by Yochanan Visser and Sharon Shaked
The situation in the West-Bank seems to be relatively quiet and, except for an occasional brawl between Arabs and Jews in a hotspot or two, nothing seems to indicate an upcoming dramatic event. Thousands of miles away in New York, however, a real storm is gathering as the world has gone wild again about the Palestinian – Israeli conflict.
The feverish diplomatic activities that are taking place around the Palestinian request for UN membership resemble international reactions to a war.
Sadly, these last ditch efforts to renew the peace process are doomed.
Why? Because those attempts completely ignore a strategic decision made by the PA almost three years ago.
After the election of Bibi Netanyahu as prime minister of Israel, the PA decided to implement the decision. It abandoned the peace process and instead decided to pursue international recognition of a unilateral declared Palestinian state.
This decision not only constituted a breach of the Oslo accords but also meant the end of the protracted peace process that had existed since 1993.
Consistency
Since then, all decisions and acts of the PA have been consistent with what has been agreed upon since the introduction of the revised strategy. One example was the refusal of the PA to negotiate during the unilateral building stop in the West-Bank which was announced by Israel in 2009.
The international community, however, ignored the PA decision and increased pressure on Israel instead.
The aforementioned strategic decision has been meticulously explained by the Palestine Strategy Group (PSG) in a recently published Palestinian document called “Towards new strategies for Palestinian liberation”.
Read the whole article here
Technorati Tag: Israel and Palestine and UN.
2 comments:
Wouldn't you say transfering 300,000 Jewish colonialist onto Palestinian land is a breach of the Oslo accords?
Notice you have enabled the moderator, Dale. things getting to tuff ?
Tuff? Not at all.
I just got tired of dealing with commentors who
o Use terms such as "disproportionate" and then admit they have no clue what the term means.
o When challenged on what the Zionism means, offer a definition which it turns out was lifted entirely without credit from another source and offered as their own.
o Think that arguing means repeating the same point over and over without responding to challenge.
o Just spew rhetoric.
o Make charges without sourcing.
So: what is your source?
Post a Comment