The Quartet talks' time period ran out on Thursday, and from what is being reported in the usual Israeli newspapers, the Palestinians put in a proposal in those talks on the table on January 3, and in terms of things to discuss, the Israelis brought in a person who made an oral presentation about security on the last day of the meetings, nothing in writing and no maps or specific responses reported rather vaguely here, but which they object to PA not responding to when they can't be held to its text, or here,, put in at some point a twenty one point list which thusfar has not been leaked where I could find it, and took the position that the time limit was different and they had no obligation to put in anything until the end of three months computed not from October, when PA's first written proposal went in, but three months from the start of the first meeting.
PA has said,reported here, that the proposal Israel made violates international law, and is the old cantonment notion, islands of Palestinian settlement separated from one another, whcih sounds to the diarist like a proposal made in similar terms in Lausanne in 1949 which was a nonstarter then, even before the additional millions of Palestinians who have to fit in those little islands PA is now consulting with various Arab entities about whether to continue and Bibi says he is not optimistic.
And an unidentified spokesman says there can't be a deal because of the question of Right of Return anyway, all those refugees.
And, oh yes, PA is being a confidence buster because a mufti in Jerusalem not under their control said something about killing Jews which appears in a hadith and a TV show had the mother of the two convicted in the Itamar slayings in which mom called her son a hero and martyr. Rah.
So where is this all going? Other than to the carryover of timing of all things until after Netanyahu's political party elections in the next few days, with nothing that any voter there can criticize him for. Or until still more settlements are built?
Theoretically, one of the issues which were to be discussed was Security. The other was borders, but that one went nowhere and Israel has said nothing at all thusfar directly as to borders and that it won't because what they need in borders depends on what they want on security.
Security for Israel seems to be the matter at issue, with Bibi's latest today being that Israel can be more flexible on borders if if PA is more flexible on security. So what kind of security are we talking about and what does Israel have the legitimate right to ask of what is supposed to be the independent country next door as to its own security, and what about the country next door's security?
And what is 'security'? Is it anything you can do to deal with any possible 'existential threat', assuming we understand what an existential threat might be to Israel? Or is it or should it be limited to existential threats from the Palestinian state and its residents to Israel, something limited to what the Palestinian state can do something about and of which it would be the cause?
Should PA be asked to give up its Jordan River border, for example, because some third party might come over it, that third party not being Palestine at all? Or should it be asked to give that up because of something say the Iranians might do because it would give Israel a few miles more of distance and warning if the iDF were there?
Or should it disarm itself while leaving Israel to continue to shoot missiles at it because Israel says it saw a terrorist, nothwithstanding what it hit was a man and his child in a car? Peace being a two way street?
Should IDF be allowed to keep all the sites from which it has evicted Palestinians in WB because of 'military reasons,' not otherwise identified, something which has been used to create nonmilitary settlements in a way which seems to avoid international laws about moving civilians?
Is an existential threat limited to military matters, or does a threat from which Israel needs security that it can ask for from PA include, say, demographic matters, give up on the refugees, or even be asked to take Israeli Arabs whose citizenship in Israel would be cancelled, because if Israel let any of them in or lets the existing citizens not Jewish stay, their demographics will be toast in thirty years and Jews in Israel will not be a safe majority in Israel because of divergent birthrates, deducted for haridi, of course.
Or financial matters, since Israel's budget has issues, and refugees who don't get to return home to their original places are required to be compensated? Is it a security issue if Israel can't get that money from us and won't pay it itself, or can't,and therefore something which has to be let go. Will PA have to formally relinquish all land claims of refugees so as to clear title for Israelis, lest some hostile titleholder come in with hostile intent?.
Is the lion's share of the available water a 'security' issue which requires priority for Israel, given the recently reported situation that sixty percent or more of Tel Aviv wells only have industrially contaminated water, from local industry?
That twenty one item list is really bothering me. If all or most of it is tied in some manner to 'security' which it probably is. As Jerusalem will probably be.
And are settlers part of security? Whose? One of the current problems is that with respect to settlers, Israel has almost always reserved the right to itself to change its mind and laws after the creation of settler facts on the ground, legalizing settlements created in initially improper places, or otherwise changing the rules after the fact. As it stands, there is a bill coming ot the Knesset which is proposed to change the rules for closing illegal settlements unless a court ruling said XYZ first, not something now required, and another designating illegal settlements as critical places when those settlements are beyond the green line and save for such desigation, apparently, are those as to which Israel has promised not to give any more government subsidies and another specifically dealing with saving Migron despite a high court order requiring its destruction. Bibi has said that the plan will have to provide that most Israelis will stay with Israel, and all of the settlers are Israeli citizens with domestic citizenship rights, and most Palestinians will go to the PA, to live in PA territory. Does this mean that IDF stays in WB to 'protect the settlers' in the way it has done so heretofore? That is, after all, providing "Security" for Israelis.
What do you think?
This diary is posted under my usual housekeeping rules. You know what they are.