Obama Admits Imposed Peace Will Fail

by Eric on April 14, 2010

The US seems to have given up on a peace plan at the moment, as the Palestinians refuse to sit down and talk with Israel.  It is impossible for Israel to reach a peace agreement if there is no partner for peace on the other side of the table.

It took him a little time to realize it, but President Barack Obama said that even with all of the pressure he can put on both sides, peace is impossible if they will not meet in person.  Obama has been pressing for peace for over a year, and the Palestinians refuse to cooperate with Israel.  About a month after the Biden incident, it seems that the United States may be backing down a little, for now.

About the author

Eric Eric is the founder and editor of IsraelSituation.com. He has been to Israel many times including a semester at Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is the former president of the Israel advocacy group at the University of Colorado and teaches about Israel and the Media at a local religious school.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
  • Joel

    I actually have to disagree with the way you’ve characterized the process here. It’s not really that the Palestinians outright refuse to talk. The breakdown of talks is far more complex than that. This distinction is important because the blame for the breakdown of peace talks needs to be shared among all of the involved parties (including the United States):

    -The Palestinians have set conditions for meeting that Israel will not meet, namely the end of settlement activity. In addition, the PA does not have enough power to promise the end of rocket attacks on Israel (nor do they really want to), as Hamas can and does act independently of the “legitimate” Palestinian government.

    -The Israelis don’t want to give up their trump card in negotiations, which would be the end of settlement activity (and even dismantling of some West Bank settlements). It is rather unreasonable to expect that Israel will fold on a controversial issue without gaining anything, like security assurances, in exchange.

    -The United States, as an international negotiator, made promises to both sides before assuring that those promises were realistic. They assured Israelis that rocket attacks would end, and we see how well that went. The US also assured the Palestinians that it could badger Israel into freezing the settlements. It’s hard to gain the respect of both parties if the promises you’ve made to both sides have failed.

    • http://www.israelsituation.com/ Eric

      Point 1 (first part): You just agreed with me, the Palestinians have set conditions. They refuse to meet because Israel is doing something they do not like. That is the whole point of meeting, to work through things that the two sides don’t like about each other. (Second part) The Palestinians have to be able to control their own people. I know this seems impossible today, but if renegade terrorists from a third world terrirtory attacked the United States, they would receive much less enthusiasm for meetings. Example: Afghanistan.

      Point 2: I like it.

      Point 3: Israel did freeze settlements, but the word settlements is used so loosely by the Palestinians that I think we are stuck on both semantics and differeing language. Like many Israel advocates, I see Jerusalem as part of Israel. I lived there for a semester, and I technically lived in “the West Bank” on Mount Scopus/French Hill, but it didn’t seem like I was entering a settlement when I walked up the block from “Israel proper” a few blocks away. Israel did make a show of good faith, by stopping Judea/Samaria construction, but the Palestinians still would not talk.

      I do agree that the blame is partially due to each party, but I believe Israel has made much more concrete steps toward peace than the Palestinians. I have never heard a Prime Minister or President of Israel call for the death of Palestinians. That is not true the other way, including “our friend” PA President Abbas.

Previous post:

Next post: