US faces tough choices in Palestine

The Palestinian Unity government has been sworn in.  Two of our regional allies, Egypt and Saudi Arabia are urging the United States to recognize the new government.  Norway and Ireland have already recognized the new government and are urging for a lifting of the economic sanctions against the Palestinian Authority.  Great Britain, France and Germany have also signalled intentions to recognize the new government and ease the economic sanctions.  

The Arab League meets on March 28, and is expected to reaffirm endorsement of the 2002 Saudi Peace Plan.  Israel has indicated that they will not recognize the new government and will only deal with Abbas.  The US has indicated that they wiill keep sanctions n place, but will be more flexible in dealing with non-HAmas ministers on a case by case basis.

By Adam Entous

JERUSALEM, March 18 (Reuters) - The United States said on Sunday its ban on direct aid to the Palestinian government would remain in place but it broke ranks with Israel by authorising contacts with some members of the new unity administration.

The U.S. consulate in Jerusalem said Washington would continue to shun Hamas ministers in the power-sharing cabinet but permit contacts with non-Hamas members on a case-by-case basis depending on developments.

The decision to allow some contacts marked a shift in U.S. policy and a break with Israel, which has vowed to boycott the new government in its entirety, including non-Hamas ministers.

Earlier on Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert ruled out resuming talks on Palestinian statehood with President Mahmoud Abbas and urged the international community to shun the government established on Saturday.

Olmert's cabinet approved his policy, officials said.

Reuters
So, the US is caught between allies with competing demands and desires.  Now, hypothetically, if you were advising a Democratic Presidential Candidate, what position do you think is best?

•  I wonder if Israel is so afraid

  that Palestine will build a flourishing Country, that it is easier to hold these people down rather than give them thier freedom.

  by Owllwoman on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 05:24:15 AM PDT

  •  Whatever it is...

    ...that makes Israel bothered by this government, I can feel quite confident that it isn't that.

    It is plausible that Israel does not want this government recognized because it would make it harder to annex parts of the West Bank.  It is plausible that Israel does not want this because it wants to punish all Palestinians for voting for their enemies.  It is plausible that Israel does not want this because they fear that Hamas will use these funds to buy weapons to kill Israelis.  It is plausible that Israel does not want there to ever be a Palestinian State because they feel that all the ancient nation of Judea belongs to them.  It is plausible that Israel fears that any Palestinian state might be their enemy and constantly at war with them.

    It is simply not plausible that Israel is opposed to this government or to a Palestinian state because they are afraid that it will flourish.  They have a tremendous fear that other people will be happy?  That other places will be pretty?  Easier to hold them down than give them their freedom?  Uh, how does that work?  What, having people be free is difficult, and Israel simply doesn't want to exert the effort?

    We get it; Israel are big meanies and that's why they won't give the Palestinians money or encourage the US to do so.  Fine.  I think it is a stupid and inhumane policy enough that I've written multiple diaries against it.  But that attack is simply too logic and common sense impaired to just let sit there with someone's recommendation.

    by Jay Elias on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 05:42:03 AM PDT

    •  Not what the Owlperson said

      Not a "pursuit of happiness" argument

      unless you are arguing that Israel actually supports the development of a strong, regional neighbor that has a history of agression to ISrael?.  

      by Eiron on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 05:47:26 AM PDT

      •  "Flourishing country"

        Were what was said.  That's not a plausible fear.  Neither is it plausible that it is "easier" to keep Palestinians oppressed than to keep them free.

        It is plausible that Israel is opposed to a strong Palestine for many reasons, but not simply because it will flourish.  It may serve Israel's goals, be they practical or nefarious,  to keep Palestinians oppressed but it is not easier than letting them be free.

        You are saying that you read it as if it says, Israel worries that a strong Palestinian nation would attack it, or hurt it somehow.  That is not what it says.  That would make sense, but that is not what it says.

        by Jay Elias on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 05:51:32 AM PDT

        •  well

          The discussion should be about US foreign policy, not Israel's.  What is in our best interests?  

          by Eiron on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 06:11:13 AM PDT

          •  I don't know....

