Thursday, April 23, 2009

Iran-Israel-Palestine: Who linked what to what and what does it mean?

According to Washigton Post, Israel tried to link the peace process to progress in stopping Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons:
The new Israeli government will not move ahead on the core issues of peace talks with the Palestinians until it sees progress in U.S. efforts to stop Iran's suspected pursuit of a nuclear weapon and limit Tehran's rising influence in the region, according to top government officials familiar with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's developing policy on the issue.
"It's a crucial condition if we want to move forward," said Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon, a member of the Israeli parliament and former ambassador to the United States. "If we want to have a real political process with the Palestinians, then you can't have the Iranians undermining and sabotaging."
But this was promptly denied:
Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon on Wednesday denied a report that Israel will not move ahead with diplomatic talks with the Palestinians until the US places more pressure on Iran to stop its nuclear weapons program. 

"We will deal with the Palestinian issue as if there is no Iranian issue, and with the Iranian issue as if there is no Palestinian issue," Ayalon said. 

But wait, it's not over yet, because US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton  insists that progress in stopping Iran depends on progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace procress:

"For Israel to get the kind of strong support it is looking for vis-a-vis Iran, it can't stay on the sidelines with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts. They go hand in hand," she told the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee.
Both sides have to realize that that the linking is a fact of life, if not a policy. There is no way to make peace with the Palestinians as long as Iran will continue to support Hamas and block peace efforts. Any peace agreement, especially one brokered by the USA, would be sabotaged by Iran's tame terror groups: Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.
On the other hand, it is hard to imagine a coordinated Middle East effort to deal with Iran unless there is either peace between Israel and the Palestinians, or, the Arab street and public opinion as well as American public opinion come to perceive Iran as a direct threat.
Ami Isseroff

1 comment:

pabelmont said...

I love the pursuing THIS as if there were no THAT, whilst pursuing THAT as if there were no THIS. (Depending on what THIS and THAT are, of course.)

I rather doubt that the US will ignore Iran's military advance, if any, even if Israel remains intransigent. Nice try, Hillary.

I suggest, to President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Sen. Mitchell that the US adopt a policy of:

PURSUING peace as if the occupation did not require revision; and

PURSUING a LAWFUL OCCUPATION by Israel as if peace were not a concern.

Note that, judging by the International Court of Justice's July 9, 2004, advisory opinion, a LAWFUL OCCUPATION would not maintain (but would remove) the WALL in the West Bank; and would not contain SETTLERS or SETTLEMENTS.

If I had President Obama's ear, I would recommend that the US require Israel to remove the WALL and the SETTLERS from ALL OCCUPIED TERRITORIES (including occupied East Jerusalem) and further demand that Israel either demolish the settlements (including the MASSIVE neighborhoods of Jerusalem) or give them lock-stock-and-barrel to the Palestinian Authority to use for Palestinian housing.

This would be a major step in the direction of a LAWFULLY CONDUCTED OCCUPATION.

Such a requirement might also motivate Israel to negotiate a 2-state (or, who knows, a 1-state) peace with the Palestinians. BUT IF IT DID NOT, it would improve the human-rights of the Palestinians living under shat is now a 42-year occupation and may well last for another 42 years.

So, PEACE as if no problem with occupation, and MAKE THE OCCUPATION LAWFUL regardless of progress with peace.