Though it is considered inadvisable to start the peace negotiations from scratch as opposed to picking up with whatever Olmert offered--whenever the peace talks themselves are discussed, it is always in a vacuum.
How else to explain Clinton's truly odd remark, readily lecturing Israel on what is at stake as if they are negotiating peace for the very first time.
As Jennifer Rubin notes:
The logic is impeccable – unless you realize that Israel has been negotiating for 60 years, making offer after offer — and the Palestinians still can’t give up the dream of a one-state solution. I suppose the choice is “simple” for them: terrorism over peace, rejectionism over compromise.Clinton blissfully ignores everything that stands in the way of an honest peace--including whether the Palestinian Arabs are actually capable of maintaining a state, whether Abbas even has a mandate to be at the negotiations, or that Abbas is technically no longer the president of the country he is supposedly representing.
And if you think these talks are not taking place in a vacuum, removed from reality, take a look at the poll measuring what the West Bank Arabs themselves want:
Section Four: Final Status (The state)With regards to the final status of Palestine and Israel please indicate which of the following you consider to be Essential, Desirable, Acceptable, Tolerable or Unacceptable as part of a peace agreement.
Essential Desirable Acceptable Tolerable Unacceptable Historic Palestine – from the Jordan River to the sea as a national homeland for Palestinians 78.2 12.5 4.3 3.1 2.0 Two state solution – two states for two peoples: Israel and Palestine according to UN resolutions 17.7 15.7 13.6 15.2 37.7 One joint state – a state in which Israelis and Palestinians are equal citizens between the Jordan River and the sea. 9.6 14.8 13.5 15.0 47.1 One shared state – bi-national federal state in which Israelis and Palestinians share power 5.3 9.3 12.6 16.5 56.2 Confederation between West Bank and Jordan and between Gaza and Egypt 4.7 8.2 9.8 13.5 63.8
Of course, when Clinton said no "negotiations, no security, no state"--she didn't specify one or two, but nearly 80% of West Bank Arabs want a one-state solution that is free of Jews.
It's as simple as that.
And what could be simpler than resorting to the tried and true method of bringing peace to the Middle East:
"The United States believes that the moratorium should be extended," Clinton told reporters, echoing a view taken by President Barack Obama.If this is the best that Hillary Clinton can do--publicly pressuring Netanyahu while uttering vague requests from Abbas, then not only is Abbas not a legitimate peace partner, more than that--this administration is not an honest peace broker.
...Clinton put some of the onus on the Palestinians to take unspecified steps to help Netanyahu to extend the freeze.
"This has to be understood as an effort by both the prime minister and the president to get over the hurdle posed by the expiration of the original moratorium in order to continue negotiations," she said.
"There are obligations on both sides to ensure that these negotiations continue," she added.
Technorati Tag: Mideast Peace Talks and Hillary Clinton.