Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support.

Click here to help us keep going

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

This is Netanyahu’s final status solution

The Gaza war should be seen as part of Israel’s overall strategy, which aims to maintain the current status quo in the Palestinian Territories.

One of the Israeli Right’s greatest political achievements was convincing the public that “we tried the Left’s ideas, and they failed.” Some even say that the current reality is the outcome of “the Left’s ideas.”

Naturally, this claim comfortably avoids the responsibility that the Right had in torpedoing any attempt for peaceful reconciliation, from 1987’s London Accord to Netanyahu’s unilateral decision in 1996 to stop implementing Oslo. (For some reason, the video in which Netanyahu boasted of killing Oslo and manipulating the Clinton administration didn’t leave the kind of impression one would expect.) Oslo itself was as far as one can get from a genuine two-state solution; it did not include the evacuation of a single settlement or the transfer of one square yard to full Palestinian sovereignty.

But these are the kind of historical debates in which nearly everything has been said. The fact is that we have been living in the age of the Right for many years now, and right-wing ideas – from Sharon’s disengagement to Netanyahu’s status quo – are the ones that shape reality on the ground.

All Israeli prime ministers from 2001 onward originally came from the Likud. Despite all sorts of “revelations” they experienced with regard to the Palestinian issue, and despite the new parties they formed, broke off from or returned to, none of them took active measures on the ground that were meant to lead to a fair compromise with the Palestinians. All they did was take several elements from the two-state solution and incorporate them into the old right-wing approach: the Iron Wall, military power, colonization, maximum land and minimum Arabs.

This is how Olmert’s unilateral withdrawal plan was born (and floated again recently by Michael Oren), along with Netanyhau’s “economic peace,” Bennett’s “Stability Initiative” or the far right’s absurd “Israeli Initiative.” All of those are variations on the same theme, which most of the time doesn’t even get its own name, yet remains the blueprint for Israeli policies.

The Gaza disengagement in 2005, a crucial moment which led to the current state of affairs, was the opposite of compromise: its stated goal was the prevention of a Palestinian State. The drama surrounding the evacuation of some 9,000 people shouldn’t obscure the fact that the disengagement was a status quo-oriented idea – more a rearrangement than a disengagement – and the debate surrounding it remained within the right wing, between the radical right and the more pragmatic conservatives.

An Israeli artillery fires a shell towards the Gaza Strip from their position near Israel's border with the Gaza strip on July 24, 2014. (Yotam Ronen/Activestills.org)

An Israeli artillery fires a shell towards the Gaza Strip from their position near Israel’s border with the Gaza strip on July 24, 2014. (Yotam Ronen/Activestills.org)

Netanyahu is the longest serving prime minister since David Ben-Gurion. Some people accuse him of lacking a strategy, but that is a shallow assessment. Netanyahu has been carrying out his strategy for years now. The failure of the peace talks and the war in Gaza are part of the same game, which is about maintaining the current status quo and doing so by force, if necessary.

Netanyahu’s approach is consistent. The conflict is for him a zero-sum game, and therefore one need not move beyond “a modified status quo.” One should use the regional and international system to search for ad-hoc coalitions, rather than rely on long-term relationships and agreements. One should try to avoid using military force, yet still prefer it to concessions; when decision time comes, the choice is clear. One should also continue to colonize land, but at a pace that takes geopolitical circumstances into account.

These ideas now represent the Israeli mainstream. Save for the issue of settlements, the differences between Labor’s Herzog, Livni, Lapid, Netanyahu and Liberman are minor. You hear the same thinking echoed by Israeli think tanks, op-ed pages and conferences. It is ironic that Israel accused Palestinians of a “unilateral move” when they tried to take their statehood bid to the United Nations (!), when unilateralism is at the heart of Israeli thinking.

Israel has been implementing these ideas for years, and the results are the only ones possible: brief periods of peace and prosperity (for Israelis) interrupted by periodic violent escalations. Things couldn’t be clearer. What we are witnessing in Israel these days is the “solution” – the alternative to both two states and one state.

The decision to try end the military operation unilaterally is particularly telling. For the government, the next escalation is always preferable to handing the adversary any form of achievement, while the war’s goal is to return the situation to how it was before the bombing started.

