

The Israel-Palestine peace process

More than just a charade?

The Israeli-Palestinian peace process resumes, after a fashion

See article

Readers' comments




I am well aware that Biden is as bought and owned by AIPAC as the rest of the higher-up politicians, but do these humiliating meetings need to be public?

I am so embarrassed as an American to watch my nation, the most powerful country in the world, send it's Vice President to this little militaristic/theocratic country, kiss their behinds over and over again and pledge undying loyalty to them forever and ever, and then pretend that we are working together when the Israelis will do what they want and they will have the US do whatever they want us to do.


More than just a joke? Israel gives the "finger of ambiquity" to Biden who is not bothered or does he think it is an Olive Branch (which is the standard norm among US officals towards Israel.) I thinks Israel is making a mockery of US and US is loading them with Arms and cash.
One Israeli Columinist wrote “Before no other country in the planet does the United States kneel and plead like this. In other trouble spots, America takes a different tone. It bombs Afghanistan, invades Iraq and threatens sanctions against Iran and North Korea. Did anyone in Washington consider begging Saddam Hussein to withdraw from occupied territory in Kuwait?”


1. Behaves in a undemocratic way.
2. Does not adhere to International Laws.
3. Does have a wonderful policy of Ambiquity when it comes to its atrocities but want the whole world to condemn one small opposition to its policies.


tzatz is right.

i just hope that everyone understands that when he says "all bets are off", that means that the Israelis will keep the Palestinians under apartheid oppression, will continue assassinating Palestinians, and will continue to stealing land from the Palestinians through settlements.

and we Americans will continue paying for it.

v. Silberkreuz

Israel is as bad as the Arabs. For all of its business suit wearing ministers, the mindset is still that of a by-gone age- expansionism. These talks will come to nothing, as per usual. Perhaps Israel will just invade again and then block foreign journalists from seeing what they do? Both sides are as bad as each other. They wont come to an agreement. Perhaps America and Germany should stop sending Financial and Military aid? I think that Israel would then soon rush to come to an agreement.



Give me a break.
The Israeli's have all the weapons.
The Israeli's are the ones forever expanding into Palestinian territory and treating the Palestinians like prisoners.
The Israeli's have the US to protect them from any kind of International Justice.
The Palestinians are defenseless.

"Where do they stand on the 1967 border? "
You act like the Israeli's would possibly go for that. They have absolutely no intention. And why should they? They control the guns and have the US wrapped around their finger.

"Israel has a huge economy"
Agreed. So why must America continue sending billions of dollars a year in aid?

"if Mexico lobbed missiles"
that's such a tired analogy. contrary to neocon wisdom, inferior countries don't attack superior ones in such a desperate way without cause. neocons never think about motive and only assume that people are crazy.
the palestinians are living under apartheid. the West Bank is being vanished, and the Gaza strip is one big concentration camp.


And then the ultra-pro Israeli propaganda starts. How about you guys admit that Israel is wrong in building settlements in the Palestinian occupied territories, rather than defending every action the state of Israel does?

This article written by the Economist is pure fact. Your propaganda is pure fiction. Enough said.


Like any other party engaging in negotiations, the Israelis want to be in a position of strength relative to the Palestinians. With more Jewish settlements in the West Bank, with a siege in the Gaza Strip, and with troops ready at a moment's notice, the Israelis may be trying to do everything possible before the U.S. really cracks down on settlement construction.

The Israelis may view a powerful negotiating position as the only way to get some of the grievances they are asking for. Because let's face it, they can't really hide behind the United States like they used to under President George W. Bush (more pressure from America means more concessions from Israel)

This is the problem with Israel. They continue to view negotiation as a zero-sum game, with one side winning and the other losing.
This does not need to be. Both sides can claim victory within reasonable limits. The 2002 Arab League plan is the best scenario. Israel withdrawing to pre-1967 borders in exchange for full diplomatic recognition. Asking more than that is just plain foolish.



