Obama's Policy on the Israeli- Palestinian Conflict is One - Sided / DR.Rivka Shpak Lissak

I do not share B.Netaniau's views on the solution of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict.

The Clinton – Barak proposal at Camp David was a fair proposal to solve and put an end to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict.
The proposal included 97% of the Western Bank + 3% compensation in Israeli territory, for annexing part of the settlements, division of Jerusalem into 2 capitals and de- faco control of the Holy mountain by the Muslims, resettling the refugees in the Palestinian state with international funding and ending the state of war. Abu Mazen supported Arafat's policy and has not change his mind.

But I consider President Obama's last actions as one-sided and counter-productive. This attitude will not only make the PA less responsive and more reluctant to negotiate, it will give the wrong impression that Israel is the only obstacle for peace in the Middle East.

The PA rejected 2 opportunities to end the Israeli- Palestinian conflict and get a Palestinian state:

Arafat rejected the Clinton- Barak proposal on September 2000 at the Camp David Summit. Abu Mazen supported Arafat's policy and has not change his mind since then.

Abu Mazen ignored the Ulmert proposal in 2009, which he himself defined as very generous in his interview to the Washington Post, on May 28, 2009.

The USA administration did not criticize Abu Mazen's for ignoring such a generous proposal the way it responded to Netaniau's policy on Jerusalem. Abu Mazen did not get the "cold shoulder treatment" Netaniau Got.

WHY Obama's approach is counter productive?

First, Abu Mazen ignored Ulmert's proposal because the PA is not interested in negotiating with Israel. The PA prefers a one- sided statetment on the establishment of a Palestinian state, without having to give up their demand for the RIGHT OF RETURN. They can get international recognition without giving up their desire to put an end to the Jewish state by the RIGHT OF RETURN.

Second, the PA demand to stop building settlements on the Western Bank first, and now in East Jerusalem is intended to prevent any negotiating. Obama "played into the hands of the PA" by joining these demands as pre- conditions to starting talking.

Third, the settlement issue and the future of Jerusalem should be part of the negotiation, not a pre- condition.

Fourth, the cold shoulder Israel's Prime Minister got in Washington and the additional demands are adding support to the international accusation of Israel as the only obstacle to peace, which is not true. The PA and the Arab countries are no less responsible for the lack of peace. The propaganda and agitation against Israel at the UN, and UN organizations are expressions of Anti-Semitism and racism. The Arabs do not want Israel to exist. It has been the traditional Arab policy to eliminate minorities in the Middle East.

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters (without spaces) shown in the image.