The current moment – when dozens are killed daily (most of them Palestinian civilians), when Israel becomes more and more isolated and when all policy choices are bad – is the direct outcome of the status quo strategy. This is when the real cost of the status quo becomes clear, rather than during the sunny intervals between wars. Only this time it is too late to go back. At every crossroad, Netanyahu doubles down on his bad bets, and the entire nation joins him willingly.

Related:
Israel has alternatives to this war
Why do Palestinians continue to support Hamas despite such devastating losses?
This is a war of choice. Netanyahu’s choice

Newsletter banner 6 -540

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. bar

      Wasn’t it Noam Sheizaf who, a mere month ago, grudgingly conceded that Netanyahu was doing everything in his power to avoid this war?

      Anyway, it is unlikely that most of the dead in this conflict are civilians. Perhaps some real reporting on this issue, instead of relying on Gaza’s “Health Ministry” (“Hey Ahmad, put the rocket under these civilians’ house so they can be healthy when the Israelis try to take it out) and the stats of NGOs that have been wrong in previous conflicts, might prevent the author from making these claims?

      Reply to Comment
    2. GKJames

      Superb summation. What’s remarkable is how this accurate representation of facts never manages to penetrate the smoke-and-mirrors narrative sold to the public in Israel and abroad. With respect to the world leaders who (knowingly) acquiesce in the status quo, one senses that if everyone hangs on long enough, the issue will simply go away. That sort of wishful thinking is easily done, of course, if you’re guaranteed never to have to endure the tangible consequences.

      Reply to Comment
    3. Pedro X

      The proper context to the war is that Israel is defending itself against a hostile, enemy entity ruled and controlled by a terrorist and Islamic fundamentalist organization whose reason for existence is the destruction of Israel and the killing of Israelis. Hamas has been attacking Israelis for the last 25 years, long before Israel closed its borders to Gazans and implemented a legal blockade against the importation of military hardware into Gaza and the West Bank.

      There is no solution to the problem, no two or one state solution. Until Hamas’ and similar ideologies are abandoned and Gaza and the West Bank are demilitarized there can be no solution. This leaves maintenance of the status quo or Israel unilaterally annexing Judea and Samaria and leaving Palestinians with area A and part of B in the West Bank and Gaza subject to the same Israeli presence which exists now.

      Reply to Comment
      • Alex C

        I get the impression that we here in the democratic west are considered gullible by the Israelis how post comments here. When the Royal Navy pulled out of Haifa in 48 they witnessed the fires that lit up the sky. There was no doubt in their minds that the ethnic cleansing started on day one. It was civilians that were being put to the slaughter then.

        Reply to Comment
        • Whiplash

          Perfidious Ablion! The British had a 100,000 troops, well armed with heavy arms and police forts all over Palestine. The British could have implemented the partition plan. They chose to leave and left the battlefield to the Palestinian Arabs who attempted to destroy the emerging Jewish state and kill its people. The Palestinian Arabs failed in their war and inflicted a crushing defeat on their own society.

          As far as Haifa goes, the Jews and the British wanted the Arabs to stay. While the fighting was ongoing, the Jews reached an agreement with the Arab municipal authorities for the Arabs to quit hostilities and stay in Haifa. The Arab Higher Committee ordered them out. The Arab fighters left first, followed by the Arab people in panic as they crowded the docks to find transport out of Haifa. Only 1 out of every 5 Arabs in Haifa stayed.

          Today Haifa is a modern city with a mixed Arab and Jewish population.

          So much for your false allegation of ethnic cleansing in Haifa.

          Reply to Comment
    4. bar

      “The current moment – when dozens are killed daily (most of them Palestinian civilians), when Israel becomes more and more isolated and when all policy choices are bad – is the direct outcome of the status quo strategy. This is when the real cost of the status quo becomes clear, rather than during the sunny intervals between wars. Only this time it is too late to go back. At every crossroad, Netanyahu doubles down on his bad bets, and the entire nation joins him willingly.”

      As I think about this and the fact that this article places the blame for the situation on Israel, the question that comes to mind is: what is a realistic alternative?

