Have the Talks Failed?

Sometimes, when allowed to, talks between two sides reach a point where no further compromise is possible. Both sides feel they have given enough or one side has done the far greater amount of giving while the other side has refused to make even the slightest of concessions. The talks have been ongoing with an on again off again drumbeat which marked the passage of time, not agreements. Even pressure put upon the talks with expressions of the grave and vital importance made clear. Grand schemes have been proposed and failed to force a change in either side. President Obama has made demands that were designed to facilitate progress, yet there was still no progress. Everybody around the world has had their two cents worth of advice and the talks have stalled again and again. Grand bargains have been offered and have caused a crack of light to appear signaling perhaps a miracle only to return to moribund silence between the two sides. The United Nations has pleaded and shown deep concern even to the point of offering to assist in any way they might be invited, but that too fell on deaf ears. What is a world to do when one side of a situation that screams out for justice and compromise refuses compromises and chooses to scream about the injustices that have been done to them. And all that has befell the intransigent side the other claims they have brought upon themselves by taking the path of refusal and obstinacy.

But with the New Year there are signs that President Obama will bring changes and by his will alone force movement in the talks towards a mutually beneficial resolution. His promises sound vaguely familiar; perhaps we have heard these promises before. Vice President Biden makes a plea restating an old offer expressing the hope that this is the time that perchance this offer should be accepted. Then, with only a moment’s wait, a mere few days, and the obstinate side remains obstinate, refusing the offer with a steely cold denial. There is a deep exhalation as many had held their breathe anticipating a change, but alas there will be no movement. There is still hope that there can be a new round of talks made possible if only there is the perseverance to bring it to fruition. We wait often believing we caught sight of the glimmer of the light of hope but then again it may have just been flashes in our own eyes and nothing of the tangible sort. Can there be progress? Should we still hold out hope? What if the worst of the worst should come and the talks prove to be futile and have been merely a long exercise in futility? Will we be able to face the consequences and do what we know must be done? If we refuse to admit the failure, then what will become of us? Will the impasse lead to war as had been predicted by some who told us long ago that our faith in talks was fruitless? Will there be no other way out of the predicament which we now find ourselves having to admit? It is too harsh a reality. The talks must be reopened and another chance be given for progress, compromise, a last hope. We have to allow the time for talks to work, and they will work, they must work. But what if they don’t?

President Obama has told us that the talks would lead to peace and security and put an end to any difficulties, any threats, any dangers. The President assured us in dulcet tones that he could make the talks work if only they would listen to his generous offers and reasonable requests. Kindness, after all, always calms and defeats harsh rhetoric, heals wounds and works wonders, after all, did not his promises and words win him election? All we had to do is allow his words to work their spell. But now his words have the hint of panic and defeat and have lost some of their melodic and hypnotic overtones. His sweet overtures have slowly changed taking on a rasp of harshness and now have the sharp retort-filled tones of rapid gunfire.

There is to be yet another round of talks, or so we have been led to believe. Can they really make any difference at this late date? Why should we continue to hold out hope as all has certainly proven hopeless? The last refusal of a generous offer of direct talks had the dead tones of finality. The discussions with the arm of the United Nations on their dual track was refused and abruptly cut off just a short while ago. Their track seems to have come to their end. They have reached the gorge and there does not appear to be a bridge. Are our tracks equally coming to that gorge that has no bridge? It will be a harsh pill to swallow if the warnings from Israel prove true. What do we do now that there is no path forward through discourse and all the talking has been revealed to be a ruse used to stall for time? What are we to do? Yes, sure we will go ahead with the talks we have managed to agree we will hold, but if they fail once again, then what?

