Additional Resources
Top Commentators:
- Elliott Abrams
- Fouad Ajami
- Shlomo Avineri
- Benny Avni
- Alan Dershowitz
- Jackson Diehl
- Dore Gold
- Daniel Gordis
- Tom Gross
- Jonathan Halevy
- David Ignatius
- Pinchas Inbari
- Jeff Jacoby
- Efraim Karsh
- Mordechai Kedar
- Charles Krauthammer
- Emily Landau
- David Makovsky
- Aaron David Miller
- Benny Morris
- Jacques Neriah
- Marty Peretz
- Melanie Phillips
- Daniel Pipes
- Harold Rhode
- Gary Rosenblatt
- Jennifer Rubin
- David Schenkar
- Shimon Shapira
- Jonathan Spyer
- Gerald Steinberg
- Bret Stephens
- Amir Taheri
- Josh Teitelbaum
- Khaled Abu Toameh
- Jonathan Tobin
- Michael Totten
- Michael Young
- Mort Zuckerman
Think Tanks:
- American Enterprise Institute
- Brookings Institution
- Center for Security Policy
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Heritage Foundation
- Hudson Institute
- Institute for Contemporary Affairs
- Institute for Counter-Terrorism
- Institute for Global Jewish Affairs
- Institute for National Security Studies
- Institute for Science and Intl. Security
- Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center
- Investigative Project
- Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
- RAND Corporation
- Saban Center for Middle East Policy
- Shalem Center
- Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Media:
- CAMERA
- Daily Alert
- Jewish Political Studies Review
- MEMRI
- NGO Monitor
- Palestinian Media Watch
- The Israel Project
- YouTube
Government:
Back
(Israel Hayom) Dore Gold - Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, interviewed last Friday by CNN's Christiana Amanpour, sought to give his audience the impression that he had been on the verge of a historic peace agreement with Mahmoud Abbas in 2008, and only because of the interference of individuals from the U.S. that brought in outside money, an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement was not reached. This was not the first time that the myth of an impending Israeli-Palestinian breakthrough, that never happened, was widely promoted. Israeli and Palestinian negotiators at the end of the Taba talks issued a joint statement on Jan. 27, 2001, saying: "The sides declare that they have never been closer to reaching an agreement." Yet when Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami repeated this to an Israel Radio reporter, Muhammad Dahlan responded, "Kharta Barta" (slang for baloney). The EU representative Miguel Moratinos even wrote in his internal report on Taba that "serious gaps remain" between the parties. The most detailed version of the Olmert proposal appeared in a cover story in the New York Times Magazine by Bernard Avishai. Olmert told Avishai: "We were very close, more than ever in the past, to complete an agreement on principles that would have led to the end of the conflict between us and the Palestinians." Yet Olmert told Avishai two years later that the exact number of refugees that would return was still subject to further negotiation. How could this gap lead Olmert to conclude that he was "very close" to completing an agreement with Abbas? In the area of security, the Olmert proposals were even more troubling. Mahmoud Abbas told Avishai in the New York Times that "the file on security is closed." But he then added, "we do not claim it was an agreement but the file was finalized." How was security "finalized" without an agreement between the parties? Abbas explained that the Israeli security concerns had been worked out with Gen. James Jones, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's security advisor, but not with Israel. Rice writes in her memoirs that Abbas "refused" to accept Olmert's offer, even after President Bush appealed to him to reconsider his position. In 2009, Abbas was interviewed by Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post and explained why he could not take Olmert's offer to the Palestinians: "The gaps were too wide." Israel is in a very different situation today than it was when these peace proposals were made in the past. Israelis have gone through a second intifada with suicide bomb attacks in the heart of their cities, the failure of the Gaza withdrawal that led to a massive escalation of rocket attacks on southern Israel, and an Arab Spring that has demonstrated the fragility of the regimes with which Israel has signed peace treaties. Under these circumstances, in future negotiations Israeli security needs must be stressed harder and not subcontracted to envoys from any country. What is required is an alternative diplomatic strategy, and a more secure path for achieving Middle East peace, rather than trying to revive a formula that has only led to diplomatic failure. 2012-05-11 00:00:00Full Article
Peacemaking Mythologies from Taba to Olmert
(Israel Hayom) Dore Gold - Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, interviewed last Friday by CNN's Christiana Amanpour, sought to give his audience the impression that he had been on the verge of a historic peace agreement with Mahmoud Abbas in 2008, and only because of the interference of individuals from the U.S. that brought in outside money, an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement was not reached. This was not the first time that the myth of an impending Israeli-Palestinian breakthrough, that never happened, was widely promoted. Israeli and Palestinian negotiators at the end of the Taba talks issued a joint statement on Jan. 27, 2001, saying: "The sides declare that they have never been closer to reaching an agreement." Yet when Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami repeated this to an Israel Radio reporter, Muhammad Dahlan responded, "Kharta Barta" (slang for baloney). The EU representative Miguel Moratinos even wrote in his internal report on Taba that "serious gaps remain" between the parties. The most detailed version of the Olmert proposal appeared in a cover story in the New York Times Magazine by Bernard Avishai. Olmert told Avishai: "We were very close, more than ever in the past, to complete an agreement on principles that would have led to the end of the conflict between us and the Palestinians." Yet Olmert told Avishai two years later that the exact number of refugees that would return was still subject to further negotiation. How could this gap lead Olmert to conclude that he was "very close" to completing an agreement with Abbas? In the area of security, the Olmert proposals were even more troubling. Mahmoud Abbas told Avishai in the New York Times that "the file on security is closed." But he then added, "we do not claim it was an agreement but the file was finalized." How was security "finalized" without an agreement between the parties? Abbas explained that the Israeli security concerns had been worked out with Gen. James Jones, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's security advisor, but not with Israel. Rice writes in her memoirs that Abbas "refused" to accept Olmert's offer, even after President Bush appealed to him to reconsider his position. In 2009, Abbas was interviewed by Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post and explained why he could not take Olmert's offer to the Palestinians: "The gaps were too wide." Israel is in a very different situation today than it was when these peace proposals were made in the past. Israelis have gone through a second intifada with suicide bomb attacks in the heart of their cities, the failure of the Gaza withdrawal that led to a massive escalation of rocket attacks on southern Israel, and an Arab Spring that has demonstrated the fragility of the regimes with which Israel has signed peace treaties. Under these circumstances, in future negotiations Israeli security needs must be stressed harder and not subcontracted to envoys from any country. What is required is an alternative diplomatic strategy, and a more secure path for achieving Middle East peace, rather than trying to revive a formula that has only led to diplomatic failure. 2012-05-11 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|