Some simple truths this article's author, and some of the readers, prefer to ignore:

1. The "Palestinians" don't want peace. Had they wanted it, they could have gotten a peace deal which includes ~95% of the West Bank + East Jerusalem 10 times by now.
However, that would mean the end of hostilities, and they don't want that. So they insist on the "Right of Return" (which they will never get, because it means the end of Israel) as a way to sabotage negotiations, and than resume violence.

2. Mr Biden is "humiliated" only because he chose to be. Israel never said it would stop building in East Jerusalem, so it is not clear what trust exactly has been undermined, or why Netanyahu should countermand the plan.
Israel said it would halt building in the West Bank, and it has done exactly that.

3. It is also not clear why Israel should negotiate with Abbas at all. He represents no one, has no authority or influence, and is kept from being thrown out by Hamas only by the Israeli presence in the West Bank (refer to Gaza to see what would happen to Fatah and Abbas should Israel decide to withdraw).

4. Of course, this article makes plenty of demands of Israel (stop building, change the coalition, give more power to Abbas, etc etc), while presenting only the Palestinian point of view and demanding absolutely NOTHING of them.
Does the Economist really believe this to be a balanced approach to the conflict?

5. And for all those screaming "Apartheid" at the top of their lungs - how many black suicide bombers were there in South Africa? How many rockets did they fire on civilian population centers? That's right - Zero.
This so-called Apartheid, Wall, Checkpoints, what have you, only exist because Israelis got tired of being blown into shreds of meat on buses and restaurants by Palestinians (prior to the 2002 Intifada there were no walls and no checkpoints).
For all the commentators here this is quite easy to overlook. But not for us that actually may pay the price.

Ed High

President Obama's Middle East overtures have been less than bold. It's been over a year now, try something new.

How about deducting $100,000 for each new home built in disputed territory from US aid to Israel?

It's past time to take some calculated measures against what, alas, can only be described as Israeli apartheid. Fortunately, by sending VP Biden, the USA are represented by someone who is accustomed to covering embarassing statements. It's time to apply pressure to Israeli politicians for a change.

Jehuda Ben-Israel

Nothing that was said or done with regard to construction planning in Jerusalem was contrary to pre-agreements among the parties in advance of the forthcoming "peace talks", nothing!

The 1,600 apartments will be located in a Jerusalem neighborhood, not a subject for discussion now or even in the future. Thus, one can only understand the Arabs' objection to having Jews, only because they are Jewish, reside in neighborhoods of their own capital city of Jerusalem as a form of racism.

And this anti-Jewish racism should have been the subject Biden should have raised in his talks with the Arabs. He should have demanded: Cease your anti-Jewish racism now!

But "liberal" Biden appears to have difficulties representing "progressive" Obama by calling the child by its name...!!

Tall Will


If you don't like being "blown to bits by suicide bombers", give up your occupation of the West Bank with all of its, yes, apartheid behavior (and worse).

Oh wait, that would mean confronting your own religious fanatics (aka the settlers). Hmmm, not holding my breath.

Get ready for more insecurity; you can have the land or you can have peace. You cannot - and do not deserve - both.


How the apologists for Israel can bare-faced say Israel wants peace when this sort of behavior is not only tolerated but encouraged is beyond me. Why doesn't the US use the undoubted economic muscle over the Israeli state to extract more acceptable behavior. Obama must surely now see that his softly softly approach has not worked in Health care, in climate change, on Iran or on Afganastan.

Nor will it work on a middle east settlement. Sure the Israeli lobby on Capitol Hill will bluster and carry on, but Obama at the moment on a lot of these issues seems to be expending political capital for very little political gain. Better to be decisive and accept you will cause a melt down with the vested interests, at least you will then be seen as being decisive, as well as right on your side in standing up to those who wish to thumb their noses at the US to America's and the Administration's considerable cost.