And for the really big question, what is it that President Obama will be discussing on his trip to Israel next month? We have been told that President Obama will not be making any plans to force a reopening of the equally moribund talks between Israel and the Palestinians and they plan other discussion. Could it be that President Obama will be talking with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to advise him of what will come should the last gasp talks with Iran continue to fail? With the growing reluctance and intransigence by Iran and the obvious failure of the P5+1 talks to produce even the smallest concession which could be verified, what can we expect other than a waste of breathe and time with another round of talks. It really does seem obvious that we have been talking just to hear ourselves talk. Perhaps we must admit to ourselves that we have been talking because the alternative is too frightening to even think about. We have been so determined to avoid what has been the inevitability of the rising menace named Iran that we have talked ourselves almost to death. While we aimed to avoid war Iran has aimed for the ultimate weapon of war and our determination of avoidance has brought them dangerously close to their goal, maybe even they have attained what they desired. What will we tell our children if we find that Iran has truly reached the goal and now already possesses a small cache of nuclear devices? How will we excuse our timidity which enabled the rising bully to so equip itself? Have we talked ourselves to the brink of doom or beyond, that is the question that needs an immediate answer. And what are we going to do even if the answer is affirmative? Will we then continue to talk only this time the talk will be about how much we surrender before it becomes too much. What if we talked ourselves into that oblivion? As Shakespeare wrote, “Methinks the Lady doth protest too much.” Have we so protested too much and now are left with too little leverage to gain advantage? Did we whittle away any advantage we originally had? That would indeed be a sad state of affairs. Very sad.

Beyond the Cusp

Two Reasons Tzipi Livni Bad for Israel, Obama and Abbas

Tzipi Livni took a double-barrelled shot at Prime Minister Netanyahu which was far more telling about her than it was damning about him. She listed her two main reasons which would make her a superior Prime Minister over Benyamin Netanyahu. Her first reason was because she would not cause any disagreements or friction between her administration with United States President Barack Obama which she claimed is a preeminent requirement for any successful Israeli Prime Minister. Tzipi Livni’s second reason was that Prime Minister Netanyahu had been far too demanding and rigid when it came to taking the steps necessary to renew the negotiations with Mahmoud Abbas. She was adamant that she would be able to talk to Mahmoud Abbas and find a route that would satisfy him sufficiently and take any other actions and requirements necessitated for the resumption of negotiations to establish a lasting peace with the Palestinians. What was most distressing is that Tzipi Livni was actually being honest and representing exactly what she believes would be the most beneficial track for Israel going forward. Perhaps this is the most frightening facts about what a Tzipi Livni Prime Ministership would actually entail, Israel being reduced to a secondary importance where the whims of the United States President and the dictates of Palestinian Authority President and master terrorist Mahmoud Abbas. Is it possible that any Israeli individual exists, let alone a politician vying to be Prime Minister, who has not forgotten that Mahmoud Abbas was the man who assisted in planning and financing the Munich Olympics Black September slaughter of the Israeli Olympic team? Is there any reason for any Israeli to ever accommodate or even consider giving any due to this horrid little man who committed such acts of terror against Jews and Israelis simply because they were Jews and Israelis as has Mahmoud Abbas?

Granted I would fear for Israel under the leadership of Tzipi Livni or anybody else who would believe that it would serve Israel to negotiate with Mahmoud Abbas on his terms or by taking merely equal moral standing with a person with his history. Any party leader who claims that it would serve Israeli purposes to acquiesce to any, let alone all, of the precondition demands of Mahmoud Abbas would be even more frightening if they became the Israeli Prime Minister. I even would hold that Prime Minister Netanyahu has not been anywhere near strong enough in his refusal to bend before Mahmoud Abbas and his demands and preconditions. I would be far more comfortable with an Israeli Prime Minister who would denounce Mahmoud Abbas and all that he stands for, states or represents by reminding the world exactly who this monster is and his history of hatred for Jews and the existence of Israel. I would desire to have them hold Mahmoud Abbas up in truth for the world to judge, his doctoral thesis based on Holocaust denial; his being one of the cofounders with Yasser Arafat of the PLO in 1964, three full years before the 1967 Six Day War which established an Israel holding Judea and Samaria among the rest of the lands gained in a defensive war; the facts of the parts he played in the Munich Olympics massacre; his assistance in the March 1, 1973 assassination of the United States Ambassador to the Sudan Cleo Allen Noel, Jr. and Chargé d’Affaires in the United States Embassy to Sudan George Curtis Moore; and all the rest of the horrific history surrounding Mahmoud Abbas which has been wiped away and replaced with the lie that he is a man of peace and a peace partner if only the Israelis would allow him to realize his life’s work. Tzipi Livni would help Mahmoud Abbas complete his life’s work which he himself has stated in Arabic repeatedly, it is the elimination of the State of Israel in stages or by any means necessary.

