The U.N. Should Accept Palestine as a Full Member State

Originally posted by normbenign
Ok, so negotiation may begin without trust, but if the lack of trust turns into an outright disbelief in the other party, due to constant renigs on previous deals, then there is little if any reason for further negotiations. Also, it is a given that one holding the power has the upper hand in any negotiations, and both sides have to be willing to give up something.

Both sides are willing to give up something.

Any deal struck between the parties could be enforced by the United States. They could work in that as part of the agreement. The agreement could state that the US promises to cut off aid to Israel if Israel breaks the agreement and de-recognize the Palestinian state if the Palestinians break the agreement.

Netanyahu has already signed a deal with the Palestinians at Wye, so the notion that he is unwilling to negotiate is silly. Abbas has clearly demonstrated a willingness to deal with Israel as well.

The point is that the Palestinians can always say "as long as they're on our land, we can't negotiate" and Israel can always say "as long as they're shooting rockets at our civilians and demanding our destruction, we can't negotiate." If they do that, there will never ever be peace because both of those things are going to continue at least until there is an agreement.

Do they want peace or do they want to make excuses to avoid peace? From this Barghoutti quote, it seems apparent that he fits squarely into the latter category.

Originally posted by Barts
I am saying that there has to be a minimum of trust between me and the other party before I negotiate. That doesn't mean I trust them enough to give them the key to my house and access to my bank account, but I would not negotiate with anyone if I did not believe they were willing to come to an agreement and that they would honour an agreement once reached. Si ...[text shortened]... do so, it might be time for the Israelis to make a gesture that will establish that trust.

Maybe it's also time for the Palestinians to make a gesture as well. I'll settle for a moratorium on drumming into their children that Jihad against the Jews is highest calling in life one can attain.

Originally posted by sh76
Any deal struck between the parties could be enforced by the United States.

What a pity that the U.S. is not the 'honest broker' it sees itself as, though.

Originally posted by FMF
What a pity that the U.S. is not the 'honest broker' it sees itself as, though.

No, the US is pro-Israel. I agree to that.

It is probably the closest thing that exists to an honest broker, though.

Originally posted by sh76
No, the US is pro-Israel. I agree to that.

What a great thing it would be right now if the U.S. was actually an honest broker. Why doesn't the U.S. commit its 'power', unconditionally, to backing up the efforts of an actual 'honest broker'?

Originally posted by sh76
[The U.S.] is probably the closest thing that exists to an honest broker, though.

What makes you say that? No other country in the world could be closer to being "an honest broker" than the U.S.? That's quite a claim. Are you serious?

Originally posted by FMF
What makes you say that? No other country in the world could be closer to being "an honest broker" than the U.S.? That's quite a claim. Are you serious?

No other entity that has the actual power to be a broker. I don't know if, say, Guatemala or Japan would be a more honest broker, but it matters not because those countries don't have the political clout to be a broker. The other entities that do have that kind of clout are Russia, China, the EU, theoretically the UN and that's pretty much it. Maybe, maybe a country like the UK, but they've not shown an inclination to take on that role anyway.

And yes, I do not think any of those are closer to being an honest broker than the US.

Originally posted by FMF
What a great thing it would be right now if the U.S. was actually an honest broker. Why doesn't the U.S. commit its 'power', unconditionally, to backing up the efforts of an actual 'honest broker'?

Okay.

Well first, most countries are anti-Israel and so the US being pro-Israel is not the world's greatest tragedy. If everyone else was even-handed, that would be one thing. But the US pro-Israel stance is necessary to protect against the aggressive anti-Israel stance of most of the rest of the world.

As for why the US doesn't abandon its pro-Israel stance, I suppose its some combination of the US people and politicians' actual belief in the morality of the fundamental Israeli position (i.e., that they have the right to exist free of constant harassment) and the influence of pro-Israel groups in the US.

Originally posted by sh76
No other entity that has the actual power to be a broker. I don't know if, say, Guatemala or Japan would be a more honest broker, but it matters not because those countries don't have the political clout to be a broker. The other entities that do have that kind of clout are Russia, China, the EU, theoretically the UN and that's pretty much it. Maybe, maybe a co ...[text shortened]... y.

And yes, I do not think any of those are closer to being an honest broker than the US.

Norway, for instance, has better credentials as an 'honest broker' than the U.S. Norway brokered the Israel/PLO Oslo Accords . Thye brought the 30 year separatist
GAM/Indonesia conflict to an end. They played a key role in ending the war in Bosnia. Norway were successful mediators in Guatemala. They have earned respect for their
work in in Colombia, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Eritrea. Why doesn't the U.S. offer to back - with its "clout" - whatever deal the Norwegians broker, for instance?

Originally posted by sh76
the US pro-Israel stance is necessary to protect against the aggressive anti-Israel stance of most of the rest of the world.

How can you believe this and at the same time believe that "[The U.S.] is probably the closest thing that exists to an honest broker"? Do you believe that "pro-Israel stance" = "being an honest broker"?

Originally posted by FMF
Norway, for instance, has better credentials as an 'honest broker' than the U.S. Norway brokered the Israel/PLO Oslo Accords . Thye brought the 30 year separatist
GAM/Indonesia conflict to an end. They played a key role in ending the war in Bosnia. Norway were successful mediators in Guatemala. They have earned respect for their
work in in Colombia, Sudan, S ...[text shortened]... U.S. offer to back - with its "clout" - whatever deal the Norwegians broker, for instance?

Well, okay. You mean

Norway, backed by US political clout.

I suppose that could work.

But that really means the US in combination with Norway.

Originally posted by sh76
But that really means the US in combination with Norway.

No. I mean the U.S. trusting Norway to act as honest broker, delegating mediation and arbitration powers to Norway, and backing Norway with it's "clout", even if the outcome is not something that the U.S. 100% agrees with.

Originally posted by FMF
No. I mean the U.S. trusting Norway to act as honest broker, delegating mediation and arbitration powers to Norway, and backing Norway with it's "clout", even if the outcome is not something that the U.S. 100% agrees with.

You want the US to cut off aid to Israel (say, for example) or give even more money to one party or the other based on the advice of Norway even if it disagrees with the Norwegian take on the particular matter in dispute?

Well, perhaps. But I don't think any country would so readily agree to that sort of arrangement.

Originally posted by sh76
You want the US to cut off aid to Israel (say, for example) or give even more money to one party or the other based on the advice of Norway even if it disagrees with the Norwegian take on the particular matter in dispute?

Well, perhaps. But I don't think any country would so readily agree to that sort of arrangement.

And yet you still claim that the U.S. is the closest country to being an honest broker in the world?

Originally posted by FMF
And yet you still claim that the U.S. is the closest country to being an honest broker in the world?

With the qualification that I am referring to countries that have the wherewithal to actually be brokers, yes.