Reasonableness will not work with either side in the Middle East. The attitudes are too well entrenched, and the behaviors too extreme. Strong decisive action backed up with the full use of political and economic power is the only way to achieve a breakthrough. And all sides need the understand that this sort of outrageous behavior as outlined in this article will not be tolerated and will have consequences for those who perpetrate it.

The US would not tolerate this sort of "two figures in the air" to it from ANYONE else. They should not from Israel, otherwise others will decide they can do what they like to the world's superpower with considerable cost to American power and prestige, and indeed to the safety of the entire Western world.

Mad Hatter

Well, read the Economist blog and one or two comments, http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/03/israel_and_pal...

Ignore most of them - we will hear the same old same old arguments regarding each side.

The blog is a very neutral analysis of the negotiating process and possible explanations for incomprehension on the part of a growing number of people around the world as to why Israel seems to pour oil on every fire, just as it is about to go out.

There was a documentary on the BBC several years ago, (it could never be shown in America) where they interviewed both sides of the ongoing debate/battle.

What was most interesting was the comment by the Palestinian interviewees, be they politicians, members of Hamas, or the public etc..

From their point of view, every time their people had calmed down enough, or grown weary of the latest round of violence, and were prepared to come to the table to talk, Israel had the uncanny ability of making this impossible, by killing one of their men through an air strike (and surrounding civilians) or insulting their religious values.

Sharon repeatedly, when explained the possible consequences of authorising a strike, with respect to the peace process by his advisors, approved them every time.

There was a Jewish on-line paper ages ago, and it covered the peace talks as if it was a soap opera.

In fake interviews with Sharon and Arafat as if they were actors, they both were complaining about the lines and actions they were required to deliver as if the writer was a complete idiot.

It looks like it's time to change the playwright, because the plot certainly hasn’t changed.

Theodosius West

Talk about getting no respect! The vice president of the United States of America arrives in Israel and they immediately announce more settlement construction in East Jerusalem. That's like arriving for dinner as guest only to have your host French kiss your wife when he greets you at the door.

The Obama administration is looking more and more like the Carter administration on foreign policy: weak and held in contempt.


Regardless whether the Israelis want a peace process or a nation for the Palestinians, I expect that Americans will by now have had enough of the insults and will rescind promises to defend Israel no matter how badly it behaves. It would be healthy and humbling for arrogant Israel to have to live with its neighbors without U.S. backup.



when you speak like that, talking to me like i'm a racist, and then saying things to me that clearly are racist, you are only hurting yourself.

most of what you said i don't need to respond to since it's just you killing your own credibility.

the only thing i will comment on are the Clinton Parameters.
Are you aware that the Palestinians still would not have had control of the West Bank? That the Israelis would control all the natural resources in the West Bank including the water supply.


I think it is strange that this article has been posted for less then 24 hours and there are over 20 comments already, many with fierce condemnation of Israel for approving housing units in east Jerusalem.

A few days ago, there was an article posted on the Economist home page about sectarian violence in Nigeria in which about 200 people, among them women and children, were hacked to death with machetes. After two or three days that article had about 10 comments.

One assumption I can draw from this is that some (not all) commenters here aren't really pro-Palestinian but simply use this conflict as an excuse for Jew-bashing.

Working Man

As an Israeli who wants peace based on the two state solution, many of us are figuratively tearing our hair out.

Mr. Netanyahu's government has made a fool of itself and its own policies with this move.

Officially and on the record, Netanyahu has said "Two States" is the govt policy.

Actually, from what I can see, Netanyahu was deeply embarrassed by this self-inflicted wound; he did want the negotiations to start. But he is prime minister and its his job to manage the govt for results. This nonsense is beyond just embarrassment - it is self defeating.

The decision should be rescinded so that negotiations can proceed.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Writing worth reading: Dark matter
Babbage March 15th, 14:43
Bits and mortar: Babbage visits Ada's
Babbage March 15th, 10:22


Products & events