      Throughout the Middle East you have strife and war, theocratic and secular authoritarianism and what is essentially tribal conflict. What options does Israel have, exactly, other than to survive and play its hand in the best way possible?

      Specifically, since Noam Sheizaf is an advocate of “ending the occupation,” what lessons does he learn from what Hamas has done in and from Gaza after every last Jew left that territory? His lesson was that the problem is that Israel didn’t leave the territory wish some sort of accord with the Palestinians. And yet, that wouldn’t have mattered because Hamas would have taken over anyway. And what about the PA and Judea and Samaria? After watching this war, the rocket bombardment, the extensive and sophisticated tunneling, does Sheizaf really expect Israel to open Judea and Samaria to a similar experiment? What if Hamas takes over for the PA? What if the PA gets elements at its top who want to emulate what happened in Gaza?

      Blaming Israel is easy, but it really is just some foolish chasing after some chimerical hope that has no basis in fact, reality or history.

      Reply to Comment
    5. Goldmarx

      “The proper context to the war is that Israel is defending itself against a hostile, enemy entity ruled and controlled by a terrorist and Islamic fundamentalist organization whose reason for existence is the destruction of Israel and the killing of Israelis.”

      –>You forgot to mention that Hamas started out as a small hate group plucked from obscurity by Israel in the prior century, to be aimed at Arafat’s PLO. Israeli occupation authorities went out of their way to give it logistical help and money, to the point where Avner Cohen credited Israel with creating Hamas. During this time, Hamas was spewing its rhetoric against Israel and Zionism, but the Shin Bet and Mossad didn’t seem particularly bothered by it.

      “There is no solution to the problem, no two or one state solution.”

      –>As long as Israel refuses to negotiate with its own creation, you are right.

      …”the West Bank are demilitarized there can be no solution.”

      –> Well, that has happened as Abbas has worked for years now with Israel security forces (as Larry Derfner has tirelessly pointed out here) to keep Palestinian-initiated violence to a minimum, and yet Abbas has nothing to show for it. Hamas, on the other hand, did swing a prisoner exchange with Israel and has killed more soldiers than civilians in the current conflict, bolstering Palestinian pride.

      Reply to Comment
      • Pedro X

        No matter how many times you repeat this claim does not make it true. In the 1970s Israel allowed Gazans freedom of religion, speech, movement and association. Sheik Yassin set up a number of Islamic organizations which were involved in religious, social and civil projects, not terrorism.

        When his organizations acquired guns and used them against Fatah, Yassin was arrested and sent to gaol. After he was released from prison he and 5 others formed Hamas in 1988 with a Charter calling for the destruction of Israel and a genocide against Jews. Israel has never supported this Hamas.

        Reply to Comment
        • Goldmarx

          Tell it to Avner Cohen, an Israeli who was there. You were not.

          Reply to Comment
          • Pedro

            I read the Wall Street Journal article quoting Cohen who basically says Israel made a mistake by tolerating Yassin and the Islamist movement in Gaza before they ever thought of forming Hamas. He does not say that Israel created Hamas. Cohen did warn Israel of the violent activities in which Yassin was beginning to participate. Cohen wanted the Islamist organizations broken. Israel did arrest and jail Yassin.

            Brigadier Shalom Harari, a senior Israeli adviser on Palestinian affairs for the Ministry of Defense in 2007 said that Israel never backed Hamas. Israel did not fund Hamas and did not create it. The Muslim brotherhood was a force in many Arab countries at the time. Unlike Assad who wiped out a city of 30,000 people, Israel did not have the option of killing all the members of the MB. Egypt and Jordan suppressed the Brotherhood in their own way. Israel took action against Hamas once it began active in hostile actions.

            Reply to Comment
          • bar

            You still don’t understand that article, do you Goldmarx?

            Too funny.

            Reply to Comment
      • Avdim

        I accidentally read you comment in some other blog about you breaking the teeth of anyone that disrespects you real life. I was very impressed and so I shall call you henceforth GoldenAxe and will picture you as the dwarf from that wonderful game.