Tzipi Livni also would take whatever steps would be required to comply with the wishes of President of the United States Barack Obama. She has claimed that working in close coordination with the President of the United States is one of the primary responsibilities of an Israeli Prime Minister. One needs to remember that there are some things which are not properly to be attributed to arch terrorist Mahmoud Abbas despite what the media would like all to believe. We have been told that having Israel accept the 1967 lines, actually the 1949 Armistice Lines, as the basis for the border between Israel and the Palestinian State of Palestine is the idea and precondition originating from Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinians. It has also been reported that the initiation of another building freeze like the one the Israeli government granted to Mahmoud Abbas when he had previously demanded such a freeze. Neither of these concepts were the brainchild of Mahmoud Abbas. Both of these were concepts brought into the negotiations originally by the President of the United States Barack Obama during his first attempts to facilitate a resolution between the Palestinians and Israelis. It was the idea that if Israel would take these unprecedented steps that the Palestinian would fall all over themselves in a mad dash to the negotiating table as President Obama was sure that the reason no peace had been reached was completely due to Israeli intransigence. Yet, even after such disastrous a start between President Obama and Israel along with his obvious mishandling and faulty logic concerning Israel and the problems with the negotiations with the Palestinians, Tzipi Livni would follow the lead and guidance of President Obama with unquestioning obedience.

I do feel it would be remiss of me to also state that often Prime Minister Netanyahu has also disappointed me with what I have seen as timidity at times in the face of offensive assaults upon Israel and her right to exist and defend herself and her people within her legitimate borders. I have felt that Israel is in need of a Prime Minister who is not steeped and invested in the conditions and expectations of the past and tied to following through with the now deceased Oslo Accords. Israel would be better served by leadership which is willing to assist in the burying of the Oslo Accords once and for all. It would be for the betterment of Israel if her leadership would state clearly and forcefully that Israel would be completely within her rights according to the Geneva Convention and virtually every accord or legal application of international laws concerning lands gained through a defensive struggle in retaining all or any part of these lands which includes all of Judea and Samaria. It is the responsibility of the Israeli Prime Minister to boldly state these truths and initiate the education of the world bodies and countries that Israel has rights that she is willing to implement and that any land Israel would forgive for the forming of any Arab semi or fully autonomous territory. It is time that Israel put forth a new concept where she is willing to allow the Palestinians to have a semiautonomous entity which would still be defended as part of Israel but where they would be allowed to rule it with as much independence as possible within the framework that they held their actions as peaceful and policed against any forms of terror. Israel might even permit full independence at some point in the future once this Palestinian entity had proven their ability and intent to live in an honest peace with Israel side by side. This could be a recipe that could satisfy the Israeli need for safety and defensible borders while allowing a path for the Palestinian to work towards their independence. Such a person in the position of Prime Minister could possibly usher in a new and promising future where Israel would be treated as the rightful country in its own lands and independent from any questions as to its legality. The time has come for a prideful leadership in Israel which holds Israel bright and proud in the world. Unfortunately, I have no idea who might fill such a role from among the political population.

