Strong European support for Palestinian statehood move

But Israel, the United States and a handful of other members of are expected to vote against it.

What a surprise.

She repeated U.S. warnings that the move could hit U.S. economic support for the Palestinians. The Israelis have also warned that they might take deductions out of monthly transfers of duties that Israel collects on the Palestinians behalf.

Extraordinary.

The United States and Israel say the only genuine route to statehood is at the negotiating table, through a peace accord hammered out in direct talks with Israel.

And yet both countries have proven themselves entirely incapable of negotiating and managing this issue fairly and reasonably. It has to be arranged another way. Europe need to exert independence and leadership in this issue and I hope they do.

Actually, Tamarama, the Palestinians were the ones to leave the table in 2000. They should have stayed after all those years of death and worked on a deal. It is Hamas that has absolutely no desire to consider peace with Israel. It is unfair to neglect this very important detail. Hamas wants all of Israel and they have said this many time. They have only said they will take a ten year non-renewable truce for the West Bank and Gaza. In addition, they want full right of return to Israel. This would obviously mean the end of Israel and is an impossible solution. Make no mistake, Palestinians deserve a state of their own. However, until they show a true desire to make a deal, things will not change on the ground. How would you propose to deal with this? I am a fan of your posts and respect your opinion on the matter.

Maybe this is a good thing though. If the PA is recognized as the leaders of the Palestinians and they work with the Israelis to get Hamas and the other extremists, including those in Fatah, out, it could be a blessing in disguise. In fact, I would love to see the Israelis and Palestinians work together on security, the economy, etc. It could be an amazing confederation.

These are the same European countries who, in closed door talks, try to get Abbas to drop his bid. They know a comprehensive peace plan cannot be reached through the UN. But they also know the US will get all the bad press for being against it, so they play both sides of the issue. They only believe in the kind of public measures that make them look good in the Arab world, whether it really will produce lasting peace or not.

Tamarama: Europe need to exert independence and leadership in this issue and I hope they do.

The same Europe that gave Israel nuclear weapons? The same Europe that fought alongside Israeli troops to kill Egyptians? The same Europe that completely reversed their position only when the oil embargo hit? The same Europe who created this mess in the first place? There's a reason why they don't get involved anymore. They prefer lip service instead.

Actually, Tamarama, the Palestinians were the ones to leave the table in 2000. They should have stayed after all those years of death and worked on a deal

That is true, but when you look carefully at what was being proposed, they were right to reject it. And, unfortunately, it is the way they have been portrayed ever since - as people unwilling to negotiate peace. Entirely unfair in the broad context of the problem and the proposed 'solution', but they don't get much of a voice in it and it's therefore the way the majority of people see them.

Slumdog, you are an intelligent poster, so I encourage you to do some research on what was proposed by way of a map and conditions at those talks and see if you would accept it if you were in their shoes. And whilst it might be hard, lets just forget Hamas for a minute and think of the 2 out of 3 Gazans who didn't vote for them in the last election.

That is true, but when you look carefully at what was being proposed, they were right to reject it.

Maybe or maybe not. However, they were wrong to leave the table. Rejecting an offer does not and should not have had to mean leaving the table. Look what the Palestinians have gotten instead. I don't think it was worth it.

as people unwilling to negotiate peace

But they were unwilling as they are the ones that left the table. If they were willing, they should have stayed and talked for what they wanted and made some sort of deal.

Slumdog, you are an intelligent poster, so I encourage you to do some research on what was proposed by way of a map and conditions at those talks and see if you would accept it if you were in their shoes.

I've read about and seen the proposal and think it was a pretty good start. It certainly should not have been the end. You think it was better to walk away and all that has happened since than to continue talking? Barak didn't. Clinton didn't. I don't either. Talking is always better than walking away. The Palestinians cannot escape the fact that they walked away from a serious chance to solve this.

And whilst it might be hard, lets just forget Hamas for a minute

I can't forget what is there. Hamas is there and they control Gaza and the course of the Palestinian people there. They have also sworn to block any peace moves by the PA and Israel.

Hamas and the militants are the biggest obstacle to peace.

Tamarama,

I think the Palestinians lost a great opportunity in 2000. I hope they get it back. They need to get rid of Hamas and the other extremists first.

I think you would be interested in this site. Please have a look:

http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=32

In short, there was reason on the last day of Taba to believe that with four or five more days of negotiating, a framework agreement for most but not all issues was possible.

slumdog,

Firstly, it's nice to see someone actually posting quality links that are relevent and pertinent. Especially in light of what we have been dealing with elsewhere of late.

I think your link shows how willing the Palestinians were to really try to negotiate despite what could be considered extraordinary conditions included as part of the Israeli position. In the end, it was Arial Sharon who chose to cease negotiations, after he became PM in the elections that halted the talks.