            ....how I can make my position on this matter any clearer.  The United States should do everything it can to convince Israel to release all funds to the Palestinian government, and to ask all other nations to do so.  If they cannot persuade Israel, they should still release all American funds to the Palestinian government.  It is better for the US if Israel does this first, but it still benefits the US to do so regardless.  And of course, it is also the right thing to do.

            by Jay Elias on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 06:20:37 AM PDT

            •  Israel's justifiable concern

              is that any funds flowing to the PA is at risk of transfer to militant, violent factions within the PA.  The only way to manage that risk is to enter into full blown final status talks.

              Anyway, the status quo is untenable.  

              by Eiron on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 06:40:25 AM PDT

              •  Israel

                I really don't think Israel is sustainable anymore. What they are doing is way beyond reasonable. Israel behavior is a guarantee global trade embargo soon.

                It'll be pretty much a US protectorate soon. It can't exist without US aid and weapons.

                by fugue on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 06:59:36 AM PDT

              •  An alternative . . .

                channeling humanitarian aid through nongovernmental organizations.

                Israel, of course, is hardly blameless or helpless. Without regard to the nature of the current Palestinian government, Israel can and should, in no particular order:

                • remove all settlements that are illegal under domestic Israeli law;

                • freeze the expansion of the remaining settlements;

                • reaffirm the Barak government's acceptance of the Clinton Peace Paramters; and

                • either transfer taxes it has collected on behalf of the PA to the PA or to, e.g., the EU for delivery to nongovernmental organizations providing humanitarian aid to Palestinians.

                by another American on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 07:37:36 AM PDT

                •  It should also compensate the victims

                  of its ethnic cleansing campaign in 1948.

                  by litho on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 08:33:44 AM PDT

                  •  Attention to refugees is a necessary part

                    of any end-of-conflict peace settlement. But be careful what you wish for. Israel can present a bill for the loss of about 1% of its population during its War of Liberation, a war of self-defense against Palestinian and other Arab aggression. Jews from Arab countries can present a bill for their human and material losses.

                    "Ethnic cleansing" is also an anachronism, unless you want to call, for example, the removal of Germans after World War II from the Sudetenland and (what became) western Poland instances of ethnic cleansing, in which case the phrase may lose its inherently pejorative nature. The 1947-1949 conflict began as a civil war launched by one community, the Arabs of Mandatory Palestine, against another community, the Jews of Mandatory Palestine. One need to try to justify every act of the Jewish and Israeli forces -- I certainly do not -- to object to the simplistic labeling and attempt thereby to delegitimize the State of Israel.

                    by another American on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 10:23:54 AM PDT

            •  not possible

              Because Israel's policy is to starve the Palestinian and make it implode.

              For eg. They still hold 40+ elected Hamas representative, they said they are terrorists. But it's really to make the elected body non functional.

              Israel also does not permit Palestinian to travel between their territory. (this is the reason why Israel insist on Palestinian bantustan with Israel road criss-crossing the area)

              on top of Walls, of course.

              by fugue on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 06:57:49 AM PDT

  •  True

    Both the US and Israel seem to be pursuing a non-policy of a grinding status quo, accepting both the humanitarian mess in the territories, and the continuing low level of violence within Israel's borders.  What is the endstate of this policy?

    by Eiron on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 05:42:56 AM PDT

    •  All of the above sound reasonable to me.

      What is unreasonable is for the status quo to continue. It is idiotic.

      by Jackaloon on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 07:19:37 AM PDT

    •  acceptance of 'apartheid Israel' as 'normal'

      by most of the Israeli populace.

      Movement toward peace/justice will only happen with outside pressure. How soon that happens is uncertain. I'd guess the status quo non-policy(backed to the hilt by both the Democrats and Republicans) has about ten years left. My guess is the U.S. President elected in 2016 will try to move things forward.

      by planyourday on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 10:30:25 AM PDT

  •  No doubt this fear prompted the withdrawal from

    the Gaza Strip and a few settlements in the northern West Bank less than two years ago.

    The response from the Gaza Strip surely encouraged Israelis to believe that withdrawal from the West Bank would be just as productive.

    Look, public opinion polls have consistently shown very substantial Israeli support for a two-state solution in the context of an end-of-conflict peace settlement.

    Is the Israeli settlements policy right? No. Indeed, IMHO, it is a folly even (especially?) from the viewpoint of Israel's own best interests.