        @GoldenAxe –

        “You forgot to mention that Hamas started out as a small hate group plucked from obscurity by Israel in the prior century, to be aimed at Arafat’s PLO.”

        I don’t think he forgot to mention anything. The never-tiring claim that Israel created Hamas is both factually wrong and irrelevant here.
        Israel made a mistake by believing Islamists could be partners and pose a counterweight to the PLO. This attempt to give them a chance to grow was most probably a mistake, but saying Israel CREATED Hamas (when we merely didn’t destroy it when we should have) is wrong.

        “As long as Israel refuses to negotiate with its own creation, you are right”

        I think this is getting pathological, Hamas is in no sense an Israel creation. There’s nothing substantial we can negotiate with Hamas. Until they change their attitude – we are at a state of war.

        “Well, that has happened as Abbas has worked for years now with Israel security forces”

        Nothing has happened, there is a security cooperation to a certain degree (like PA policemen no longer shoot at Israeli soldiers or civilians) but the cooperation is overrated. Don’t forget the IDF has a relative freedom of operation inside the PA. Please name a major terrorist captured by the PA or a terrorist attack prevented by the PA. How many did the Israel block in the same time? Dozens? Probably more.

        “(as Larry Derfner has tirelessly pointed out here)”

        Larry Derfner tirelessly says various things, it doesn’t make them true.

        “and yet Abbas has nothing to show for it. Hamas, on the other hand, did swing a prisoner exchange with Israel and has killed more soldiers than civilians in the current conflict, bolstering Palestinian pride.”

        Abbas has cities with buildings still standing to show for it, he has a better economy and his subjects live a generally better life. When this will bolster “Palestinian pride” more than several dead Jews, maybe we could negotiate.

        Reply to Comment
        • JohnW

          GoldenAxe believes that if he repeats a lie often enough then his lies about Hamas becomes the truth. He makes two lies about them:

          1. That Hamas was created by Israel.

          2. That Hamas wants to negotiate with Israel but Israel does not want to negotiate with them.

          He has taken a leaf out of the books of two totalitarian regimes which also believed in such propaganda techniques. In their respective state media outlets (the Nazi and Soviet Communist media outlets) they faithfully adhered to such ploys. The names of these media outlets were:

          1. Der Sturmer

          2. Pravda

          Both of those regimes which GoldenAxe likes to emulate so faithfully, were truly fascists. That is why this little paper tiger mutters dark thoughts about breaking people’s teeth. Poor deluded soul.

          Reply to Comment
          • Goldmarx

            Pravda was the organ of the Communist dictatorship, asshole. The USSR was not a fascist regime.

            Please address your complaints about inconvenient truths to Avner Cohen.

            Reply to Comment
          • JohnW

            “Pravda was the organ of the Communist dictatorship, asshole. The USSR was not a fascist regime.”

            Denial, denial, denial.

            They were fascists alright. The worst kind of fascists. The blood of the millions of people whom they murdered in their Gulags and reeducation camps cries out from the ground.

            Reply to Comment
          • Goldmarx

            That Communist regimes have the blood of millions on their hands does not make them fascists – it makes them Communist dictators, or totalitarians, if you prefer.

            That you insist on grotesquely mistaken terminology proves, once again, that you never had a clue as to what you’re posting here. Typical troll behavior.

            Reply to Comment
          • JohnW

            “That Communist regimes have the blood of millions on their hands does not make them fascists – it makes them Communist dictators, or totalitarians, if you prefer.”

            It makes them fascists. Anybody who tries to intimidate and actually murders political opponents are fascists. You should know that Goldmarx, you are a fascist too because in your posts you propose to deal the same way with anyone who disagrees with your political views.

            We Zionists on the other hand are not like that. We tolerate diversity of opinions even if we respond to our detractors robustly. So you are not a Zionist.

            Reply to Comment
          • Goldmarx

            Unprovoked personal insults and invective are not robust, it is bullying.

            On the other hand, I have endorsed a robust response to the bullying of you, Arb and AVDim. The three of youu are trying to take over the comment section through intimidation, and that should be resisted by any means necessary.

            Your made-up definition of fascism is a good match for the way you make up facts to suit your agenda.

