No doubt the renewal of talks will be greeted as a major achievement. It isn't. If two parties are forced to talk they are unlikely to succeed. Other motives are present.Rubin notes that among the items pressuring Israel are:
Israel is being pressured by an Obama Administration which it doesn't trust, under highly threatening regional developments.
- Iran's development of nuclear weapons
- A pro-Muslim Brotherhood U.S. policy in Egypt
- A revolutionary situation in Syria where the Obama Administration backs hostile forces (though the forces on the other side are equally hostile)
- A hostile Turkey also supported by the United States
As Barry Rubin points out, the US is not exempt from certain pressures either, as it will have to clarify a promise that has been made:
It is unclear, however, whether in the formulation of the 1967 frontiers whether the U.S. government is proposing to keep its promise to Israel about retention of settlement blocs. That is a diplomatic ambiguity that will haunt the U.S. mediators since it will still be disputed either way.Read the whole thing.
|Benjamin Netanyahu -- How many unilateral concessions will be |
squeezed out of Israel in the name of "peace"?
Credit: Wiki Commons
Since many expect Abbas will be looking for any excuse to pocket Israel's concessions and leave, there may be pressure on the US to backtrack on this promise -- one that was made by Bush and reiterated by Obama.
After all, when was the last time the Palestinian Arabs were ever blamed for pulling out -- let alone refusing to attend -- peace talks.
So when the peace talks break down, Abbas comes out a winner, blaming Israel for not making enough concessions.
Similarly, as Rubin notes "the Obama Administration should reap a good domestic political profit and praise."
And the only loser?
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!