    Is the Israeli settlements policy an obstacle to peace? Yes, because it embitters Palestinians and makes it more difficult for them to believe in the plausibility of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

    Is the Israeli settlements policy the only or most important obstacle to peace? No. The Palestinians most likely could have had a viable state at the end of the Clinton administration, if only they had been willing to accept as a basis for negotiation the Clinton Peace Parameters.

    See generally, The Myth of the "Myth of the Generous Offer".

    by another American on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 05:44:37 AM PDT

    •  Again

      Historical context is important, but that's another discussion.  Which way forward?  What would be the best Dem Foreign Policy position?  Recognize the PA unity government and lift sanctions, or not?

      by Eiron on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 05:50:38 AM PDT

•  Beginning of big conflict

  Basically we arrive at a point where we hold such schizophrenic foreign policy, it can't hold anymore.

  • We say we are for democracy. But at the same time we support a very cruel regime, starting two very damaging wars in the region, and basically pissed everybody off in there. We are not credible anymore.
  • We push neocon's Israel policy that isolate us from the world, the entire arab allies included. We basically force our arab allies to choose position. ANd it start to break apart. We gonna stand all alone with Israel in the middle east soon.

  by fugue on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 05:27:47 AM PDT

•  Which way forward?

  True, our skillful diplmatic team has put us in a box-which way out?  Rice was mumbling something about "horizons" while the rest of the international community is coalescing around the Saudi Peace Plan.  

  by Eiron on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 05:38:17 AM PDT

  •  That's easy . . .

    See, for example, http://www.dailykos.com/....

    The obstacle here at home is the need for a proactive president. I hope we elect one.
    
    

    Here is the text of The People's Voice statement as shergald reproduced it. If you want to check it against the original, here's the link. (Perhaps because Ami Ayalon entered politics, The People's Voice website is no longer functioning. Various parts of it can be found, however, through the Wayback Machine.)

    shergald's presentation of The People's Voice I-P peace program:

      1.  Two states for two peoples: Both sides will declare that Palestine is the only state of the Palestinian people and Israel is the only state of the Jewish people.

      2. Borders: Permanent borders between the two states will be agreed upon on the basis of the June 4, 1967 lines, UN resolutions, and the Arab peace initiative (known as the Saudi initiative).

    Border modifications will be based on an equitable and agreed-upon territorial exchange (1:1) in accordance with the vital needs of both sides, including security, territorial contiguity, and demographic considerations.

    The Palestinian State will have a connection between its two geographic areas, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

    After establishment of the agreed borders, no settlers will remain in the Palestinian State.

      3. Jerusalem: Jerusalem will be an open city, the capital of two states. Freedom of religion and full access to holy sites will be guaranteed to all.

    Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem will come under Palestinian sovereignty, Jewish neighborhoods under Israeli sovereignty.

    Neither side will exercise sovereignty over the holy places. The State of Palestine will be designated Guardian of al-Haram al-Sharif for the benefit of Muslims. Israel will be the Guardian of the Western Wall for the benefit of the Jewish people. The status quo on Christian holy site will be maintained. No excavation will take place in or underneath the holy sites without mutual consent.

      4. Right of return: Recognizing the suffering and the plight of the Palestinian refugees, the international community, Israel, and the Palestinian State will initiate and contribute to an international fund to compensate them.

    Palestinian refugees will return only to the State of Palestine; Jews will return only to the State of Israel.

    The international community will offer to compensate toward bettering the lot of those refugees willing to remain in their present country of residence, or who wish to immigrate to third-party countries.

      5. The Palestinian State will be demilitarized and the international community will guarantee its security and independence.

      6. End of conflict: Upon the full implementation of these principles, all claims on both sides and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will end.

    by another American on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 05:52:20 AM PDT

    •  That seems to be

      the contours of the emerging international consensus.

      by Eiron on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 06:08:37 AM PDT

      •  It was on offer in late

        2000. Please see The Myth of the "Myth of the Generous Offer".

        by another American on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 06:14:38 AM PDT

        •  And it is coming back.

          with both the US and Israel in weaker bargaining position.  

          It was late in the waning days of the Clinton administration, and both Israel and the PA could get a better deal from the incoming administration.

