Why Lebanon isn’t starting peace talks with Israel -1

Bachar Assad told the BBC on Monday he believed Syria and Israel could live side by side in peace and harmony. In an earlier declaration he made, he said that war with Israel cannot be ruled out as long as a lasting peace in the Middle East has not been achieved.

Ahmad Fatfat mentioned that speach today and wondered what would have been the public reaction if a Lebanese politician had said something similar to what Bachar Assad mentioned in the BBC interview, and talked about peace and harmony between Israel and Lebanon.

 

So I ask myself, why hasn’t a Lebanese politician talked about peace with Israel? Why do they always repeat that
Lebanon will be the last country to sign Peace with Israel? And even if the pledge had to be followed, why hasn’t Lebanon resumed peace talks with Israel? Should the country also be the last one to enter peace talks and negotiations? I cannot help but wonder why this insistence on being the last!

what’s all the fuss over recongnising Israel about?

Talks between Fateh and Hamas have broken down yesterday because of Hamas’ refusal to recognise Israel. Is it just a sad excuse or does Fatah take the “recognition issue” seriously?

So I ask myself, why does’t Hamas recognise Israel?

a) Could Hamas be following the old (and failed) Arab strategy: using recognition as a bargaining card? But this strategy is quite absurd how can you hold talks with an authority you do not recongise? how do you negociate with it? how can you have demands from it and hold it accountable for its actions when you do not even recognise it?

b) Could Hamas be following another logic, not strategic this time, but ideological? Does it refuse to recognise Israel because it considers the country to be racist and discriminatory in its definition as a Jewish state, just as South Africa was during Apartheid. But in that case Hamas shouldn’t be refusing to recognise Israel, but should refuse to recognise
Israel as a Jewish State. But is it in a position to do so? Not only on the grounds but according to international law. While international law condemned Apartheid as a racist form of government, Israel as a Jewish state was instituted by Resolution 181 of the United Nation’s General Assembly…

c) Or is Hamas simply addressing and voicing the suffering of the Palestinian people in a very unpragmatic way? The issue of suffering should be dealt with more seriously. The Palestinian people gave Hamas a strong majority during the last parliamentary elections, so one can suppose its political stands reflect those of the people. And to understand these stands, one should maybe ask what the Palestinian people are feeling. Instead of judging their political stand and actions, one should try to see what they’re trying to voice and where that came from. The emotional background of political stands are very important and feelings and emotions cannot be ignored in the search of political answers.

Arguing for the recognition of Israel
Should the Arabs drop their strategy of bargaining with recognition?
I believe they should. This strategy is absurd and counterproductive.
Israel doesn’t really seek or need the recognition of the Arabs States (or to be more precise, the few of them that are still denying it). It is recognised by most States in the world. And the state of war with its neighbours does not threaten it.
One cannot help wondering how the Arab States kept on denying the recognition with the Israeli State after the signing of the Armistice agreements of 1949… 

By dropping the recognition issue, the Arabs States and governments could start arguing on the basic issues that matter, such as the welfare of the Palestinians and the Israeli strategy of “facts on the grounds” (that translates through annexations and settlements). It’s only through recognising Israel unconditionnaly and by recognising UN Resolution 181 that the Arabs States and the Palestinian political parties can argue on legal grounds and according to international standards.