I think it's improtant to remember that the West Bank was originally designated to the Arab State as part of the original conception of Israel - to which, they of course agreed. They took it by force in 1967, and despite the unanimous UN resolution 242, calling for the return of the land to Palestinians, Israel has not only ignored that, they have spent the subsequent years colonising the territory. At Camp David, they wanted to keep 8% of that territory - the Palestinians were willing to give them about 5% - which I think is pretty generous. But the sections of the West Bank offered to the Palestinians were in 3 distinct sections, known as cantonization - where each part was seperated by Jewish territory and control. Palestinian air space would be controlled by Israel. East Jerusalem was not included in the deal (despite it also being taken by force in 1967). Israel rejected the rights of people displaced by the 1967 conflict and others to return home. Israel wanted to deploy troops in the Palestinian territory when it saw fit, including permanent garrisons on the border with Jordan, on Palestinian land.

That the Palestinians were still willing to negotiate and work hard to achieve a solution despite these incredible conditions actually speaks volumes for them. But in the end, they were just being asked to compromise too much, and the talks were halted by elections.

It is not about the Palestinians and the Israelis. Israel in its independence is not any different from any of the European states. Israel's stance during games around Kosovo, Georgia, the "Arab Spring" states did leave it no choice in the Palestinian matter. Israel is within a group, which plays by certain rules. You can't expect preferential treatment if you are just the same. The same goes to Japan, by the way. I told many times that the interests of Israel in the region may not necessarily correspond to the interests of its "close allies", but got only negative reaction. Et voila. This is the receiving end of justice that other countries have experienced.

Tamarama,

Thanks for your response. I really prefer not to get into long drawn-out historical discussion. They generally do not serve a very good purpose in these discussions. There are definitely two sides to this and I think it important to atttempt to see both of them. For example: Israel did not just take the occupied territories, as you know, they were about to be attacked and they won a war in which they occupied those areas. The resolution you mention was to be in return for peace. There were no offers of peace after the war in 1967 or certainly no offers to give the land to the Palestinians before 67.

As to what the Palestinians were putting up with during the Taba talks, you have a point. However, Israelis were being attacked and killed while they negotiated as well. In addition, the Palestiinian knew full well Sharon would never make any deal to give them a state. They knew it would be there last chance in a long time and we can see it was. They should not have walked out.

But the sections of the West Bank offered to the Palestinians were in 3 distinct sections, known as cantonization - where each part was seperated by Jewish territory and control.

The West Bank and Gaza are separated as well. The Palestinians are going to have to figure a way of living separated by Israeli land. It is the make-up of the occupied lands. The details were getting close though. The proof is in the responses by questioned negotators on both sides, as was mentioned in the article.

If it were me on the Palestinian side of the table at Taba, I would have stayed until I got as much as I thought I could get and I would have stayed until I made a deal. It was not Sharon that broke off talks, it was the Palestinians at Taba for they knew they were never going to have any sort of talks with Sharon when he got elected. Sharon was very clear in his position. As clear as Barak was that he wanted to make peace based on the two state solution.

Read the article again. Most of the negotiators thought a deal was possible, This was on both sides. The Palestinians needed that deal much more than the Israelis. Yet, the Israelis actually approached the Palestinians and took them to lunch to continue talking. They should have kept talking until they made some sort of deal. Any deal is better than what the Palestinians have had all these years.

I read that Olmert the rather ineffective former Israeli PM thinks the PA going to the UN is a good thing because it will strengthen the position of the moderate Palestinians. I actually wrote something similar above.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/28/exclusive-former-israeli-pm-olmert-supports-palestine-u-n-bid.html

Anyway, if the Palestinian moderates do get into complete power again, I hope they will talk and talk until a deal is done. Their people deserve nothing less. Heck, neither do the rest of us. Most of the world is completely sick of this conflict and would like it to be over and off the pages of the news completely.

Anyway, if the Palestinian moderates do get into complete power again, I hope they will talk and talk until a deal is done. Their people deserve nothing less. Heck, neither do the rest of us. Most of the world is completely sick of this conflict and would like it to be over and off the pages of the news completely.

Agreed. Extremists on either side have been caustic to the process for far too long.

I'd like the best for both groups, equally. They both deserve it.

Absolutely. Let's continue to hope for the best.

The Europeans are insane. The "statehood" for Al Fatah (not to mention Hamas) state is simply another tool for the destruction of the state of Israel.

But that is how things go.... with a rapidly growing islamic population and a media that has thoroughly swallowed the islamist narrative, Europe is increasingly playing the gullible but useful fool for the islamists.

Let's see how quickly these opinions change when the populations get tired of Muslim hordes in their nations and revolt.