UN-Truth

It’s no surprise that the Israelis are not overjoyed about the gift offered to them by the Arab Summit — normal relations, peace, in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-June 1967 lines.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said this in a long interview with Haaretz published on Friday:
“Olmert opened the policy section of the interview with an optimistic declaration: ‘Gentlemen, I believe that in the next five years, it is possible to arrive at a comprehensive peace agreement with the Arab states and the Palestinians. That is the goal. That is the effort, the vision’.

Q: How do we get there?

‘With patience and with wisdom. The Palestinians are facing a historic junction at which they will have to decide whether they want to remain stuck in a corner of extreme fundamentalism, which will cut them off from the entire world, or whether they are ready to take the necessary steps. My role is to assist in building this process’.

This week Olmert hosted the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. He rejected ideas of making rapid progress in negotiations with the Palestinians, of a shortcut to the final-status settlement, and committed himself only to biweekly meetings with the chairman of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), at which confidence-building measures will be discussed. Rice had hoped to leave Jerusalem with a dramatic declaration on the revival of the peace process, but had to make do with a lukewarm statement.

‘There was no real disagreement between us and the Americans’, the prime minister explains. ‘There were very interesting and very productive discussions. All told, we said that there is no point in a bypass route, and that we have to confront the Palestinians and oblige them to fulfill commitments. That holds true also for Gilad Shalit. Abu Mazen promised he would not form a government if Shalit was not released. He told me that, he told Condi Rice that in my presence, he told [German Chancellor] Angela Merkel that. It’s impossible to go on like this: Everything they commit to - to stop the terrorism, to fight terrorism, all these things … How can you believe them when they don’t fulfill anything?’

Q: And you believe that one day they will undergo a transformation and start to fight terrorism?

‘If they don’t transform themselves, don’t fight terrorism and don’t fulfill any of their other commitments, they will continue to live in never-ending chaos’.

Q: But then demography will defeat us. Only a year ago you warned that it endangers the future of Zionism.

‘At that time my role was to try to generate momentum in a different direction.’

Olmert believes that various factors in the past year - the Second Lebanon War, the growing fear of Iran, and extremism - have pushed Arab states, led by Saudi Arabia, into a different perception of the regional reality. ‘A bloc of states is emerging that understands that they may have been wrong to think that Israel is the world’s greatest problem, and that maybe it is worthwhile to reach an understanding that includes acceptance of Israel’s existence,’ he says. ‘I very much hope that the conference of Arab states will contribute to this.’

The prime minister praises Saudi King Abdullah for his involvement, speaks favorably about the ‘Saudi initiative’ and expresses reservations about the ‘Arab initiative’ that cites UN General Assembly Resolution 194, which calls for the return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes.

‘I’ve referred positively to the Saudi initiative, which is something that prime ministers before me were not willing to say. I do not agree with every detail; it’s not that I accept the initiative and tomorrow will be ready to sit down and sign an agreement. There are interesting ideas there, and we are ready to hold discussions and hear from the Saudis about their approach and to tell them about ours’, Olmert says, adding that he’ll be happy to participate in a regional conference that will support Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

‘In my [November 2006] speech at [Kibbutz] Sde Boker, I said far-reaching things, to which the whole world paid attention, and they are the conceptual underpinning around which the moves are also being conducted now’.

Why is Shalit’s release stuck?

‘Because it turns out that Abu Mazen cannot fulfill his commitment, and the conditions that Hamas is presenting are creating a gap that cannot be closed at this stage.’

Q: Do you confirm reports from the Arab side about major progress in the contacts?

‘The reports from the Arab side are intended to bring pressure to bear on us, and they are very inaccurate.’

Q: Should [jailed Fatah leader] Marwan Barghouti expect an early release?

‘No’.

Q: He is not part of the exchange?

‘No’.

Why not?

‘I think the reasons are perfectly clear’.

