Talks continue, next round on 14 September
Despite statements of mutual trust, both sides have not budged on their respective demands, for now. Netanyahu still demands Palestinian recognition of Israel as “the national state of the Jewish people” whereas Abbas wants a stop to Jewish colonisation in the West Bank and an end to the embargo on the Gaza Strip.
Citing a senior Palestinian source, Israeli daily Haaretz reported that the US administration renewed its pressure on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to stay in direct negotiations with Israel, even if some construction in the settlements resumes after the end of the current moratorium. Instead, “The source warned that Abbas would not be able to agree to a renewal of construction and will be forced to withdraw from the talks.” For his part, Abbas will demand that the talks “not last longer than a year, culminating with the establishment of a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders, and with Jerusalem as its capital.”
Where the two sides stand is well known. The same is true for Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who said talks would lead nowhere, and Hamas, which stated that “These talks are not legitimate because the Palestinian people did not give any mandate to Mahmoud Abbas”. Equally, in Gaza, 13 extremist organisations yesterday announced their intention to coordinate attacks against Israel.
Yet, Israel’s most widely read daily, Yedioth Ahronoth, wrote in an editorial that a “Durable solution is possible” because “The Likud-led Israeli government is one of the most stable in memory, with no real alternative in sight. If the Palestinians want to reach an acceptable agreement with Israel, this is the government to do it with. The Palestinians know that.”
Indeed, “the Palestinian Authority has refrained from terrorism under President Mahmoud Abbas, which is much more than can be said for his predecessor or can be expected from most of his potential successors.” And time is of the essence since “President Obama is only in his second year in office with about a year before he begins his re-election campaign”, which “leaves little time for failures in Middle East peace brokerage.”
As for the two other guests in Washington, “President Mubarak would like to leave his son and successor with one less issue to deal with,” whilst Jordan’s “King Abdullah has dubbed this year ‘the year of decision’."
For the Saudi-based Arab News, Mubarak’s and Abdullah’s presence in the US capital is significant. “Within the context of Arab Peace Initiative adopted at the Arab Summit in Beirut in 2002, Jordan and Egypt have been designated as the sole states to negotiate with the Israelis (other than the Palestinians themselves) on behalf of the Arabs. Their presence in Washington demonstrates symbolically that the negotiations have the active support of the Arab world and that the negotiations there are aimed not only at bringing about Palestinian-Israeli peace but also a new relationship between the Arab states and Israel.”
No doubt, “there are those, both on the Israeli and the Palestinian and Arab sides, who want the talks to fail [. . .]. Hamas is certainly opposed to them.” However, “The Arab position is wholly different. The negotiations are fully supported, if more out of hope than conviction as to the outcome.”
Some signs, like comments by Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak that the Arab areas of Jerusalem will be handed back, are encouraging. Yet, beyond the “warm words [. . .] in Washington, what is needed are concrete offers. Of them, there is scant expectation.”
In Amman, in an editorial titled “To make peace a reality”, the Jordan Times notes, “The task ahead is arduous. People lost confidence in talks, and they were many, often considering them futile, and that is a reason more for all concerned parties—most importantly Obama himself who has said that peace in the Middle East is a national security interest for his country, but also the many countries around the world, including Europe—to lend support to these negotiations.”
“Time is very important and should be used wisely during the negotiations to both end the suffering of the Palestinian people who, for decades, have endured so much pain, and to deprive the enemies of peace of the opportunity to sabotage the process by means of killing, destroying, grabbing land or building settlements.”
.png)
