Abbas suggests NATO force in future state

[Jefferson23]

* He finally opens his mouth to speak, maybe not such a good idea..he's an idiot.

BETHLEHEM (Ma'an) -- President Abbas has proposed that US-led NATO forces be stationed indefinitely in a future Palestinian state, according to an interview with the New York Times on Sunday.

Speaking about security arrangements from Ramallah, Abbas said a NATO force could be positioned at all borders, checkpoints and within Jerusalem for a "long time" after Israeli military forces eventually withdraw from the occupied territories.

"The third party can stay. They can stay to reassure the Israelis, and to protect us," Abbas told the NYT.

The president said that Israeli military forces could remain in the West Bank for up to five years and the removal of illegal settlers should be phased out according to a similar timetable.

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=670247

[bemildred]

1. I think the idea is worth exploring.

It will be hard to object to. And NATO doesn't have to be the US, could be Turkey for example ...

In the meantime, it will drive Bibi nuts.

[Jefferson23]

3. I took Abbas' words to mean, he will not be demanding a military of their own. I don't think that

is smart. But I don't see much of anything he has done as commendable as a leader.

But you're right, it could be Turkey..we'll see.

[bemildred]

4. I'm not defending Abbas, just the idea. I wouldn't assume it came from Abbas.

Probably not. Your point about no military of their own is sound too. It's clever, it still won't be someplace the IDF can act freely in.

[Scootaloo]

5. Actually, this is a smart move

The notion of a Palestinian military has always been a non-starter for Israel, even since Oslo. This fact has been recognized by the Palestinian delegations the entire time, and they've tried to work within the framework of demilitarization. The sticking point is that Israel has been demanding the IDF provide defense for both states - which for obvious reasons has been a non-starter for the Palestinians.

By keeping the demilitarization framework, Abbas is giving Israel their core issue on the subject. By making it a third party providing security, he allays most fears from the Palestinian side. But rather than a local power like Jordan or Egypt doing security, he wants to enlist NATO - an alliance of nations that all have close ties and good relations with Israel, so Israel can't grab its junk and whine like it would about UN peacekeeping forces. Basically he's pigeonholed Israel - as Azurnoir points out, Israel's option here is to refuse its own demands, or claim that it cannot trust its allies.

Abbas' maneuvers in these negotiations seem to be based on the assumption that Israel is going to say no to everything he puts out there. He's making eminently reasonable - and in cases like this more than reasonable proposals. And Israel stonewalls. He makes a point of working to accommodate, and the Israelis pull out even bigger demands.

What this is doing is exposing the narrative of "poor little eternal-victim Israel, always reasonable but being shot down by nasty peace-hating Arabs" for the lie that it is, and always has been. Abbas is shining a spotlight on how far "across the aisle" he is reaching, and the Israelis doing nothing to meet him, instead moving further and further back.

Abbas isn't a great guy, no. But he's not a dummy and - I may be crazy - it looks as if he's been taking lessons from how president Obama has been dealing with the republicans.

[Jefferson23]

6. Everything you have said would be managable if Abbas actually received substance in return.

I don't see that, perhaps I am lost in this " negotiation " process which appears to be
Kerry lining up all the ducks to get Bibi to go along...Israel will do just fine, but not
the Palestinians. It seems the pressure is so great, I don't know if Abbas, even if he
tried to make an earnest effort would be able to find the support to fight back.


I hope I am wrong.

[King_David]

9. Why would NATO ever agree to put their lives on the line

On the ground for what is not their war.
Hamas would have an easier time infiltrating Israel and a large NATO force just sitting there open to one suicide attack after another.

[bemildred]

10. NATO suffers from lack of purpose since the implosion of the USSR.

So I expect they will be eager for the business. I expect the US will think it's great too, we've just been encouraging the Europeans to take a more active role. But you never know. I'm not saying it will work out well, it well might not, but I don't think that will stop them from doing it.

[King_David]

11. Well better NATO than a UN force.

A UN force would be totally incompetent and not to mention unacceptable .

[bemildred]

12. Yeah, I tend to agree, on multiple grounds.

They can't just be potted plants, so you'd want to be selective.

[azurnoir]

2. Sounds like a workable idea

unless of course Bibi wants to stand up and say we do not trust NATO

[WatermelonRat]

7. An international force might be the only thing that can really hold a peace agreement together

Too bad both sides distrust the international community.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

8. I've floated that idea in the past.

It might actually be the best thing for the Palestinians, but there is always the chance it could backfire.

[Jefferson23]

13. Netanyahu rejects US proposal of NATO forces on Jordan border

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday rejected US Secretary of State John Kerry's proposal to deploy international forces along the Jordan border as a part of a final-status peace deal with the Palestinians.


"We have attacks bouncing off our fences, we are not asking for US troops or NATO troops," the prime minister told the Confernece of Presidents in Jeruaslem, citing past record of UNIFIL and European observers on the Gaza border. (Ynetnews)

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4489461,00.html