One of the complicated issues respecting two state peace talks has been getting those talks going. While there has been a good deal of pressure to make those talks ones between the parties, 'direct talks' instead of ones with international components, and whether if any preconditions will be set, there is now a serious question presented as to how ones determines how the parties to participate are determined, and as a result whether the demand that all talks be 'direct' can be maintained.
Various versions of this article have appeared today, 12/25, in all three of the major papers in ME which I read. I have noted for some time that Israel has issues about the composition of the Palestinian side in any direct negotiations. And there have been recent news articles containing comments that Israel does not think Mr. Abbas et all are in fact 'partners for peace' and is seeking other possible partners. If PLO is not acceptable, I have no idea who that other peace partner entitled to negotiate the rights of the Palestinian people may be.
However, what Prime Minister Netanyahu has said today is that Israel will not participate in peace talks with the Palestinians if the reconfiguration of the PLO goes through and Hamas joins it. Incidentally, I wonder whether if we get past the Hama issue, we will then discover they won't negotatiate with anyone with Palestinian Islamaic Jihad, or then with anyone with. . . .
There are several problems with this, of course. The first is that an outsider does not have the right in modern international thinking to determine who and who alone shall be permitted to represent another side in a bilateral negotiation where the parties represent 'states' or 'people', rather than a private company dispute or the like and especially when dealing with a relationship status between the parties that the Israeli government in a 2005 court case about settlements in Gaza, reported per Gorenberg's "The Accidental Empire", with footnotes, called a legally 'belligerent occupation' by Israel, with the various legal consequences that flow from that. The efficacy of a negotiated result in binding a side is affected by the legitimacy of representation of that side. If the representatives lack sufficient legitimacy to bind their people, the negotiation, regardless of the result, becomes a nullity.
In the present case, Netanyahu has now said he WILL NOT negotiate with the PLO, the only recognized rep for the Palestinian people, unless he approves of its membership, and that Hamas membership disqualifies the entire PLO. This is a right he simply does not possess, but the assertion of it may have consequences.
At the same time he claims he is willing to sit down with Abbas, as long as he is alone, that is, without the participation of other parts of the Palestinian polity, at any time and any place. I do not expect others to accept that premise now, because he has now specified that there are circumstances, pending ones, where he WILL NOT SIT.
This is, however, not simply a cute conundrum to insult Palestinians, although it is that, since God forbid they should have the right to select their own representatives. Who might not be agreeable enough.
I think there is a distinct possibility that this may in fact, particularly if continued and if the linkage goes through successfully and the election following it does, that Bibi may have undercut his country's basic position, in that he has announce he will not do direct negotiations with the Palestinians unless they configure their representation in the manner he wants. Under these circumstances, and especially when he otherwise demands negotiations without preconditions, it would not be illegitimate for international and other entities to take the position that the offer of direct negotiations is itself no longer, if ever, made in good faith, and themselves to move to alternatives as "keeping the status quo until we get a peace deal," an historic position, is now no longer an option.
This will be a problem as it does appear that the demand for direct negotiations dates back decades as does the 'status quo until we get a deal'. And his predecessors did have them with Hussein of Jordan and got nowhere.
It is probably not helpful to Bibi and his state that his timing stinks. The critical date of January 26 is approaching, on which both the unification arrangements are planned to go forward, on which the Israeli position on borders and security is due to the Quartet, and on which the suspension of PA attempts for recognition as a state at the UN, pending Quartet compliance, also expires. It also does not help that Bibi and his have now earned the public dislike of at least a majority of the Security Council, and 182 members of the UN General Membership, recently enough for them not to have forgotten the insults he and his Foreign Minister threw.
Speaking of which, Liebermann today is reported to have said flat out that there is no prospect of using the 1967 line whatever, which further limits the options for Israel, and further said he saw no prospects for peace for at least a decade, given the general state of the Middle East.
This seems to leave the prospects of direct negotation on a two state plan dead, and at least a basis for that being charged to Israel and not the Palestinians. It also raises other questions, such as whether part of what Israel has not said it wants but may want anyway, is that Gaza not be included in the deal at all.
I put this out for discussion on the subjects mentioned in the diary, under my usual rules, which include NO OT, no personal insults or attacks (including 'acting like a ...' and comparisons of any kind) no violations of the DKos version of Godwin, no meta on DKos rules, no behaving like a dick, no threadjacking or changing the subject to avoid the prior subject, no making any other person an issue when ignoring the subject of the diary. I will report violators, noting that at least some of the comments in the threads of a prior diary where this was tried by someone else who was reported, were to be grateful for my policing the static so the signal could get through.The signal is the subject of the diary, and all commenters need to look at and consider that, and discuss it courteously with others if they want to do it here. This is not the only set of such rules in IP so it is not a one sided matter.
I also note that if you want to discuss Hamas' words as a barrier, that may not be constructive since this diary is about acts, and the two sides have highly divergent notions of how to use words which are cultural and political in different political regimes, and may not reflect their actual intentions, and the Israeli side also has a lot of racy language, starting with the fairly bland wanting a dowry but not the bride who brings it, which is just as bad, but which some here ignore as a barrier to negotiations while picking at that from another source on the other side. If you want to ignore the roaring stuff from right wing extreme nationalist Israelis, you must ignore it on both sides. If you want to claim religious excessive zealotry on one side, you must acknowledge it on the other, Rabbi Kook and Gush Emunim and the like.
I also note that Hamas is in the position of having in fact been elected to lead Gaza, and has been doing so, a series of acts which have consequences, which in my understanding gives them a position in a negotiation which includes independence for the Gazan portion of the palestinians.
Happy chatting.
