OpEdNews » Bush Push on Israeli Palestinian Peace: New Hope?

Support OEN
With Your
Tax-Deductible Donation

Tags for This Article:

Populum Tag Cloud Control Panel
	Fine tune your search to access content

Articles	Links
Diaries	Products
Events	All

All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs

From:
Month Day Year

To:
Month Day Year

Alphabet Popularity	Count ON Count OFF
This Level	Sub-levels

Tag(s): Bush Admin; Bush GW; Fatah; Foreign Policy Failures Israel Middle Ea; Hamas; Hamas; Israel; Israel-Palestine; Israel-Palestinian Conflict; Middle East Conflict Israel Palestine Le; (more...) Palestinian Homeland; Peace; Sovereignty (less...)
Add to My Group

July 17, 2007 at 06:24:49

Bush Push on Israeli Palestinian Peace: New Hope?

by Ami Isseroff Page 1 of 2 page(s)

www.opednews.com

SAVE FAVORITES

VIEW FAVORITES

View Ratings | Rate It

This evening, United States President Bush gave a major speech on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The speech supposedly initiates a new push for Israeli-Palestinian and regional peace. Either that, or it is the swan song of the peace process. Some of the main points:

The United states will call an international conference this fall of all "regional" states that support a two state solution.

The United States will support the government of President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad with major incentives including $190,000,000 in aid.

The Fayyad government must provide good government and security for the Palestinians, and the solution must provide security for both Israelis and Palestinians.

The United States will push for a two state solution and calls upon Hamas to recognize Israel and forswear violence and incitement.

Israel must dismantle illegal outposts and freeze settlement activities.

The negotiated solution must be based on borders that provide for a contiguous Palestinian state, and that take into account historical and existing reality.

Bush said,

"The vision of President [Mahmoud] Abbas and Prime Minister [Salam] Fayad is the vision of a peaceful state called Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people..."

"By following this path, Palestinians can reclaim their dignity and future and establish a state of their own."

"All responsible nations have the duty to help clarify the way forward by supporting the reforms of President Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayad."

Both PM Olmert and President Abbas welcomed the speech.

Unfortunately, there is a big shortage of responsible nations in the Middle East. The speech is viewed by skeptics as a "last ditch effort" to salvage the two state vision of the Bush administration.

There is more and less in this effort than meets the eye. The speech is not so much a function of developments in the Israeli-Palestinian arena, which do not provide promising conditions for a peace effort, but a reflection of what the United States needs in order to bolster its position in the Middle East. Mr. Bush is caught between Iraq and a hard place. US failure in Iraq, which becomes ever more evident with each daily SNAFU of the Iraqi government and each guerrilla attack, successively erodes the ability of the US to influence Middle East states regarding Israeli-Palestinian peace. At the same time, pressure from those same states -- particularly Saudi Arabia, is mounting for a solution to the Palestinian problem, which Bush must deliver in order to get support for continued US intervention in Iraq.

The peace initiative has several vulnerabilities. Nobody can make peace between Israelis and Palestinians by ignoring reality. That was demonstrated conclusively by the Oslo negotiations, which attempted to produce bits of paper about peace while settlements and suicide bombers were sprouting outside the conference rooms.

1 | 2

http://www.mideastweb.org

	Contact Author
	Contact Editor
	View Other Articles by Author

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

(More...)

3 comments

A writer is a rogue goose. All other gees fly in a flock formation; every goose knows his place and time for honking. The rogue goose is undisciplined. He leaves the formation indiscriminately to have a look at it from aside. He roams back and forth, takes a peep at the leader, honks a little bit from behind, distracts everyone and writes on what he sees. Time passes and as he wants to return back to his place he discovers someone else there. Thus he either has to wait until they land for rest...

to see more of bio, click on member name
Mark SashineA writer is a rogue goose. All other gees fly in a flock formation; every goose knows his place and time for honking. The rogue goose is undisciplined. He leaves the formation indiscriminately to have a look at it from aside. He roams back and forth, takes a peep at the leader, honks a little bit from behind, distracts everyone and writes on what he sees. Time passes and as he wants to return back to his place he discovers someone else there. Thus he either has to wait until they land for rest...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Irresponsible malice

'Unless the United States has a plan for neutralizing the Hamas, Syria and Iran, this peace effort is very likely doomed. '

From now on I will qualify the statements above as the provocations for war. The statement above although further saying ' No such plan is in the offing as far as anyone knows' clearly pushes for war, especially for the US 'neutralizing' now three entities. It is paranoya and a malicious one.

Bush's speech was idiotic and means nothing. But using it to provoke the US to get even deeper into the abyss is irresponsible malice and that is what it is.

by Mark Sashine (53 articles, 19 quicklinks, 250 diaries, 3574 comments) on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 at 8:41:05 AM

Ami Isseroff, D.Sc, is a Middle East analyst and director of MidEastWeb for Coexistence and Webmaster of www.mideastweb.org, Middle East - by MidEastWeb. He also edits and co-edits other Web sites and Web logs including Zionism & Israel, ZioNation, Israel: Like this, as if and Middle East Analysis. He lives in Rehovot, Israel and in the United States.
Ami IsseroffAmi Isseroff, D.Sc, is a Middle East analyst and director of MidEastWeb for Coexistence and Webmaster of www.mideastweb.org, Middle East - by MidEastWeb. He also edits and co-edits other Web sites and Web logs including Zionism & Israel, ZioNation, Israel: Like this, as if and Middle East Analysis. He lives in Rehovot, Israel and in the United States.

Irresponsible malice

Indeed, your comment is aptly named as irresponsible malice, because that is what it is.

It is beyond me how you could arrive at the idea that this article is a call for war, from the obvious statement that unless Hamas are neutralized there cannot be peace. If the Hamas is not neutralized, they will eventually take over the West Bank, and throw people off 15 story buildings there too. Is that the sort of thing you advocate? Is that part of your progressive philosophy?

Hamas has already rejected the Bush peace plan. The plan may result in nothing or it may be a real push for peace, but it cannot succeed without neutralizing the extremists groups.

by Ami Isseroff (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 at 10:42:40 AM

Amiss

To pay for 'peace' which you define ( your kind of peace) on the basis of the speech of an idiot you specify a condition that "US have a plan to neutralise ( what a word!) HAMAS, Syria and Iran'. One is the organization voted for the governance by the people themselves ( let's put away your own perceptions for a moment). Two others are countries. You explicitly push by that statement for the US military inolvement ( US is already militarily there and let's not pretend you ask for something else, OK). As so far the US presence in Iraq had cost about 0.5million dead I would caution you from using the comparisons of violence by other organizations: we certainly beat everyone so far. But you obviously do not care- you want ' neutralization' before peace ( you also consider US there as a 'good' force) and if that does not that mean a call to war then I am a Chinese Emperor.

Now, let's not talk much about philosophies, will you. The truthful approach to the issue would be that US must withdraw from that place and stop meddling into the affairs in the region first and foremost. Direct negotiations between all the parties involved should be encouraged without preconditioning and without mediators.

by Mark Sashine (53 articles, 19 quicklinks, 250 diaries, 3574 comments) on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 at 12:14:39 PM