A small detail in negotiations theory : don't recognize another side; don't honor agreements.

Mideast Peace Starts With Respect Note to Obama: The Palestinians still haven’t recognized the Jewish state. By RONALD S. LAUDER
...as the Obama administration outlines its own prospectus for a comprehensive settlement to Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians and the wider Arab world, it would do well to take note of some potential pitfalls.
Rule No. 1: Respect the sovereignty of democratic allies. When free people in a democracy express their preferences, the United States should respect their opinions. The current administration should not try to impose ideas on allies like Israel.
The administration would also do well to take heed of the Palestinian Authority’s continued refusal to recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. This is not a trivial matter. A long-term settlement can only be forged on the basis of mutual recognition and respect. To deny the essence of the Zionist project—to rebuild the Jewish people’s ancient homeland—is to call into question the seriousness of one’s commitment to peace.
It is a sad statement of the Palestinians’ approach to peace-making that denial of the Jewish homeland is not simply contained in the openly anti-Semitic leadership of Hamas. It is a widespread belief across the spectrum of Palestinian opinion. This reality must be confronted.
Today’s leadership must never forget that the core historic reason for the conflict is the Arab world’s longstanding rejection of Israel’s existence. The two-state solution was accepted by Israel’s pre-state leadership led by David Ben-Gurion in 1947 when it agreed to the partition plan contained in United Nation’s General Assembly Resolution 181. The Arabs flatly rejected it. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knows all too well, President Bill Clinton’s peace plans in 2000 foundered due to Palestinian rejection of the Jewish state, even as Israel, once again, accepted their right to statehood.
More recent experience in Europe also offers lessons about the dangers of negotiating with terrorists. Over the past year, officials from Britain, France and the European Union all held talks with officials from the “political wing” of Hezbollah in a bid to get the terrorist group to moderate its behavior. Hezbollah is undoubtedly grateful for the legitimacy that these meetings have conferred, but it is not laying down its arms. Indeed, according to a recent report from the Times of London, the group has now stockpiled 40,000 rockets close to the Israeli border.****Perhaps even worse would be the lip service to peace that Hezbollah's "political wing" might pretend to endorse.( Yoda has always wondered that no side claims to be the "terrorist wing" of anything, whether the IRA or Hezbollah or Hamas or Fatah. It should point up the fact that "wings" are verbal persiflage, devoid of substantive meaning.)That they are devious there is no doubt;that they are blatant shows how certain they are of the fecklessness of those they are talking to (and getting legitimacy from.)****
To be sure, we must have hope. Peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan are useful models. Nonetheless, the recent rebuffs by Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia of efforts by the Obama administration to promote a more conciliatory attitude to Israel offer a salient reminder that those who started this conflict may not yet be in a mood to end it, whatever their rhetoric to the contrary.****Jordan's recent rhetoric, despite the "peace agreement" and the cold nature of the one with Egypt (plus the likelihood that it will not survive the passing of 80-ish Hosni Mubarek ) do not provide very promising models.****
And then there are the settlements. Undoubtedly, this is a complex matter. Yet the administration must beware of overemphasizing it. Compromises between people of goodwill can be made on the settlements, as Israel has demonstrated in the recent past. But no compromise can be made on Israel’s right to exist inside secure borders unmolested by terrorist groups or threatened by belligerent states.
That’s why an unambiguous strategy explaining precisely how Hamas and Hezbollah can be disarmed and how Iran can be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons is of central importance to any peace plan.
The administration must also be wary of letting Israel’s opponents use the settlement issue as a convenient excuse for failing to make moves of their own. The settlements matter, but they do not go to the core of this decades-old conflict.
Making peace in the Middle East is an unenviable task. It is also a noble calling. To be successful, it will require patience and fortitude. It will also require an ability to stand above the fray, to see the problems for what they are, and the courage to confront them at their source. ****What courage, patience and fortitude? The Obama intent is to put a lid on the boiling teapot and just weaken the side pointing at Israel so that, when it blows, only Israel will be scalded.****
****The recent Fatah conference showed a three-way split (Abbas, young Turks, Moh. Dahlan)even aside from the division from Hamas. It was also curious for the utter intransigence of what was reported in the Western media ( as apologists stipulate, not recognizing that Fatah has always been more extremist in its Arabic fulminations and official documents.)The accusation that Israel assassinated Arafat should be followed up by an investigation and perhaps the French can be forced to divulge that Yasser died of AIDS.****
http://tinyurl.com/pxuo2c
Fatah parley raises questions about Palestinian intentions, Obama’s strategy By Eric Fingerhut · August 11, 2009
...last week's Fatah General Assembly in Bethlehem in which party leaders failed to renounce the use of violence and charged that Israel killed Yasser Arafat.WASHINGTON (JTA) -- The fiery rhetoric at last week’s Fatah meeting in Bethlehem has renewed concerns that the Obama administration is not doing enough to pressure the Palestinians...