News

The Amman talks: Nothing from nothing leaves nothing

There’s a meeting going on in Jordan right about now between the Quartet, Israel and the Palestinian Authority to satisfy a request issued by the Quartet last fall directly after Palestine took its bid for statehood to the UN. Each side was supposed to come up with territorial and security proposals by late January. On November 14th Abbas turned over Palestine’s proposals, Israel has produced nothing.

The meeting is merely an unconvincing formality. Everybody says expectations are low, (“does not expect the talks to deliver any major breakthroughs”) and nothing will come of it. The US won’t be there, here’s why, per the Christian Science Monitor:

• The advent of a tough election year means Mr. Obama is unlikely to jump into any peace initiative or to pressure Israel – something a Republican opponent could use against him.

Something that might conflict with his fundraising goals too, but they don’t mention that. There’s decent coverage in the article  that makes it a cut above the rest:

…while few experts expect anything significant to happen by the Jan. 26 deadline, most observers say both the Israelis and Palestinians have reasons for agreeing to the Amman talks.

Israel wants to be seen as ready and willing to negotiate a peace deal with the Palestinians, given that its international image has deteriorated since the beginning of the Arab Spring. Israel’s image abroad has been harmed by its leaders’ response to the protests – largely to favor a regional status quo.

The Palestinians may have their eyes set ultimately on the UN and efforts they launched there last fall to win global recognition.

One scenario, Mideast experts say, is that the Palestinian leadership could use the expected failure of the talks to revive its push for official UN recognition of a state of Palestine. The Palestinians could point to both the presumed failure of the Quartet’s initiative and to what they argue is Israel’s refusal to take serious steps toward peace.

Meanwhile over on Hasbara Boulevard, the Jerusalem Post dishes up an enthusiastic  Israeli-PA talks already have a winner – Jordan’s Abdullah.

In the past, meetings such as these often took place in Sharm e-Sheikh, under the auspices of now deposed Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak. Because of Egypt’s position in the region, and its peace treaty with Israel, Cairo was often the “go-to” address on Palestinian-Israeli issues.

Since Mubarak’s fall, however, a void was created, one Abdullah is more than happy to fill.

Alrighty then– go Abdullah! Steppin’ in for Mubarak, a winning move no doubt.

In another article from the Jerusalem Post, Israeli government officials are given the microphone:

“We sincerely hope that the meeting in Amman heralds the beginning of direct ongoing Israeli-Palestinian negotiations to achieve peace,” ……Israel was ready to “move ahead on the path articulated by the Quartet, and we hope the Palestinians are willing to do so as well,” he continued…………….“Israel is ready for mutual, reciprocal confidence- building measures,”

Uh huh. So believing that–not. I’m a soldier in the war on poverty, and this has got poverty written all over it.

Within three months, the Quartet statement read, the sides were to come forward with comprehensive proposals on territory and security. The Palestinians interpreted that to mean that each side was to present these proposals to the Quartet, which the Palestinians have done, while Israel’s interpretation was that they would be presented by the sides to each other during the three months of intensive negotiations.

The difference, one Israeli official said, was that the Palestinians wanted to get the Quartet more actively involved in arbitrating between the two sides, while Israel wanted to deal directly with the Palestinians without outside interference.

……

Hamas, meanwhile, called on the PA to boycott the Amman meeting, arguing the talks would only benefit Israel and help it improve its image in the international arena.

Israel’s got nothing, you gotta have something…..

23 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Another risible PR move by the apartheid state. We judge you by what you do, not your empty words.

Actually, Israel in stating that it will build a wall on the Jordanian border as
well as on the Lebanese border (incorporating Shebaa farms) has prempted
any possiblity of a two state solution if one looks at the geography. If there
is a Palestinian state, it will be – in the tradition of Gaza – entombed by Israel,
with all avenues of ingress and exgress totally controlled by Israel as is now
the case. Again, a defacto unilateral establishment of Israel’s borders, essentially
eliminating or encapsulating the West Bank. Could one anticipate that in the
case of an Iranian war that Palestinians of the West Bank are not only designated
as terrorists but also as ” fifth column” belligerents, thereby legalizing the same
treatment as Gazans in Cast Lead with the added option of legalizing settler
“military” options against them?