            Reply to Comment
          • JohnW

            “Unprovoked personal insults and invective are not robust, it is bullying.”?

            You threatened to knock the teeth out of someone who disagreed with you.

            And worse, you advocated summary execution of another person who disagreed with your views.

            For a person such as yourself to have the thin skin you display about invectives against you is pathetic. Just pathetic.

            Reply to Comment
        • Goldmarx

          “Larry Derfner tirelessly says various things, it doesn’t make them true.”

          –>So where you, O Master of the Truth, correcting his alleged errors?

          Avner Cohen is the one you need to address your complaints to about Israel’s creation, Hamas. He let the cat out of the bag; more importantly, he was there working for the Israeli occupation authorities for decades – you were not.

          “Abbas has cities with buildings still standing to show for it, he has a better economy and his subjects live a generally better life.”

          –>In other words, Abbas should be grateful Israel lets him live. Only a psychopath would consider that an improvement.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Nobody needs to be grateful. Everybody just needs to be realistic and stick to reasonable demands to facilitate peace not war

            Asking for the right of return is not reasonable.

            Reply to Comment
          • Goldmarx

            Asking for the Right of Return is quite reasonable. A recent article on this website discussed how the Israeli Supreme Court allowed Palestinian Arabs to return to a couple of villages.

            The sky did not fall.

            Reply to Comment
          • Avdim

            @GoldenAxe

            “the three of youu are trying to take over the comment section through intimidation, and that should be resisted by any means necessary.”

            1. I’m sorry if the comments I post every once in a while seem intimidating, I assure you that was not my intention. Comments are meant to be read and thought about, they are part of a dialogue – the desire to resist comments you disagree with by “any means necessary” speaks very loudly about you as a person. I mean, the whole reason I come to this site is to read stuff I don’t agree with.

            2. If the comment section on an internet website seems intimidating to you, perhaps you should find another hobby.

            “So where you, O Master of the Truth, correcting his alleged errors?”

            Sometimes. All I said was that not everything Larry says should be taken as ground truth.

            “Avner Cohen is the one you need to address your complaints to about Israel’s creation, Hamas. He let the cat out of the bag; more importantly, he was there working for the Israeli occupation authorities for decades – you were not.”

            Could you please, please, please read the article already? Avner said Israel should have crashed Hamas when it could, by not doing so we created it, in some sense of the word.

            “In other words, Abbas should be grateful Israel lets him live. Only a psychopath would consider that an improvement.”

            As Gustav said, nobody needs to be thankful. But if a leadership constantly tries to wage war against a much stronger enemy – it shouldn’t be surprised to be spanked every while and then. Peace has benefits for both sides and PA vs Hamas is a great example.

            “Asking for the Right of Return is quite reasonable. A recent article on this website discussed how the Israeli Supreme Court allowed Palestinian Arabs to return to a couple of villages.”

            They are ISRAELI Arabs, ISRAELI citizens. Do you understand the difference between dozens of Israelis running a summer camp in some village and flooding Israel with hundreds of thousands of hostile people?

            Reply to Comment
          • Goldmarx

            “I’m sorry if the comments I post every once in a while seem intimidating, I assure you that was not my intention.”

            You have a funny way of showing it. You, Bar and JohnW have come across as no better than Facebook’s Steve Plaut, and most people don’t have the stomach to deal with trolls who hurl personal insults at the first sign of trouble. So they abandon the site and don’t bother returning – which is precisely the goal of trolls.

            “If the comment section on an internet website seems intimidating to you, perhaps you should find another hobby.”

            –>It’s not intimidating to me. I’m a bit more militant than most in defending cyberturf from trolls.

            –>”All I said was that not everything Larry says should be taken as ground truth.”

            So is that some article of faith? If you had some data to refute what Larry said, that would be helpful. AND presented in a way which did not question his patriotism.

            “Could you please, please, please read the article already?”

            Of course I read the article. In addition, I read Richard Sale’s article on the subject, as well as an interview with Azzam Tamimi, author of a book on Hamas. What Avner Cohen said was confirmed by these other articles.

