negotiations. It seems obvious that the Quartet (comprised of the US, UK, Britain, France, and Russia), which has invested heavily in the peace process over the last twenty years, is pushing for renewed talks.
Most Israelis see the new round of “talks” as an exercise in futility forced on them by a world obsessed with solving a conflict that is, at the moment at least, unsolvable. As one Israeli friend said to me, “There is no goodwill left, there is no trust {between the Palestinians and Israelis}, yet once again we are sitting down to talk peace. It’s a show for the western world.” Another was emphatic: “If we can’t even resolve the issue of fixing a walkway which connects the Western Wall to the Temple Mount, then there is no way we are going to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict!”
There’s every reason for this lack of trust. In the past few years, the “moderate” Palestinian faction, the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), has tried to forge a unity government with Hamas, which openly calls for Israel’s destruction. Then there was the attempt by the P.A. to achieve statehood in the U.N.. This action was…
Read More » Comments (4) »Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 8:48 AM | Amichai Farkas
Dennis Ross to leave Obama administration
Obama's Senior Middle East Advisor Dennis Ross, who recently announced his resignation
Solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been at the center of Obama’s foreign policy agenda since he first took office. Yet, due to a lack of progress in peace talks coupled with the fact that Obama is about to enter an election year, it is unlikely that in the near future the administration will give any serious push for the two sides to resume talks.
Meanwhile, Obama’s Senior Middle East Advisor, Dennis Ross, has recently announced that he will be resigning from his position. Considering Ross’ extensive involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, which has earned him the respect and trust of many Israeli politicians, his departure will be a great loss to any efforts to facilitate an agreement.
Dennis Ross’ resignation is not the only problem Obama will face if and when he decides to refocus his agenda on solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Obama’s unpopularity amongst Israelis is yet another impediment. A recent poll revealed that only 12% of the Israeli population believes that Obama is pro-Israel.
Starting from the Clinton administration, there have been three U.S. presidents who have been intimately involved in brokering a peace deal between Israel and the P.A. And up until the Obama administration, Israelis have trusted that each U.S. president had an appreciation for the Jewish people’s historical rights to the land and were sympathetic to the security concerns we face.
Given these new stats and sentiments, it has become less likely that Israel will agree to give up any land for a peace that will be guaranteed by a U.S. president whose popularity here is at such a low level.
Comments (8) »Thursday, December 1st, 2011 at 4:06 PM | Amichai Farkas
What’s housing got to do with it?
Construction in East Jerusalem
Israel is in the midst of a housing-shortage crisis that has spiked housing prices 40% over the past three years. This is part of the financial problem that has triggered massive demonstrations in cities across the Holy Land in recent weeks.
In response, last week Israeli officials approved plans for the construction of 1,600 new homes in the northeast Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo. The Interior Ministry is expected to approve two additional housing projects in east Jerusalem in the near future.
In most countries, a housing shortage could be solved by simply building additional units. This is not the case in Israel, where with every decision officials must consider the possible impact on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as the reaction from the international community. This is especially true when dealing with new construction.
The Interior Ministry’s announcement of its approval for new housing projects in existing Jewish neighborhoods was met with sharp criticism from the E.U. as well as the U.S. State Department.
European Union Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton said on Friday that she “regrets” Israel’s decision to “continue settlement expansion in east Jerusalem,” which according to Ashton, “threatens the viability of an agreed two-state solution and undermines ongoing efforts to resume negotiations.”
The U.S. State Department was also displeased about news of the Jerusalem housing project approval. A U.S. State Department official stated that Israel’s plan to build new homes in Jerusalem is “illegitimate and not in the best interest of getting back to negotiations.”
I firmly disagree with these reactions. Israel’s decision to build homes in already existing Jerusalem neighborhoods, especially in the midst of a housing crisis, is well within her rights. And the Israeli government has expressed on numerous occasions that Israeli control of these areas is non-negotiable.
If these U.S. and European officials are really interested in brokering peace between Israel and the Palestinians, why aren’t they pressuring the Palestinians to follow through on past agreements and to agree to the same type of concessions Israel has been willing…
Read More » Comments (46) »Wednesday, August 17th, 2011 at 8:33 AM | Amichai Farkas
U.S. House passes resolution threatening to suspend aid to Palestinians
Last night a majority of the U.S. House – 407 of the 435 representatives – passed a resolution urging President Obama’s administration to halt financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority if its leaders move forward in their bid for U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state:
Comments (12) »The resolution was welcomed by the Anti-Defamation League, commending the members of Congress “for mobilizing a resounding message that the Palestinians cannot reject direct negotiations with Israel and embrace Hamas,” said Robert G. Sugarman, ADL National Chair and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director.
“Instead of reconciling with Israel, the Palestinian Authority has reconciled with Hamas, a terrorist, anti-Semitic organization sworn to Israel’s destruction,” they added. “The Palestinians need to take seriously the President’s warning that, ‘Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state.”
The resolution states that “Palestinian efforts to gain recognition of a state outside direct negotiations demonstrates absence of a good faith commitment to peace negotiations, and will have implications for continued United States aid.”
Friday, July 8th, 2011 at 12:18 PM | David Kuner
"informing, equipping and mobilizing individuals and churches to support the
State of Israel"
State of Israel"
Recent Posts
U.S. closes embassy in Syria
Remembering the victims of the 2002 terror war against Israel
It's Photo Friday!
Iran's a joke -- but the world's not laughing
Palestinians throw shoes at U.N. Secretary-General
The ill-conceived statehood push
It’s obvious why Israelis have concerns about Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ push this September for the U.N. to recognize a Palestinian state. But maybe Palestinian leadership should be concerned as well.
As Khaled Abu Toameh writes in his thoughtful Hudson New York op-ed:
So the question remains — if he’s not going to get a state and could alienate his own people, what’s the point of this push?
Comments (7) »