No. of Recommendations: 5
I have no problem encouraging the Saudis to let women drive or wear whatever. Assuming we're going to have free and open elects in Gaza tomorrow vs. this Peace Board thing is what I'm talking about.
But it's not what I'm talking about. The change to U.S. foreign policy that Trump has made is to stop pushing the Saudis to let women drive. Or to allow a free press to any of their people, or to allow full freedom of religion, or to engage in political speech, or any of the basic human rights that are infringed on a regular basis in many of these countries. The authoritarian regimes in the ME don't like that, because they don't have any democratic legitimacy to remain in power and don't want another "Arab Spring" that might, you know, give people human rights in their countries. Trump is offering them the chance to get close to the U.S. and Israel without being expected to make any changes.
Hahahahahahahaha! Arafat turned it down because he wanted to pretend that 1948 didn't happen. He demanded the "Right of Return".
Why are you laughing? In 1949, the UN - which authorized the creation of the state of Israel - said that all of the Palestinians have the right of return. They passed a formal Resolution declaring that right. It's something they believe they are entitled to under international law, with a fair amount of justification.
Because of that, it is one of the most important issues in any peace negotiation. The UN declared that the Palestinians have the right of return, and they have never been willing to give that up. They insist that Israel needs to follow international law and honor the UN Resolution confirming that right.
Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, there was no way that Arafat in the 1990's could have entered into a deal that did not include the right of return. He was the representative of the Palestinian people, but he knew that he didn't have the authority to agree to give that up as part of a bargain. If Clinton thought that there was any real possibility of a conclusive deal without the right of return, then Clinton was delusional.
There's no functioning government in Gaza because Hamas runs it, so....
So there's no way to get actual buy-in from the Palestinian people who live in Gaza to any agreement, because there's no representative that can claim to legitimately speak on behalf of those two million people. This is one of the main criticisms of Netanyahu's policy towards Gaza, BTW. His opponents alleging that he intentionally allowed Hamas to remain in control of Gaza, despite having the ability to cripple them and allow the PA to regain control, because he wanted to avoid having a functioning government there so that there would be no one to bargain with. Because he didn't want to bargain.
