Simulation: Quartet Meeting with Israel and its Allies
Please post your comments here. This posting is mandatory. In about a paragraph or two summarize the substance of the discussions and the conclusion. How did the quartet respond to the demands and what alternative proposal, if any, did they make. Where do you see this negotiation heading? What should happen next?
20 Comments:
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
The quartet meeting with the Israelis appeared to be greatly successful. Olmert, Lieberman, and the representative from AIPAC were willing to establish an independent Palestinian state using the 1967 borders, the 2004 Roadmap and negotiate their nuclear policy. Additionally, they were openly willing to abandon the current usage of checkpoints and pursue an alternative way to ensure safety when traveling between the territories. The biggest disagreement by the Israeli reps appeared to be over the existent and future of the settlements. Both Olmert and the AIPAC representative were willing to dismantle the existing settlements, but Lieberman was very much in the dissent. Though it appears that Olmert and AIPAC are feeling the pressure of a potential U.S. withdrawal of support, Lieberman seemed unaffected. As a result of the tragic loss of Mrs. Clinton and the potential severity of the U.S. response, the U.S. government has a supreme advantage in negotiations within Israel and will hopefully be able to use that to make some significant changes, as well as denuclearize the region.
For the most part, the groups represented at the meeting were receptive of my plan to bring peace to Israel and the Palestinian people. The various groups overwhelmly supported my proposal to restore the 1967 borders and the deployment of a United Nations peacekeeping force to replace Israel Defense Forces within Palestinian borders. AS noted earlier by my successor, Mr. Obama, the representatives of the Settlers and Benjamin Netanyahu. Although their objections have been noted, the overwhelming support of other groups should although us to move forward with the plan and move for passage of a United Nations resolution.
Again, as noted by Mr. Obama, the leverage since Israel mis-step, its accident, has given us new power to create a solution that seems amiable to all parties. Of course, Iran could still prove a problem - but at this point, with the world finally seeing progress, the actions of Iran may completely seem antagonistic, rather than simply a reaction to Israeli and American policy against its interests.
George W. Bush (David Giattino, President of the United States of America
The meeting appeared to go smoothly with all sides agreeing on the need for a Palestinian state. The main bone of contention was over the settlements Mr. Olmert was supportive of withdrawing from the West Bank and Gaza. However the current settlers were opposed to this position as they don't want to leave their homes. Overall the participants were receptive to US's plan for Israel to withdraw to the borders of 1967. I am confident that we will be able to settle the issue of the settlements; but I fear the next major issue will be the makeup of the new Palestinian state.
Another issue at the meeting between myself, the president, Mr. Olmert is what Israel must now do in order to maintain US support. While we did not provide the Israeli's with a specific task for them to execute, I'm sure President Bush would agree with me that their cooperation and strong efforts toward peace would go a long way at this critical juncture.
Matt Diamond
Stephen J Hadley,
National Security Advisor
After the rather uneventful first meeting, I was shocked (and outraged) by what Obama brought to the table. Not only did Obama propose a complete reversal in US policy regarding Israel, but it seems they are reversing their policy on terrorism in the region, as well. Talks went from freezing military and economic support and placing UN peacekeepers in the West Bank (as the current administration proposed in the first meeting), to evacuating ALL legal Israeli settlements, handing the lands over to the so-called “Palestinians,” and then engaging these terrorists in closer negotiations. Yes, Israel made a mistake and of course changes in policy must be made – but this is extreme.
However, far more upsetting to me than the proposals of the US was the defeatist reaction of Olmert. He seemed to give in to every single unreasonable demand – most shockingly, the US’s demand for the evacuation of Israeli settlements. Olmert has effectively “sold out” to the Americans, and has forgotten what Israel is. The settlements in the West Bank represent all the values this country was founded upon, and to destroy that would be to destroy our very identity. The Americans threaten to withdraw all support if we fail to evacuate. But here’s my question for Olmert: If we remove the settlements and give in to the terrorists (and in the process tear our homeland apart), will we even have a worthy country left for the US to support?
