Middle East Peace Talk and Mahmoud Abbas’ Diplomatic Hostage: Israel at cross road. Is Mahmoud Abbas refusal to recognise Israel as a ‘Jewish State’ holding Israel at hostage? By Cyril C. Eluma. (Sources: cyrileluma.wordpress). Sometimes, diplomacy creates room for national embarrassment as diplomacy often give chances for certain leaders erroneously perceived to be weak to disappoint those that considered them as weak. By my analysis, it seems Mahmoud Abbas fall within this bracket; a man seen by some actors as bacon of peace or perhaps a peace partner but also considered by some actors as an extremist in his actions and words following the views of Naftali Bennett the current Israeli economic Minister in his reaction against the Arab League support to Palestinians’ refusal to recognise Israel as Jewish State. While many people may praise Mahmoud Abbas’ statesmanship and spirit of nationalism, many people may also call for caution in the display of his diplomatic skills on the basis that certain leaders in certain circumstances take decisions that enhances their chances for national recognition and aspirations within the committee of nations while recognising the spirit and statesmanship of another leader, as well as, respecting the desires of another people. Meanwhile, peace talk between two people, perhaps, with different religions, languages, reasoning and cultures may not be easy especially when a clear rooted hatred may have been established beyond ordinary human understanding. But, the call for peaceful co-existence among the two people entails that there must be compromise from parties involved where the game of win – win and not loss – wins is agreed upon. Among the ingredients of this game of win – win and not loss – wins is prisoner release. World actors as defined by world politics call it ‘concession’, that is, an act of encouragement. This concession propelled the launching of the current peace talk between Israel and Palestinians in order to have peace in Middle East and that brought Palestinians into an enclosed room for negotiation with the Israelis as represented by the current Justice Minister of Israel. However, it seems not clear what the end result of this peace talk might be with the threats and counter threats coming from both parties While Israel is demanding for the extension of the current peace talk beyond the designated ending date, being April 29, 2014, she also argues that failure to do so, Israel will not release the last badge of prisoners as a concession agreed for peace talk to hold between Israel and Palestinians, although, Palestinians on the other hand, are demanding for the release of the last badge of the prisoners as agreed for them to seat down and talk as this will show seriousness of Israeli government, thus, the threat of Palestinians turning to UN for recognition is now cropping up from many unknown sources. The question one may ask is whether it is good for one to give bribe in whatever name it might sound, whether concession or gesture, for discussions about national interest to hold? If yes, how do we define such bribe? If not, why? Currently, the threat of abandoning the peace talk once the last badge of prisoners is released is skyrocketing from the chamber of the Palestinians. Truly, any sensible person will be afraid of releasing the last badge unless agreement is secured against such threat. What then will be the consequences of these threats if actually carried out? The consequences might be as follows: There will be no last badge of prisoners release by Israel if there is no extension of peace talk. Perhaps, there will be no framework. It appears there will be no accord or agreement reached. Consequently, there will be no Palestinian State created if request for recognition is presented before United Nations by the Palestinian Authority, as veto power against such request may be exercised by interested parties such as United States. Having said this, it is very clear that the failure of the current peace talk to establish peace between Israel and Palestinians leading to creation of ‘Two States for Two People’ might trigger series of actions ranging from more terrorists violence from the side of dissatisfied Palestinians to unilateral request for Full United Nations Membership recognition of Palestinian State and applications for membership of other international bodies. In retaliation, Israel might expand West Bank settlement buildings irrespective of whether such settlement buildings violate international law or whether is already in existence. Also, Israel might re-arrest and imprison those released for the duration of their terms of sentence, as well as, adopting more counter-terrorism mechanisms and mounting more counter mechanisms against international delegitimization initiated by Palestinian Authority against the democratic Jewish State of Israel. Finally, Israel may decide to annex Judea and Samaria without minding what might be the reactions of her action from international communities citing Russia annexation of Crimea as example of protecting Israeli citizens. In my own judgment, both Israelis and Palestinians must seat down and negotiate with mutual recognition enshrined for peace to reign. (Sources: cyrileluma.wordpress). Written By Emperor Cyril C. Eluma. (An International Law Expert on the Doctrine of Self Defense; also, an independent researcher on International Law and Terrorism).
Posted on: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 23:11:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015