          Who was right?

          Again, that's historical.  We are here today.  What should our policy be?  Maintain sanctions, or not?

          by Eiron on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 06:18:39 AM PDT

          •  In what respects do you think that the

            Palestinians' have improved their position since Arafat rejected the Clinton Peace Paramters?

            by another American on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 06:21:40 AM PDT

            •  Well, first of all

              It isn't so much that the Palestinians have actively improved their position, but comparing the state of the world in 2000 and 2007, The PA position is improved relative to the weakness of US and Israel in terms of international influence.  

              by Eiron on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 06:35:03 AM PDT

              •  I hate to break it to you

                There is no such thing as peace possibility between Israel and Palestine. It'll be total war in the region before people wants to talk peace.

                by fugue on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 07:01:41 AM PDT

                •  Well, you don't have to be a fan of Hamas

                  to recognize that economic sancitons and the lack of diplomatic relations hasn't moved I/P relations in the direction of peaceful coexitience.

                  If there were a significant change of policy, perhaps -- just perhaps -- there would be a different result.  One thing we know for sure, the status quo policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians will not produce peace.

                  Time for a change.  Not because it will necessarily work, and not out of any sense of compassion for terrorists, but because it might possibly produce a better result than what exists today.

                  by livosh1 on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 07:18:50 AM PDT

                  •  Sustaining Israel behavior

                    Well for one, Israel can sustain their occupation. That actually cost a lot of money beyond what their economy can support.

                    (ie. we are paying Israel, by supplying military aid, weapons, etc)

                    Had it not for all that, Israel wouldn't be able to sustain what they are doing now economically.  Hence AIPAC, neocons, likuds/kadima clowns flooding washington.

                    but hey. war is cheap. why not. Somebody has to buy all those weapons right?

                    by fugue on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 07:37:28 AM PDT

                    •  Silly comment n/t

                      by livosh1 on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 08:01:02 AM PDT

    •  That is one of the better ones

      I'e seen.  A key thing is the right of return issues:

      Palestinian refugees will return only to the State of Palestine; Jews will return only to the State of Israel.

      That solves a deal breaker for Israel.  Now we just need people of good will to work with this as a goal.  That may be difficult.

      by TomP on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 06:16:37 AM PDT

  •  Ah...the same Rice who was campaigning

    against a ceasefire last summer when dozens of civilians were dying per day in Lebanon.

    by Diaries on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 05:53:04 AM PDT

•  'Israel Must Seize the Moment,' February 9, 2007

  I would like to offer this unpublished op-ed piece that a friend of mine wrote over one month ago, "Israel Must Seize the Moment":

  Israel Must Seize the Moment

  While the disastrous US invasion of Iraq grinds on its bloody apocalyptic course, the signing of the Mecca accords between conflicting Palestinian groups Fatah and Hamas – for however long they last – indicates a new phase in Middle East politics, one dominated by three central facts:

  The Sunni Arab elites in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf region have made clear their first priority is no longer – if indeed it ever was – the Israel / Palestine mess, but, the quantum leap in Iranian and Shiite power resulting from the US-created chaos in Iraq.

  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is quickly and visibly losing support in Iran, as his obsession with Israel – like Bush's in Iraq – creates a whole raft of unnecessary and intractable problems for his country.

  Israel's ideological crisis since the election of Hamas in Palestine – symbolized by both its self / destructive summer war on Lebanon, and open dismay at the 2006 US elections – is now aggravated by ongoing / embarrassing sex and corruption scandals in its political elite.

  But the combination of the a) emerging confrontation between Iran and Sunni Arab Gulf elites – the sentiments of the so-called Arab street, or shebaab, remain a bit unclear – and b) A'jad's growing unpopularity in Iran offers Israel a chance to initiate a much-needed change in the whole direction of Middle East politics – one American Jews should not simply support but actively encourage.

  The key is to recognize that Israel's sterile and counter-productive policy of aping all the worst tendencies of the Bush regime has not just failed, but made its situation in the region – and world – worse than any time since its catastrophic invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

  Instead, Israel should offer to begin immediate negotiations with the newly-unified Palestinian government, arguing – as it should have a year ago – that while it rejects the violent Islamism of Hamas, it accepts the legitimacy of both the Palestinians' democratic election process and the Palestinian Authority, which now includes Fatah.