Bentzi Lieberman (Dan Curtin)
Chairman of the YESHA Council
(the representative body of the West Bank settlers)
As a representative of AIPAC i felt as though not much was accomplished. A suggestion of replacing UN peacekeepers for the US troops was made. While AIPAC fully supports UN peacekeepers, we support them in addition to US troops. Israel must be secure and safe. The best way to ensure this security is to have both the UN and the US present. Olmert was very willing to withdraw from settlements and so i felt as though this could be a possibility. However the discrepency between a freeze on settlement expansion and an actual withdrawl of settled Israelis is still not defined. This discrepency threatens the Israeli people's security. We fully support an established Palestinian State, but our priority is for the security of all Israelis. Therefore, while an agreement seemed to be made about establishing a Palestinian state, nothing about the process of actually establishing a state was even discussed.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
It is unfortunate for me that my wife has died. Although, as we all know, I was never really into her anyway. With that said, our meeting with the quartet was successful to a point. I think we all agreed, even Senator Obama, that the current checkpoints are flawed and unfair for Palestinian. The alternative plan that was agreed upon is to replace Israeli troops, who man the check points, with UN Peacekeeping troops. It is our hope that a more fair and balanced treatment of Palestinians would result from this change. The other success story we had is most of us agreed to a two state solution. But that’s where the agreement stopped. How can there be two states when there is three territories, West Bank, Gaza, and Israel? An option that was given, albeit not very realistic, was a highway, closed to all other Israelis, that runs between the two territories. There would be no exits on this road other then Gaza, and West Bank.
Another topic of contention is the current situation of settlers. I believe we all determined that removing the settlers would be hard. As President Bush said, “the settlers are more armed then the IDF,” and this process would surely not be a peaceful one. While PM Olmert would not be opposed to removing settlers, I think we are all baffled on how to go about it, and what the results will be.
Joshua Kagan
Bill Clinton
Former POTUS
(Jimmy Carter)
I found the meeting to be a great success. As in the past i'm one of the very few Presidents to ever criticize a current president. President Bush was using this meeting to further propagandize for his own good. He hasn't yet realized his opinion's in this situation no longer matter. THe meeting was a great success, as I have been critical of the U.S. pressuring Israel to recognize Palestine, and recommending to Israel to return to pre-1967 borders. The only problem as was noted before was the issue of removing the people from Israeli settlements. Lieberman was the person to show the most concern for this problem. Overall a solution seems to be possible with all sides agreeing to most terms, and showing a will for peace. Israel realizes they must do so to avoid being "castrated" as a state.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
As an Israeli refusenik I fully supported the idea of establishing an independent Palestinian state..
We have made it clear by signing the "Combatants Letter of courage to Refuse" which includes some 500 other soldiers. Clearly stating that the combat officers and soldiers will not "continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people..." I’ve stated this very clearly to Mr. Obama in the meeting.
On the other hand, throughout the meeting President Bush seemed to be making statements that contradicted Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. In our previous meeting, Rice stated that there would be no enforcements of the UN resolutions. In contrast, President Bush argued in this meeting along w/ Mr. Obama that they would reinforcing the UN resolutions!! AIPAC, in opposition, wasn’t aware of how cryptic their statements were. When they were asked if they'd agree to get rid of all the settlements they answered “yes” but when they were asked if that included the ones already present; there was no answer!! Overall the conclusion was made upon establishing a two state solution and each party agreed on making some concessions.
Amirah Alkotf
representative
of the Israeli refuseniks
The Quartet meeting was successful. We attempted to preserve US support for Israel while at the same time seek a peaceful solution to the conflict with the palestinians. Our effort to maintain diplomatic relations with the United States was contingent on several things, most notably the withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, which I have supported regardless.
The United States wasnt entirely clear on their list of requests until late in the meeting, however.
We also established our need to maintain security in such a way that withdrawals dont jeopardize our security interests. We do not support Iran's possession of nuclear weapons and this is a serious security concern for us.
Withdrawal from the West Bank does not "defeatist" and there will certainly be a "worthy country" left. The settled territories are predominantly non-Jewish and will eventually make Israel a predominantly non-Jewish country. The settlements are a liability both diplomatically and in terms of security.
