- 07 Apr 2015 09:46
#14544644
How would the lack of any sort of autonomy be conductive in any way to solve anything? I think Israel would be in an even stronger position to say that a withdrawal is too risky if the PA didn't exist by saying that the Palestinians don't even want a government.
In which way is the PA legitimizing any of that?
Let's say the PA didn't exist. How would this stop Israel from doing whatever it wants in the West Bank? Wouldn't it, if anything, legitimize even further Israeli action on the matter?
Oh but Israel has also negotiated in good faith, yet we both know that there are legitimate gaps between the positions of both sides that haven't been closed in the realms of refugees, the Old City of Jerusalem, security and to a lesser extent land swaps. We've known so from both the talks in 2000 and 2008.
But even if you insist on fixating on settlement construction, I think it's worthwhile to remember that Israel kept building settlements as it talked to Egypt back in the late 70s. This didn't really stop them to sign a deal back then, and I see no reason to assume it has to stop the Israelis and Palestinians from signing an agreement now. It doesn't, if the gaps are not that big.
No, it doesn't. In the end, Hamas' terrorism and the PA's inability to stop it only show that it doesn't matter what the PA and Israel agree to, this would not bring effective peace anyway.
And yes, this is a major sticking point in negotiations too as this situation means Israel ends up demanding security guarantees that the PA doesn't want to accept, such as the IDF's permanent presence in its territory in the form of early warning stations or the demilitarization of the state.
If it weren't for Hamas and the Palestinian stance it currently represents, Israel would have no reason to demand any substantive military presence in the West Bank under a final deal, the Israeli public would not be as reticent to leave the West Bank and a major sticking point would be removed.
In any event, even if Hamas didn't exist, the PA would have rejected any Israeli offer that left the West Bank cut off - and in fact Israel has offered in the past land swaps that leave it as a continuous unit.
pugsville wrote:The Palestinians might well be better off in the log term without the so called autonomy now, right now they are continual be compromised and forced into participating in their own oppression, it's diving them and degrading them. IF the PA is regarded as a total failure as far being representative and looking after there people, it's existence may well be hindering the development of a effective governance responsible ro the Palestinian people.
I'm not saying either way, but there is a fair argument that accepting the limited autonomy of Oslo and the PA has in fact been to the long term detriment of the Palestinian people. Of course if Israel was genuine in any way about the entire process things would be different.
How would the lack of any sort of autonomy be conductive in any way to solve anything? I think Israel would be in an even stronger position to say that a withdrawal is too risky if the PA didn't exist by saying that the Palestinians don't even want a government.
GandalfTheGrey wrote:Autonomy that legitimises and rubber stamps the cantonisation of the WB - with the specific aim of making the plan for a future Palestinian state wholly untennable? What a sad joke.
In which way is the PA legitimizing any of that?
Let's say the PA didn't exist. How would this stop Israel from doing whatever it wants in the West Bank? Wouldn't it, if anything, legitimize even further Israeli action on the matter?
GandalfTheGrey wrote:I commend the PLO/PA for turning up to the negotiating table in good faith - yet it is time we acknowledged the inconvenient - yet undeniable fact, that Israel is not a genuine partner in peace. They have demonstrated this just too often. For them negotiations are nothing more than cynical exercises for them to create more facts on the ground towards their ultimate goal of making a future Palestinian state unviable. On that basis, I'm afraid its simply naive to think that continued negotiations between the PA and the Israelis will ever be in the interests of the Palestinians.
Oh but Israel has also negotiated in good faith, yet we both know that there are legitimate gaps between the positions of both sides that haven't been closed in the realms of refugees, the Old City of Jerusalem, security and to a lesser extent land swaps. We've known so from both the talks in 2000 and 2008.
But even if you insist on fixating on settlement construction, I think it's worthwhile to remember that Israel kept building settlements as it talked to Egypt back in the late 70s. This didn't really stop them to sign a deal back then, and I see no reason to assume it has to stop the Israelis and Palestinians from signing an agreement now. It doesn't, if the gaps are not that big.
GandlafTheGrey wrote:Thats why Hamas's terrorism serves a purpose - its crude and condemnable for the tactics they employ, but it absolutely does serve a purpose - namely to help expose the negotiations for the farce that they are.
No, it doesn't. In the end, Hamas' terrorism and the PA's inability to stop it only show that it doesn't matter what the PA and Israel agree to, this would not bring effective peace anyway.
And yes, this is a major sticking point in negotiations too as this situation means Israel ends up demanding security guarantees that the PA doesn't want to accept, such as the IDF's permanent presence in its territory in the form of early warning stations or the demilitarization of the state.
GandalfTheGrey wrote:I maintain that if not for Hamas, the Palestinians would have roled over and agreed to a bantustan solution by now - one that legitimises the Israeli occupation, and formalises the apartheid state of Israel.
If it weren't for Hamas and the Palestinian stance it currently represents, Israel would have no reason to demand any substantive military presence in the West Bank under a final deal, the Israeli public would not be as reticent to leave the West Bank and a major sticking point would be removed.
In any event, even if Hamas didn't exist, the PA would have rejected any Israeli offer that left the West Bank cut off - and in fact Israel has offered in the past land swaps that leave it as a continuous unit.