Thanks for this Annie. I would see “nothing from nothing leaves nothing” as the status quo continues. And that’s what the criminal israeli government wants. Look at their actions; today in Haaretz…

Israel announces contentious Jerusalem construction ahead of peace talks meet
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-announces-contentious-jerusalem-construction-ahead-of-peace-talks-meet-1.405276

However, I expect things to really blow up after this meeting and come end of January.

We Palestinians have had enough of the Zionist criminal state of Israel. The occupation will NOT stand. Things will start moving. The target date for that movement was Sep 2011. However, due to intense pressure on President Abbas, including from some “collaborator” Arab dictators like King Abdullah and King Abdullah. [Rumors had it that Jordan pressured President Abbas not to submit the statehood application to the UNSC.]

One Jan 26 passes with no real plan from Israel, our push in the UNSC, UNGA, UN Agencies including the ICJ, and the ICC. Coupled with a united Palestinian position, and MASS non-violent demonstrations across Occupied Palestine (including pre-1948) and in other countries in the world, we will start the final march to Palestinian statehood, be it 1-state or 2-state. Palestine 194!

Israel will hold off as long as possible, allowing the concrete to set ever harder on it’s illegal ‘facts on the ground’. Then it will pour a little more. All the while acting per the Declaration for the Establishment of a state which .. “will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel;” who tell us how Israel has and will act towards territory not ” forming part of Egypt, the Lebanon, the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom or Syria” .

The day Palestine becomes a state, the game is over. Quite simple really.

It’s time for honesty regarding the legal positions taken by both the Israelis and the PA. the Israeli position as endorsed by the likud charter states that Israel is the whole of the land of Israel and that settlements are a natural outcome of that fact. The PA want to base any agreement on International Law and UN Resolutions, the circle cannot be squared.
I am reminded of a similiar dilemma experienced by the British and Irish governments in 1985 trying to forge an agreement (the Anglo Irish agreement) on the one hand both sides tried to ignore articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution which claimed sovereignty over the whole island of Ireland and its territorial seas, and the British who said that in International Law that Northern Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom.
Here is how the agreement was sold to their respective electorates, the Irish version published in Dublin said:
“Agreement between the government of Ireland and the government of the United Kingdom”. See here:- https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:VA-ckRZeATkJ:www.dfa.ie/uploads/documents/anglo-irish%2520agreement%25201985.pdf+republic+of+ireland+anglo+irish+agrrment+1985&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiLUdta_1eTLSdYGitVu-cwCE41kVzutfcwWDLWHgUocqCXfojzcy2ebhQUpplSXYfnkGi3inOzHINoMO-Lttpnliv0nF88Xr9WPOSJU1SJCPDHT3l-sCMBBU7YfpJMb0KqnCRM&sig=AHIEtbTCIEoA8jCmRf7E1ArTeOfvuuL_zQ

The British version published by her Majestys stationary office said “Agreement between the government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Ireland”. see here:- http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/hmso/aia.htm

Notice the difference…

The Irish version excludes Northern Ireland as part of the UK which is the officially designated name of the state and although in practice the Irish government recognised Northern Irelands defacto position as part of the UK it was precluded from recognising its de jure status (this was established in the Kevin Boland case in the Irish supreme court in 1973/74). The Irish goverment said in effect that they had never recognised Northern Ireland as a de jure part of the UK and so the Anglo-Irish agreement 1985 tried again to deceive the electorates of both states with the Machiavellian disappearance of Northern Ireland from the heading of the agreement. The electorates were not fooled and the Anglo-Irish agreement was dead in the water, it was only when the Irish government amended the constitution that an agreement with the Unionist community was made possible, similiarly the PA must insist on legal facts and certainties and must not be a part of any Machiavellian plots or maneuvers by the US/Israel.