            In order to lower Israel’s level of responsibility, you are interpreting Avner Cohen’s remark to be some kind of metaphor. The problem with that is, Israel did not stand idly by and watch while Hamas grew. According to all three of these aforementioned sources, the Israeli government actively aided Hamas by giving it money and support through the Occupation’s bureaucracy.

            Who’s to say that Hamas didn’t use some of that money to buy weapons to use against Israelis later on? Or worse, that Israel gave Yassin’s group weapons which it hoped would be used against the PLO, but were used instead against Israelis?

            “Peace has benefits for both sides and PA vs Hamas is a great example.”

            Abbas has cooperated all along with Israeli security services believing that the reward would be a two-state solution. Now that Bibi has admitted to being opposed to that (in fact he always was opposed to it – he was just stringing Abbas along), what does the PA have to show for its work?

            “They are ISRAELI Arabs, ISRAELI citizens. Do you understand the difference between dozens of Israelis running a summer camp in some village and flooding Israel with hundreds of thousands of hostile people?”

            –> They are Palestinian Arabs who are Israeli citizens, yes, but still Palestinians above all. They identify with the struggles of their brothers and sisters in Gaza and the West Bank.

            The Right of Return concept as formulated by the BDS movement does not mention flooding Israel with hostiles. It does not mention at all how the Right of Return is to be implemented.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Asking for the Right of Return is quite reasonable. A recent article on this website discussed how the Israeli Supreme Court allowed Palestinian Arabs to return to a couple of villages.

            The sky did not fall.”

            Sure. The return to a couple of villages by a handful of Arabs does not get the sky to fall in.

            A generalised right of return for the millions of descendants of 700,000 Palestinian Arabs who became refugees in 1948, would get the sky to fall in. It would be the end of Israel.

            Reply to Comment
          • Goldmarx

            A generalized Right of Return is a principle, a piece of paper. There is no mention in the BDS principles as to how the Right of Return should be implemented. That would be the subject of negotiations between Israel and Palestine.

            Reply to Comment
    6. Excellent article.
      I even think that a indirect strengthening of Hamas is in Netanyahus interest as it weakens Abbas and gives propaganda message “we have no partner for peace, they are all terrorists” new support. If Abbas is weak enough, Netanyahu can approach him in the Gaza disengagement manner and “prove” that there is no partner.
      see also: http://zcomm.org/znetarticle/outrage/

      Reply to Comment
      • Whiplash

        Or Abbas could show courage and campaign for the demilitarization of Gaza and the West Bank. He could outlaw Hamas and Islamic Jihad and all other violent organizations and take them to the ICC. He could rid Palestine of its policy of non-normalization and begin cooperating with Israel on all matters. He could tell the BDS people that they harm Palestinians more than they help them. He could tell Palestinians there is no right of return and that generations of Palestinians living in Arab lands will need to settle themselves there. In these ways Abbas could become a real leader for peace.

        Reply to Comment
        • Yes, sure, Abbas could do all of that. He could kiss Netanyahu’s ass. He could ask Israel politely what exactly Israel would like to leave him with after it had finshed expropriating land on the West Bank. Then no doubt he’d be accused of failing to deliver his deal, because his polity would never accept such crap. You Israelis are all take take take and never, not for one moment, do you consider the human realities of the situation you have sustained for more than my lifetime.

          Reply to Comment
        • Gold,arx

          Bibi has publicly declared his opposition to a sovereign Palestinian state on the West Bank. There is nothing for Abbas to gain by following your recipe.

          Reply to Comment
        • Goldmarx

          Since Bibi has come out publicly against the two-state solution, what is to be gained for the Palestinians by Abbas making further concessions?

          Reply to Comment
          • JohnW

            “what is to be gained for the Palestinians by Abbas making further concessions?”

            What concessions has Abas made? Name one concession.

            Reply to Comment
          • Goldmarx

            Here are links (for those too lazy to use Google), along with key selections from each:

            http://www.wkow.com/story/13912550/thousands-march-against-abbas-in-gaza

            “Al-Jazeera says the documents show Abbas made concessions on Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees…”

            http://uprootedpalestinians.blogspot.com/2010/05/23052010-1136-am-ramallah-pic-mahmoud.html

            ..”Abbas made concessions bigger than the ones he previously made during his talks with former Israeli premier Ehud Olmert, where he offered 3.8 percent of West Bank lands to Israel in exchange for lands elsewhere in occupied Palestine.”

