Olmert meets Bush
The first meeting between Olmert and Bush is now finished. Bush has made it clear that whilst he considers Olmert's convergence plan has 'interesting elements', the preferred option is a final status agreement with the Palestinians. Bush has urged Olmert to meet with Abu Mazen, who he has not yet met with.
Olmert has indicated he is happy to meet with Abu Mazen, but should there be no Palestinian partner, unilateral steps will need to be taken. Behind this veil of diplomacy, I sense something of concern. Israel has indicated they will not engage in dialogue with Hamas given their failure to meet minimum conditions. They have indicated that things can only progress with Abu Mazen if he firstly tackles terrorism. In other words, I see two excuses Israel may use to prevent final status talks - firstly - that Abu Mazen as president of PA does not have authority to enter final status talks since Hamas is in power and that in any event, a precondition to final status talks is that Abu Mazen firstly tackle terrorism (as set out in that horribly out of date Road Map).
But why would Israel want excuses? Olmert has recognised that the land needs partioning so surely it is in his interests to go bilaterally. The problem with going bilaterally is that there is a price. The Palestinian expect a state on the 1967 borders with minor border modifications, land exchanges, East Jeruslalem as a Pal. capital and no Israeli control in the Jordan valley. And the border modifications will be small to accomodate the settlements but would not be huge blocks as Olmert would prefer. In short - a geneva initiative solution.
Going unilaterally - avoids this. Israel determines the territory to withdraw upon with the fence/wall used as as the defining yard stick. The withdrawal, however, will certainly not meet Palestinian expectations.
So this is Olmert's dilemma. He further knows that if he goes down the bilateral track, and Israel is not willing to make concessions in line with what the Pal. expect, the world community will see Israel as the obstinate one and not fullfilling UN Resolution 242.
Perhaps I am too cynical. The Labour party, Olmert's senior coalition partner would be happy to return to serious final status talks. Olmert's position's on what he would offer in a final status agreement are unknown and his positions may be considerably more leftwards then anticipated.
The bottom line: the time has come for Olmert to meet Abu Mazen. No more trips to Washington or Europe. Abu Mazen simply needs to drive 25 minutes to the Prime Minister's Residence in Jerusalem. It may be risky with Hamas in power to commence final status talks but its worth the risk. Serious negotiations have stalled for now over 5 years. Time is not in the interests of either side to waste.
Olmert has indicated he is happy to meet with Abu Mazen, but should there be no Palestinian partner, unilateral steps will need to be taken. Behind this veil of diplomacy, I sense something of concern. Israel has indicated they will not engage in dialogue with Hamas given their failure to meet minimum conditions. They have indicated that things can only progress with Abu Mazen if he firstly tackles terrorism. In other words, I see two excuses Israel may use to prevent final status talks - firstly - that Abu Mazen as president of PA does not have authority to enter final status talks since Hamas is in power and that in any event, a precondition to final status talks is that Abu Mazen firstly tackle terrorism (as set out in that horribly out of date Road Map).
But why would Israel want excuses? Olmert has recognised that the land needs partioning so surely it is in his interests to go bilaterally. The problem with going bilaterally is that there is a price. The Palestinian expect a state on the 1967 borders with minor border modifications, land exchanges, East Jeruslalem as a Pal. capital and no Israeli control in the Jordan valley. And the border modifications will be small to accomodate the settlements but would not be huge blocks as Olmert would prefer. In short - a geneva initiative solution.
Going unilaterally - avoids this. Israel determines the territory to withdraw upon with the fence/wall used as as the defining yard stick. The withdrawal, however, will certainly not meet Palestinian expectations.
So this is Olmert's dilemma. He further knows that if he goes down the bilateral track, and Israel is not willing to make concessions in line with what the Pal. expect, the world community will see Israel as the obstinate one and not fullfilling UN Resolution 242.
Perhaps I am too cynical. The Labour party, Olmert's senior coalition partner would be happy to return to serious final status talks. Olmert's position's on what he would offer in a final status agreement are unknown and his positions may be considerably more leftwards then anticipated.
The bottom line: the time has come for Olmert to meet Abu Mazen. No more trips to Washington or Europe. Abu Mazen simply needs to drive 25 minutes to the Prime Minister's Residence in Jerusalem. It may be risky with Hamas in power to commence final status talks but its worth the risk. Serious negotiations have stalled for now over 5 years. Time is not in the interests of either side to waste.
posted by SJ at 1:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home