Olmert is convinced that he has to continue the dialogue with Abbas. ‘I do not know anyone else among the Palestinians with status and authority who is preferable as an interlocutor’, the prime minister says. ‘After all, he is a person whom it is pleasant to meet with and talk to, very intelligent, and in his basic positions he is showing understanding that is approaching the foundation on which a political process can be constructed. There are two problems with him. One is that the stream he represents is a minority in the Palestinian state [sic], and the second is that he is not in control of the governmental machinery in a way that enables him to put into practice his approach against the other elements’.
…
‘Those who are calling for a boycott of Abu Mazen’, Olmert continues, ‘who do not want to maintain connections with anyone, are those who in the end want the way of war, blood, fire, confrontation - and we have already tried this, in all its aspects. We want to maintain the possibility of dialogue. But it is completely clear that we will not be able to accept the continued firing of Qassam rockets [from the Gaza Strip] indefinitely’.

Q: You have been saying that for a year already, and they continue to be fired. Just this morning eight rockets were fired into the Negev.

‘During that year, until November, we were quite active’.

Q: It didn’t help.

‘It didn’t help when we acted, and therefore the fact that we are not acting now is not the reason that Qassams are being fired. We are not ignoring this question. This is not the situation that existed in southern Lebanon, where for six years there were people in Israel who said things gotten rusty. I am not saying that. Every day I look at what is happening there. We are making an effort to mobilize the international community to prevent the smuggling. We are making a great effort so that a Palestinian force will be created that will prevent the smuggling and the terrorist operations’.

Q: The Israel Defense Forces is calling for a large-scale operation in Gaza, before Hamas gets any stronger. What is your opinion?

‘We have time before getting to a military operation. That is not the first thing I am looking to do. Qassams were fired even when we were in Gaza and carried out large-scale operations. We can’t get a solution just by pressing a button’.

Q: What about the evacuation of the illegal settler outposts? Since the demolition of the houses in Amona more than a year ago, not even a shack has been evacuated.

‘That is true, apart from what was evacuated today in Homesh. That was, I think, a clear signal. Israel, in the final analysis, will evacuate the illegal outposts. It has to be part of a process in which the Palestinians fulfill their commitments. [That] will facilitate things for us, too.’

Here, Olmert is changing the policy of his predecessor in office, Ariel Sharon, who demanded that there be a distinction between the handling of the outpost question and the dialogue with the Palestinians, and portrayed the evacuation as fulfillment of a personal promise he made to U.S. President George Bush. Olmert prefers to make evacuation of the outposts conditional on the Palestinian battle against terrorism.

Q: Did you miss an opportunity to renew the talks with the Syrians?

‘I want to make peace with Syria. Unequivocally. But we all know - and the Palestinian experience also shows us - that there is a disparity between declarations and a credible process, which can also bring about a correct outcome. It is not enough for someone to make a vague declaration through some court journalist. I want to arrive at the possibility of peace with the Syrians, and when I believe that the conditions are right, I will not miss the opportunity’.

Q: What are those conditions?

Olmert is mysterious: ‘Conditions that make negotiations possible, and everyone with any experience of negotiations with the Syrians knows about them’.”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/843853.html

Reuters is reporting that Israel’s elder statesman and deputy prime minister, Shimon Peres, told Reuters Television that Israel, the Palestinians and the Arabs should sit down together and negotiate,
‘otherwise, I’m afraid, we shall go in a vain debate that will lead nowhere’.
ttp://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070330/wl_nm/
israel_arabs_olmert_dc_1;_ylt=AsFSwuN_OzneC8IFOXh1fD0UewgF

Haaretz reported in another story that: “Israel’s official response, released in a statement by the Foreign Ministry in coordination with the Prime Minister’s Bureau, was lukewarm. It ignored the content of the Riyadh resolution and focused on the call by the moderate Arab nations to enter a dialogue with Israel. ‘Israel believes in peace, and seeks to establish peaceful and neighborly relations both with the Palestinian people and with all the states of the region’, the Foreign Ministry statement said.
‘Israel is sincerely interested in pursuing a dialogue with those Arab states that desire peace with Israel, this in order to promote a process of normalization and cooperation. Israel hopes that the Riyadh Summit will contribute to this effort. Israel’s position with regard to the peace process with the Palestinians is founded upon fundamental principles, the most central of which is the existence of two nation-states, with each state addressing the national aspirations of its own people - Israel for the Jewish people and Palestine for the Palestinian people - and with both states coexisting in peace, free from the threat of terrorism and violence. For this purpose, a direct dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians is necessary’.

