It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Implications of the new freeze deal on the peace process?

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 08:05 AM
Alright, so this freeze deal isn't just about planes and spies, right? So what is it about? Leverage.

1) The U.S is promising to cease any further demand for settlement freezing in the near future.
2) The U.S is promising to veto any unilateral Palestinian attempt to establish a Palestinian nation within the UN.
3) Jerusalem is not part of the deal (Same as the last settlement freeze).
4) Recognizing Israel as a Jewish state is not part of the deal (Which supports my opinion that it was only a trick to create political leverage).

The meaning of this is that there is a lot of pressure on the PA to go into negotiations.

Now the question is- Is it good or is it bad? Will it scare away the PA, that are literally getting the carpet pulled from under their feet, or will it motivate (or force) them to enter negotiations, seeing as how in the last 10 month freeze the PA seemed like they were just stalling for time.

And then another question rises- Is it even fair that Israel is negotiating on the further development of settlements that shouldn't be there in the first place? Should it be allowed to do so? Is fairness relevant in this geo-political issue? Meaning, if using the settlements as leverage gets the PA to negotiate, ultimately resulting in the majority of the settlements evacuated, is it okay? Does the end justify the means?

And one more thing- Is this all just a result of Obama's insistence on complete settlement freezing at the beginning of his term? Would settlement development still have been this "negotiation stopper" had he not made it one?

I personally think that for this freeze to have any positive outcomes the U.S (or any other outside party committed to peace in the middle east) needs to offer the PA a similar incentive so that they too could feel they've gained something from going into negotiations, instead of feeling they have no choice but to go into negotiations.
edit on 22-11-2010 by Eliad because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 02:14 PM
reply to post by Eliad

Why would Israel allow capital investment by its citizenry to continue in areas internationally accepted as occupied territory ?

In any dispute over ownership, all activity relating to the disputed claim is usually frozen until satisfactorily concluded.

I wonder should the conflict be resolved in parts , it may be easier to deliver than trying to resolve borders, settlement land swaps, the Golan etc ,the right of return and the issue of Jerusalem all in one go.

History weights heavy on the minds of both sides I surmise, ....... once an agreement is reached it will be for keeps.


log in