  As part of this, Israel should release any and all funds it owes the Palestinians, and withdraw its objections to similar moves by all international funders and donors.

  The immediate improvement in Palestinian living conditions will bring a huge boost in the popularity and legitimacy of Fatah, making it possible for them to insist to Hamas that there is no choice but to embrace a political strategy and recognize Israel as a living reality – insisting on "as a Jewish state" is, at this point, gilding the lily.

  This message can then be reinforced by both rhetoric and, significantly, money from the Sunni Arab Saudi and Gulf elites, who will correctly see it as a way to deprive Iran – Syria is a much different situation – of its most powerful wedge issue into the Arab world, thereby blunting the Shiite surge they so fear.

  At the same time, rather than Bush-like hysterics about Iran's nuclear initiative – which, as with Saddam's insane 1990 invasion of Kuwait, no one else in the world wants – Israel should drop its evident and unseemly desire to bomb Iran a la Lebanon, and let the UN / EU et. al. take the lead.

  Instead, it should offer to meet with any Iranians who are tired of A'jad's own hysterics and want to begin a better relationship with all the countries in the region, including Israel.

  Even in the likely event no one takes up that offer at this time, such a move will heighten domestic dissatisfaction with A'jad – especially in the context of real movement on the Palestinian question, and Israel's developing entente with Sunni Arab Gulf elites, which will only highlight the diplomatic and political isolation A'jad's policies are bringing Iran.

  This is also a big opportunity for American Jews, who have let concern for Israel's existence turn into heedless endorsement of any and every action by any and every Israeli government, no matter how evidently problematic from any relevant perspective – Israeli / Jewish / American / or simply human.

  Americans, finally, should have no illusions: such an initiative will make very little difference, if any, in the disaster that is Iraq.

  But it will make a big difference in the credibility of political Islam, especially its jihadi elements, and that is something of benefit to the entire world, even as – especially as – Iraq continues its frightening and, seemingly, unstoppable melt-down.

  by John Driscoll on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 05:51:18 AM PDT

•  The only issue here

  is whether or not the Palestinians will ever be allowed to choose their own government. Democracy can be ugly -- remember 2004 if you want an even better example of people willfully voting for a corrupt, violent and destructive government -- but it's always less ugly than the alternative.

  Let's hope that "Great Britain, France and Germany" follow through on their "intentions to recognize the new government and ease the economic sanctions." Israel and the U.S. need to learn that they can no longer get away with blocking a two-state solution at every turn.

  by matt n nyc on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 05:53:16 AM PDT

  •  The Palestinians did choose their own government.

    And they must live with it at least until the next election.

    But outsiders are no more obligated to support that government than they are to support any other government.

    As for recognizing the Hamas-Fatah unity government, my understanding is that some countries in the EU have indicated that they will talk to non-Hamas members. This positive step nevertheless, and properly, falls far short of full recognition.

    by another American on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 06:13:01 AM PDT

    •  From Ha'aretz

      Earlier Saturday, Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere said his country would re-establish political and economic relations with the new Palestinian government

      ,

      by Eiron on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 06:22:14 AM PDT

      •  matt's comment specified "Great Britain,

        France and Germany." I mentioned the EU.

        Norway is not a member of the EU.

        by another American on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 07:41:15 AM PDT

        •  EU position

          "We're not going to work with this government," said Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's spokeswoman Miri Eisin.  

          The European Union welcomed the establishment of a Palestinian national unity government on Saturday but said a resumption of direct aid would depend on an assessment of the new cabinet's platform and actions.

          "The Presidency of the EU welcomes the formation of a Palestinian Government of National Unity pursuant to the agreement reached in Mecca on 8 February 2007, which lays the foundation for Palestinian reconciliation," a statement issued by EU president Germany said.

          "The Presidency of the EU recalls the readiness of the EU to work with and to resume its assistance to a legitimate Palestinian government adopting a platform reflecting the Quartet principles. The EU will carefully assess the platform and actions of the new government and its ministers," it said.