            “Meanwhile, political arrest campaigns in West Bank cities continued, where Abbas’s security militias kidnapped 13 Palestinian citizens affiliated with Hamas, including national figures, ex-detainees in Israeli jails and mosque imams, from Salfit, Jenin, Tulkarem, Ramallah, and Nablus, according to a statement issued by the Movement of Hamas on Sunday.”

            http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aLVTPHfFYosw

            “Both Sharon and Abbas made concessions in an effort to move ahead on a three-year roadmap for peace… Abbas pledged to stop Palestinian attacks against Israelis.”

            Reply to Comment
    7. JohnW

      None of your links shows any reference to Abbas willing to give up the so called right of return.

      Without that, all his other (few) concessions are not worth anything. Why? Because if Israel would be obliged to accept “the return” of large numbers of Palestinian Arabs, who were raised as enemies of the Jewish state from birth, it would spell the end of Israel.

      Nor did Abbas display willingness to end the conflict by recognizing Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.

      And if he is not even willing to signify an end to the conflict, by that, then what worth is any other so called concession of his? In effect, all he seems to be trying to do is to get as much land from Israel as he can at this time, after which all his pretext for continuing the conflict with Israel would still be there. What kind of a concession is that? It would be a stupid concession by Israel which we would live to regret. A bit like our unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.

      Reply to Comment
      • Goldmarx

        “None of your links shows any reference to Abbas willing to give up the so called right of return.”

        So? Did I claim he made THAT concession? You asked me to provide proof that he made concessions. Your bluff was called. Instead of accepting that you were wrong, you’re shifting the goalposts.

        “Because if Israel would be obliged to accept “the return” of large numbers of Palestinian Arabs..”

        –>Where does the Right of Return specify LARGE numbers? Where does it even discuss implementation?

        “Nor did Abbas display willingness to end the conflict by recognizing Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.”

        –>Why would that end the conflict, in Israel’s eyes? Arafat removed all the offending clauses from the PLO charter, and you have accused him of deception anyway.

        In any event, Abbas is not obliged to agree to a phony, suspiciously-timed demand made by Israel. His stance is to stand by his current rtecognition of Israel which is in line with every other nation that has diplomatic relations with Israel, regardless of whether they have been at war with Israel in the past or not.

        Reply to Comment
        • JohnW

          “So? Did I claim he made THAT concession? You asked me to provide proof that he made concessions. Your bluff was called. Instead of accepting that you were wrong, you’re shifting the goalposts.”

          Nonsense Goldie. Without giving up the right of return, all your claims about Arafat’s/Abbas’s so called concessions are worthless.

          You know why? Because they involve Israel giving up lands. And giving up lands by Israel, no matter how little, is a concession by Israel, not the Palestinian Arabs, if in return, they want to flood Israel with Palestinian Arabs. Which of course would mean Israel’s destruction.

          “Where does the Right of Return specify LARGE numbers? Where does it even discuss implementation?”

          Which bit of “right of return” don’t you understand, Goldie?

          “Why would that end the conflict, in Israel’s eyes? Arafat removed all the offending clauses from the PLO charter, and you have accused him of deception anyway.”

          Not recognizing Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people tells us that the Palestinian Arabs still harbor a hope of taking over Israel.

          “In any event, Abbas is not obliged to agree to a phony, suspiciously-timed demand made by Israel.”

          In which case Israel is not obliged to withdraw and make itself more vulnerable to attacks than it already is.

          “His stance is to stand by his current rtecognition of Israel which is in line with every other nation that has diplomatic relations with Israel, regardless of whether they have been at war with Israel in the past or not.”

          His insistence of recognixing only Israel but not the fact that Israel is a Jewish state, shows that he still harbors hopes of turning Israel into an Arab Muslim state by reversing the Jewish majority through the so called right of return. And through incitement of Arab citizens to overturn the current immigration laws which give Jews affirmative action.

          Reply to Comment
    8. Click here to load previous comments