Ehud Olmert
According to the majority of the people, the quartet meeting with the Israeli supporters went very well. I beg to differ. What I saw at that meeting, were many injustices. First off, It seemed like Olmert was very defeated and would do anything that was proposed by the United States. President Bush continued his push for the changing pre-1967 borders while Barack Obama said he wanted to give that land back to the Palestinians. I was suprised at the idea of decreasing support for Israel by a large amount.
Our number one goal in the Middle East should be peace. I think that the UN resolution that was being passed around addressed that by putting a constantly patroling military presence on those borders. Canada has always tried to be peacekeepers when it comes to foreign policy, but this hits even closer to home because of the economic ramifications on my country if US support is completely eliminated. I feel that given more time the negotiations will progress even further but the only way it will work is if Iraq joins in with Israel and all the powers that be and form a massive resolution that everyone can agree. It might take a long time but that is the only way that this problem will resolve itself.
-Chris Bednarski
Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
The Quartet meeting shed light on the creation of a palestinian state. I am happy to say, as previously promised, the Palestinians will soon have a homeland.
With the US support in agreement with the Israeli supporters ,the creation of Palestine will ocme to exist, once we refine our needs to get to this point.
As long as the US will continue to push through and stick by its withdrawl of Israeli support, while continuing to keep Israel alive, the UK supports its actions.
Jennifer Seelin
Tony Blair, PM of the UK
This meeting was an unadulterated disaster. We do recognize that the establishment of a true independent Palestinian state will go a long way in stabilizing the region, but at what cost? It is imperative that the nation of Israel maintain control of the Holy Land for the Kingdom of God to arrive on Earth. This fact appeared to be lost on future president Obama, and surprisingly George W. Bush, who has always been both a friend to Israel and a believer in the word of God. For whatever reason, Olmert offered no opposition whatsoever to their demands that Israel abandon their settlements and occupation of the West Bank.
The President's willingness to abandon his born again values and dispensationalist beliefs at the drop of a hat is nothing short of appalling. He even went so far as to admit that his heretofor substantial religious belief was little more than a political act. Bush seized his Kingdom with flattery, and he will pay the consequences when the Lamb of God descends on Mount Zion and destroys him and the rest of the wicked as the battle of Armageddon begins. Americans who still value the Christian tradition upon which their nation was founded and the importance of ensuring their salvation have a decision to make. Will they continue to follow false prophets who do not hold Christ and the word of God in the highest regard, or will they do what they know to be right?
-Greg Gallo, Christian Zionist
I think this meeting once again showed great weakness in Olmert’s leadership. He readily agreed to return to the 1967 borders, the creation of a Palestinian state, and, most distressing, the dismantling of current Israeli settlements in the West Bank. It concerns me that the U.S. has not asked for any concessions from Palestinian leaders and Hamas. I am not totally opposed to a Palestinian state however, Israel should not surrender any territory to Palestinians without such concessions, in the interests of our security and the security of the western world. The U.S. and our current leadership does not seem too concerned with leaving these areas in control of a government that is undemocratic, fails to renounce violence, and that refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist. This will be seen as a victory and justification for terrorism, just like the Gaza pullout.
To call for dismantling of the settlements is once again disrupting the natural growth and development of these areas. It will become a vacuum that Hamas will fill.
It is unclear exactly how these pullout will be conducted and how a unified Palestinian state will be realized. We need further discussion on these issues with Palestinian leaders present. Olmert has thus far had little concern for the security of our nation. We need to have a leadership in Israel that is stronger and more supportive to her citizens.
Danielle Cobb
Binyamin Netanyahu
Leader of Likud Party
This meeting was genrally successfull. The agreement that Israel should withdraw to the 1967 borders and begin to disband the settlements should bring about peace, at least from the side of the Palestinians. While it is evident that AIPAC and Likud were unhappy with these agreements, the greater good is still served. The withdrawal is a step towrds that two-state solution that even some Zionists support.
Since the US is not fully withdrawing support, we do not have to take their place as Israel's prime ally and defender, as we would if they did.
-President Putin
ps: Bill's new chick is hot, but I said that in Russian, so it doens't sound as bad as it sounds
Post a Comment
<< Home