          Ireland.com

          by Eiron on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 08:12:10 AM PDT

    •  True

      the EU is evaluating the platform, as is the UN.  My assesment is that the UN will move to lift the sanctions.  Question is, does the US still have enough "juice" to keep EU in line?  Will we try?  Should we?

      by Eiron on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 06:28:59 AM PDT

      •  Unfortunately yes

        The EU has done exactly nothing but talk sanctimoniously for six years now, and that's as true of Darfur as it is of Palestine. They can't even get it together to protest the U.S. abducting and torturing their own citizens!

        For better or worse, the responsibility for making the world a better, safer, more peaceful place remains right here, in the declining U.S. of A. It's a small hope but the only way things are going to be better in Israel/Palestine in 2010 is if someone who actually believes in fundamental human rights is elected president in 2008.

        by matt n nyc on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 06:48:50 AM PDT

        •  The folks who are blocking Darfur

          peace force (the Arab League) are the same ones who want Isrel to negotiate with Hamas.

          by sandbox on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 07:10:45 AM PDT

          •  It is afterall with your enemy that you

            negotiate peace. Who else? Unless you aren't interested in negotiations, a strong possibility, then you sit down with the representatives of the Palestinians. And we know who that is. So now the US does not support democracies. Our hypocracy is out there along with our dirty underwear.

            by Jackaloon on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 07:28:42 AM PDT

    •  "Live with it"

      As in children suffering from malnutrition at rates of close to 50%? Or 10,000 Palestinians languishing uncharged in prison, including at least 350 children?

      Of course you'll say that the Palestinians are solely responsible for their own suffering. If they would just docilely accept Israeli hegemony and, say, do us all a big favor and just move to ... well, I guess there isn't any place for them to move ... but still, if they would just hand over the rest of their lands, villages and houses to the Settlers and stop saying such horrible things about Israel, then and only then should we consider feeding them and allowing them a few basic human rights.

      By far the most evil development in this conflict -- and we see it on both sides -- is the belief that conflict can only be resolved by violence and brutal repression. When are we going to learn that the ends almost never justify the means?

      by matt n nyc on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 06:40:38 AM PDT

•  Um, from the report

  While the coalition's platform is more moderate than that of the previous Hamas-led government, it fell short of international demands to renounce violence, recognize Israel and accept past peace deals.

  http://news.yahoo.com/...

  It takes two to make peace.  That includes the Palestinians as well as Israel (in a non-double standard world).

  by jhritz on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 05:55:23 AM PDT

  •  Ummm, the PA signalled a shift.

    that's called diplomatic negotiations.

    Israel seeks to maintain the status quo.

    Perhaps you misunderstood the question.  Do you think the US should continue the sanctions?

    The new Palestinian alliance appears to implicitly recognize Israel by calling for a Palestinian state on lands the Israelis captured in 1967, in contrast with Hamas' past calls to eliminate Israel altogether.

    It also pledges to "respect" previous agreements with Israel and authorizes Abbas to conduct future peace talks. Any future deal would be submitted to a national referendum, suggesting Hamas would not hold veto power.

    Abbas focused on conciliatory language, asserting that the Palestinian people "reject violence in all its forms" and seek a comprehensive "peace of freedom and equality" that would be based on negotiations.

    by Eiron on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 06:02:58 AM PDT

    •  I understood the question, but it is

      missing a key point.  The new platform does not renounce violence.  It does not recognize Israel.  It does not allow for prior peace plans.

      So, what's so different about it?

      I do think there should be negotiations.  I think diplomacy is good.

      I think both sides are responsible for peace.

      I don't think either Israel or the US will recognize a platform that refuses to recognize Israel, since the whole idea is to get to a two-state solution.

      That doesn't preclude talks.

      It just says, you want recognition?

      Recognize Israel, renounce terror, be willing to be a partner for peace.

      (I'd include rewriting the Hamas Charter, since is codifies the Protocols and calls for killing Jews, but that's just me...).

      Again, it doesn't preclude talks, but they will need to come to the table with more than this platform to get anything in return.  Fact of negotiation.  Gotta be willing to bargain -- on both sides (again, in the world of non-double standards).

      by jhritz on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 06:11:16 AM PDT

      •  What if he international community

        judges that the Unity Government platform sufficiently approximates previously articulated  international standards, even if Israel doesn't think so?

        by Eiron on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 06:14:50 AM PDT

        •  Oh, because there is

          so much love for Israel in the Int'l community?

          That doesn't change whether the Palestinians are coming to the table as true partners for peace.

          In a non-double standard world, it is up to both parties to negotiate in good faith for peace.

          Period.

          by jhritz on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 06:21:44 AM PDT

          •  out of curiosity

            How would you explain the origins of the current sentiment of the international community regarding Israel?

            How would you assess the reliability of Israel as a negotiating partner, specifically her record of adherence to international agreements and norms of behaviour?

            by Eiron on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 07:18:27 AM PDT

            •  I think alot of the current anti-Israel

              sentiment in Europe is due to the large (and increasing) number of Muslims living in Europe.  They have become a restive minority of which EU counties are concerned about.  So the EU foreign policy reflects that.  

              by sandbox on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 07:37:29 AM PDT

              •  I see it in the students

                and on the campuses and churches, is where I see the anti-occupation sentiment the strongest.  That's where the boycott and divestment movement has the larger voices.

                by Eiron on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 08:15:18 AM PDT

              •  Absolutely

                everyone knows that Europeans have zero to no interest in human rights and international law...

                That's why they've all signed on to the International Criminal Court, the landmine treaty, the antitorture convention...

                by litho on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 08:32:55 AM PDT

            •  You have to look at both

              those who are upset about the I/P conflict, which includes many Muslims whom have moved to Europe, and those who use the I/P conflict to support their anti-Semitism, i.e. LePen and his counterparts.

              Both influence the situation.

              by jhritz on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 11:52:09 AM PDT

        •  Israel doesn't care

          what the "international community" judges, because it is not the "international community" that is suffering Palestinian terror all the time.

          by EnderRS on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 08:18:42 AM PDT

          •  wait

            aren't terrorists a worldwide threat?  in an Objectivist way.

            by Eiron on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 08:24:21 AM PDT

            •  terrorist yes

              not necessarily "Palestinian terrorists"

              by EnderRS on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 09:44:31 AM PDT

•  Failed policy

  Whether you were ever in favor of the sanctions and the hostility to the Palestinian government, it seems one has to admit the policy is a failure.  

  The policy has certainly caused massive suffering through out Palestine.  It has caused government workers (Some of the few Palestinians with steady jobs) to do without salaries and has caused a poor people to get even poorer.  But it's political goals have failed.

  Hamas has not been driven from power.  It has not been broken.  The Palestinian people are poorer, but they are not unable to keep up their fight for freedom, so nothing in the strategic sense has changed.  

  True, Hamas is no longer solely in charge (not that they really were) and is now in a unity to government, but to continue the sanctions now shows that that end was never the goal of the sanctions.  

  So the sanctions have failed.  More pointedly, the sanctions are collapsing before our eyes.  Much aid made it into Palestine even while the sanctions were in full effect.  Since then, Iran is still pledging $250 million to Hamas.  Saudi Arabia is pledging $1 billion to the new government.  Japan is starting food aid and development projects.  As you point out, Egypt, Saudi, Norway, and Ireland are all recognizing the government, with much of the rest of Europe slowly following such as Britian's curious announcement that it will recognize half the government.

  So, whether you were in favor of sanctions in the first place, the real question is, what could they possibly accomplish now?  They can't strangle the Palestinian government or break their will.  They can't place the US at the head of some sort of anti-Hamas coalition.  All the sanctions can accomplish now is to ensure that the US will not be a player in regional politics.  They will ensure that the US is kept at arm's length and does nothing to improve the situation.

  Unless that is actually your goal, there is no longer any reason to support sanctions.

  by weasel on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 08:42:25 AM PDT

•  Well-This administration

  has a penchant for sticking to failed policies-the question is: Should there be a Democratic counter position?  If so, what would that be?  To date, the policies of the Dems and Repubs have been indistinguishable.   Why is that?  

  by Eiron on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 09:21:00 AM PDT

  •  Good Questions

    Thanks for raising them in the diary, Eiron.  Have you checked out our blog?  If you are interested in being a contributor (or just supporting the concept), contact me.

    by Rusty Pipes on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 03:15:23 PM PDT