The statement added: ‘Israel also believes that moderate Arab states can fill a positive role by encouraging regional cooperation, and supporting the Israel-Palestinian track. A dialogue between these states and Israel can contribute to this end’.

Defense Minister Amir Peretz said on Thursday during a meeting called to discuss the Riyadh summit that Israel should derive satisfaction that the Arab consensus adopted the principle of ending the conflict and normalization with Israel.

According to Peretz, Israel will make a mistake if it ignores the Arab initiative, which should be seen as a basis for negotiations on a permanent status agreement with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. Participants at the meeting warned that a lack of response by Israel to the Riyadh conference might ratchet up international pressure and lead to the blaming of Israel for a freeze in the diplomatic process, which might deny it the freedom to act diplomatically and militarily.

Deputy Premier Shimon Peres called on the Arab states ‘to sit together with Israel and achieve an agreement, as we did with Egypt and Jordan. Unilateral declarations, in which each side presents its positions, will not achieve anything’, Peres said.”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/843902.html

There was also a U.S. reaction to a statement made by the Arab Summit’s host, saying that the U.S. occupation of Iraq was “illegal”, as the Associated Press reports: “The White House, in a rare public retort Thursday, rejected the king’s characterization of U.S. troops in Iraq as an ‘illegitimate foreign occupation’, saying the United States was not in Iraq illegally. ‘The United States and Saudi Arabia have a close and cooperative relationship on a wide range of issues’, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. ‘And when it comes to the coalition forces being in Iraq, we are there under the UN Security Council resolutions and at the invitation of the Iraqi people’. ‘We disagree with them’, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns told senators. ‘We were a little surprised to see those remarks’.
The king made his remarks Wednesday at the opening session of the two-day Arab summit his country hosted in Riyadh. It was believed to be the first time the king publicly expressed that opinion. ‘In beloved Iraq, blood is flowing between brothers, in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation, and abhorrent sectarianism threatens a civil war’, said Abdullah, whose country is a U.S. ally that quietly aided the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. A Saudi official said the king was speaking as the president of the summit and his remarks reflected general frustration with the ‘patchwork’ job the Americans were doing to end violence in Iraq. The king also wanted to send a message that Iraq is an issue that Arabs cannot turn their back on, the official said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. It was not clear what kind of diplomatic fallout could result — but the comments did nothing to help bring Arab nations closer to the government of Iraq’s Shiite prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki. The summit has taken a tough line on Iraq, demanding it change its constitution and military to include more Sunnis and end a program of uprooting former members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath party. The Sunni-led governments of the Arab world have long been suspicious of Iraq’s Shiite leadership, blaming it for fueling violence by discriminating against Sunni Arabs and accusing it of helping mainly Shiite Iran extend its influence in the region. Writers in some Arab media suggested before the summit that Saudi Arabia would seek solutions that would cater to U.S. interests. ‘The king’s remarks are the biggest proof that those accusations were false’, said Dawood al-Shirian, a Saudi analyst. ‘In the issue of Iraq, Saudi Arabia went far beyond most other Arab countries. It went beyond the details and right to the cause’. Al-Shirian said he expected other Arab countries to take Saudi Arabia’s lead in considering the presence of U.S. troops an illegal occupation. ‘If Saudi Arabia didn’t blame the occupation, the blame would fall on the Iraqis, who are victims. How can you blame the victim?’ he asked. The U.S. called its presence in Iraq an occupation until the June 2004 handover of sovereignty to the Iraqis. U.S. troops remained in Iraq with permission from the Iraqi government and a mandate from the United Nations. Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal stood by the king’s remarks Thursday — and his defense had hints of the Arab nation’s attitude that the Shiite-led government doesn’t have the legitimacy to approve the U.S. presence. ‘If that country had chosen to have those troops, then it’s something else. But any military action that is not requested by a specific country — that is the definition of occupation’, al-Faisal told reporters.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070330/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saudi_king;
_ylt=Ar4qQ9jXFegeIPG5FFh0WGELewgF

Filed under: Gaza, Israel, Middle East Peace Process, Palestine & Palestinians