Avigdor Lieberman Pushes For New Settlement Construction Amid Middle East Peace Talks

[Recursion]

Israel's hard-line foreign minister said Monday that his party will try to block any extension of Israel's settlement slowdown, a move that could derail the recently launched Mideast peace negotiations.

Avigdor Lieberman said the Israeli government must keep its promise to voters that the 10-month slowdown, declared last November under U.S. pressure in order to draw the Palestinians to the negotiating table, will end as scheduled at the end of the month.

The Sept. 26 deadline is a challenge for the fragile talks launched in Washington last week. The Palestinians say they will quit the talks if settlement construction accelerates, but not ending the slowdown could potentially bring down the Israeli government. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has yet to say how he will handle the deadline.

From HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/06/israel-settlement-construction-avigdor-lieberman_n_706462.html

So, between Hamas and Lieberman, we seem to have a raft of people who are doing everything they can to make sure these talks fail.

[Ken Burch]

1. Well, Lieberman would, wouldn't he?

And, seriously, I've always wondered if there wasn't some sort of back-channel agreement between the Israeli right and Hamas to help each other out in exchange for some kind of quid pro quo.

After all, Likud owes at least two electoral victories to Hamas bombings within Israel during the election campaign. And Sharon's provocation of the most recent Intifada(before he tacked slightly to the center)gave Hamas its big break in show business and allowed it to build the support it needed to defeat Fatah in the Palestinian Authority elections.

Each one seems to step in just when the other needs it to. Every...single...time...

[miscsoc]

2. Yep, that's why everything is fucked

Likud (+ co.) and Hamas owe their power to conflict and bloodshed, entirely. I don't know about any back channel agreement, but I think both parties are aware that their interests lie in promoting perpetual conflict and then reaping the electoral rewards. There's a tacit agreement, if not an explicit one - "if we keep shedding blood, we'll both be in power indefinitely".

[shira]

3. The conflict was burning hot well before Likud was ever in power, or Hamas. n/t

[miscsoc]

4. the ascendancy of these factions, however

has made it vastly harder to change the direction of the situation. i.e. the ascendancy of groups totally structured around continuing violence and conflict and dependent upon the perpetuation of the conflict for their popular appeal.

[shira]

5. Israel has elections and can put Likud down...

Hamas is supported by Iran and Syria - both countries that have had a vested interest in keeping the conflict going for a long time.

Even the PLO started in 1964, before any occupation.

[miscsoc]

6. Hamas has definite popular support

The role of Iran and Syria makes things even more difficult.

Israeli voters COULD vote the right out, but it strikes me as unlikely. They voted Netanyahu in because they felt threatened and wanted a belligerent leader - if his position is at risk all he has to do is stoke the conflict a bit. Same with Hamas. If Israel isn't harming the Palestinians, Hamas is largely pointless. Nobody's political interests coincide with peace. Nobody with any power to achieve it.