Ira Glunts writes:
The belligerent tone and content of the speech serves to remind us how difficult it is going to be to push Netanyahu to make the concessions necessary for a just peace.
The perceptive and knowledgable Helena Cobban implies that we should not be worried by the "opening negotiating position" that Netanyahu presented. Ms. Cobban is one of the best and most informed writers around, but I wholeheartedly disagree. Netanyahu's presentation of what indeed appears to be his opening negotiating position was inappropriate if he intends to pursue meaningful negotiations. Presenting such an extreme position at this time only angers the Palestinians and makes them more entrenched. This is what happened at Camp David.
Also, Netanyahu reportedly told Obama that the speech was meant to be a response to the US President's initiative. If this is the case it is hardly promising.
Some of the limitations on the Palestinian state, such as a demilitarization and restrictions on airspace, were agreed to by Arafat and Abbas in the past. But this does not mean that the Palestinians will continue to accept these limitations, though. Palestinians rightly object when the Israelis try to "pocket" these former concessions which they (the Palestinians) want to use as negotiating chips in the future.
However, the fact that in the Oslo negotiations the Palestinian state under consideration was never a normal state but a very limited one is hardly ever mentioned. (There are more limitations that the Israelis have always insisted on.) Maybe it is positive that this important issue is now beginning to be discussed.
And finally I wonder, can there be any fruitful negotiation without Hamas? Does Abbas alone have enough support and authority to implement any final status treaty which would result from negotiations? Bibi, Obama and Abbas all agree on excluding Hamas. I am not sure that will be possible.
The ball is in Obama's court now. I hope he is ready to spend the political capital required to push for a real peace.