Beyond the Cusp

Secretary of State Clinton Palestinian Hallucinations

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is once again having hallucinations about the Israeli Palestinian peace process impasse. With the formation of a super coalition unity government in the Israeli Knesset, she has made a call for direct negotiations to be resumed between the two sides. Her implication is that the cause there have yet to be direct negotiations is exactly the reasons Mahmoud Abbas has been pretending is at the root that Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli government refuse to come to the table. Of course whenever Prime Minister Netanyahu offers to hold negotiations without preconditions, President Abbas immediately shoots down the offer demanding that Israel meet his list of preconditions which include virtually every Palestinian side of the debate which are the final status issues. These include but are not limited to accepting the 1949 Armistice Lines as the border, Building Freeze in all of Judea and Samaria until conclusion of negotiations, East Jerusalem as the Palestinian Capital, surrender of the entirety of the Old City of Jerusalem including the Temple Mount and the Kotel (Western Wall and Plaza), removal of every single Jew from the lands which are given to form Palestine, release of all Palestinian prisoners including even terrorists serving multiple life sentences, and complete “Right of Return” for the five million plus Palestinian refugees listed by UNRWA. In response Prime Minister once floated a single precondition for the Palestinian side to agree with which Mahmoud Abbas and numerous Palestinian spokespersons immediately reacted in a vehement rage bordering on violent refusing to grant recognition of Israel as the State for the Jewish People.

Let’s allow everybody to decide for themselves exactly what Secretary of State Clinton was implying in her press conference. Here is the link to the entire transcript. And here is the excerpt which we took from the entire conference which we found most interesting.

“Well, Brad, the United States believes there is no substitute for direct talks between the parties. It is the only route to achieving what has long been not only a Palestinian goal and an American goal, but an Israeli goal, which are two states living side by side in peace and security. We have discouraged unilateral action from both sides, and in fact, we think that this new coalition government in Israel provides the best opportunity in several years to reach such a negotiated agreement. In fact, when the coalition was formed, there were four pillars of agreement, and one of them was pursuing the two-state solution. So we very much want to encourage the Israelis and the Palestinians to do that, and in fact, they have recently exchanged letters, from President Abbas to President – to Prime Minister Netanyahu, and Prime Minister Netanyahu to President Abbas that have outlined the conditions for dialogue. And in recent weeks, I’ve called both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas urging them to take this opportunity, to use this new opening that has come about because of the broad coalition that now exists that has pledged itself to pursuing a negotiated resolution. And we’re going to continue to urge them to do so…. So we believe that there is an opportunity for direct negotiations, and we hope it was enhanced by the release of bodies today by the Israelis of Palestinians whom they had either killed or who had been suicide bombers going back many years as a sign of confidence building. But they need to get to the table and start dealing with all the very hard issues we know have to be resolved.”

I really cannot hold this perceptual problem solely against Secretary of State Clinton as she shares this phobia with a rather large set of people. Currently leading the field of delusional politicians is very likely Lady Catherine Ashton, Foreign Minister of the European Union. Sharing top honors are, of course, President Obama; former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone; not surprisingly, Mahmoud Abbas; the Leader of Hezballah, Hassan Nasrallah; President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; Grand Ayatollah of Iran, Sayyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei; and anybody vying for high office in the new Egypt which almost goes without saying. Of course there are numerous others who easily make the complete list but you already know a host of them without my needing to list them. It never ceases to amaze me how far some will go in twisting logic claiming that obviously the lack of peace is because Israel has refused to make sufficient compromise. My challenge is usually to inquire exactly what one thing have the Palestinians ever compromised on and actually made the commitment. When I get the usual answer that they gave up their country and the Jews stole their lands I do not even argue. At that point I realize that such a person and I have diametrically opposed world views on this subject, and very likely many, many more. I learned a long time ago that no matter what point I might bring up their answer will always be, “But it is their land.” It must be so comforting to only need to memorize one line and have that serve as your complete argument, and often their entire knowledge, on a subject.

Beyond the Cusp