"We will continue the struggle to make your dream and our dream come true and to have a Palestinian child raise the Palestinian flag on the walls of Jerusalem, the capital of our independent state." - Mahmoud Abbas, December 21, 2004.
Hold on there. Who said anything about giving even part of Jerusalem to the Palestinians? And Abbas' insistence on the "right of return" is a deal-breaker from the start.
Not only Abbas, but also British and Israeli Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Ariel Sharon either definitively or implicitly project future negotiations will lead to an independent Palestinian state. Maybe the end result will be an independent state, but let's not move so swiftly in that direction. It is dangerous.
Actually, there are too many quickly moving developments in Israeli-Palestinian relations since Yasser Arafat died. Those who will participate in shaping the future of Israel and the Palestinians need to step back and give every proposal the fullest consideration.
Abbas, the front-runner to replace Arafat as president of the Palestinian Authority in the January 9th election, was probably playing to the masses when he declared his backing for the "right of return", which would allow four million Arabs to flood Israel proper. He knows that Israel will never agree to it. He made the aforementioned remark about Jerusalem when praising Arafat on Tuesday, as he observed the end of Arafat's 40-day mourning period, according to the New York Times.
A week ago, Prime Minister Sharon said, "For their part, the Palestinians can then also live in dignity and freedom in an independent state."
Nobody should be pressing for specific plans until negotiations begin. Especially, none of the parties should proclaim pre-conditions for the negotiations. Abbas needs to rethink his position if he expects negotiations to begin where the Camp David meetings left off. Israelis are not going to give the Palestinians anything on a silver platter. Israel has slim reason to trust the Palestinian leadership or their people after four years of a war that the Arabs initiated and which left more than 1,000 Israelis dead. Is it wise to just jump into a settlement? After all the work is done, will Abbas and other Palestinian leaders follow through with a reasonable settlement?
The negotiations need to open with a blank slate, no matter how anticipated will be the most crucial proposals. Any issue can be placed on the table, but the necessity for each proposal must be justified and the proposing party must prove they can fulfill their obligations. As a prime example, Palestinian negotiators must explain why they need an independent state and demonstrate how they will operate such a state in a peaceful and responsive manner. As to a Palestinian state, many people assume that is the solution, and hardcore supporters of Israel are dead set against it. Is it the answer? On what basis? There are likely other options. All possibilities should be carefully weighed.
In addition, all parties must be open to progressive agreements rather than solely a final solution tied together all at one time. If they are at an impasse on some delicate issues, why not settle on what they agree upon and return to the other matters later? If they insist on wrapping up everything together, then many innocent people could suffer for their intransigence.
For every agreed-upon provision, they need to prepare a detailed plan for implementing it. And both Israelis and Palestinians must be held accountable to follow through with their agreements.
When I raised these issues in an e-mail exchange, an advocate for the Palestinians insisted that Israel be compelled to justify its existence. Not a problem. Like I said, any issue can be placed on the table according to this proposal. If Israel's delegates cannot argue on behalf of Israel's existence, they should look for new jobs.
Hold on there. Who said anything about giving even part of Jerusalem to the Palestinians? And Abbas' insistence on the "right of return" is a deal-breaker from the start.
Not only Abbas, but also British and Israeli Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Ariel Sharon either definitively or implicitly project future negotiations will lead to an independent Palestinian state. Maybe the end result will be an independent state, but let's not move so swiftly in that direction. It is dangerous.
Actually, there are too many quickly moving developments in Israeli-Palestinian relations since Yasser Arafat died. Those who will participate in shaping the future of Israel and the Palestinians need to step back and give every proposal the fullest consideration.
Abbas, the front-runner to replace Arafat as president of the Palestinian Authority in the January 9th election, was probably playing to the masses when he declared his backing for the "right of return", which would allow four million Arabs to flood Israel proper. He knows that Israel will never agree to it. He made the aforementioned remark about Jerusalem when praising Arafat on Tuesday, as he observed the end of Arafat's 40-day mourning period, according to the New York Times.
A week ago, Prime Minister Sharon said, "For their part, the Palestinians can then also live in dignity and freedom in an independent state."
Nobody should be pressing for specific plans until negotiations begin. Especially, none of the parties should proclaim pre-conditions for the negotiations. Abbas needs to rethink his position if he expects negotiations to begin where the Camp David meetings left off. Israelis are not going to give the Palestinians anything on a silver platter. Israel has slim reason to trust the Palestinian leadership or their people after four years of a war that the Arabs initiated and which left more than 1,000 Israelis dead. Is it wise to just jump into a settlement? After all the work is done, will Abbas and other Palestinian leaders follow through with a reasonable settlement?
The negotiations need to open with a blank slate, no matter how anticipated will be the most crucial proposals. Any issue can be placed on the table, but the necessity for each proposal must be justified and the proposing party must prove they can fulfill their obligations. As a prime example, Palestinian negotiators must explain why they need an independent state and demonstrate how they will operate such a state in a peaceful and responsive manner. As to a Palestinian state, many people assume that is the solution, and hardcore supporters of Israel are dead set against it. Is it the answer? On what basis? There are likely other options. All possibilities should be carefully weighed.
In addition, all parties must be open to progressive agreements rather than solely a final solution tied together all at one time. If they are at an impasse on some delicate issues, why not settle on what they agree upon and return to the other matters later? If they insist on wrapping up everything together, then many innocent people could suffer for their intransigence.
For every agreed-upon provision, they need to prepare a detailed plan for implementing it. And both Israelis and Palestinians must be held accountable to follow through with their agreements.
When I raised these issues in an e-mail exchange, an advocate for the Palestinians insisted that Israel be compelled to justify its existence. Not a problem. Like I said, any issue can be placed on the table according to this proposal. If Israel's delegates cannot argue on behalf of Israel's existence, they should look for new jobs.