Archive for November, 2009

Gershon Baskin - Resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict is
a US and international strategic interest, which means that the old
formula stating that “the parties have to want it more than us” is no
longer true. The parties no longer have the right to veto peace and to
allow the conflict to continue to endanger the security of the region
and the whole world.”

The peace process has once again entered a dead end. Senator George
Mitchell has fallen into the trap of negotiating about negotiations.
There is little chance that bilateral negotiations at this time will be
capable of producing agreements on either the Israeli-Palestinian or
Israel-Syria track. The US mediator has been focusing on “process”
rather than “substance”. The Middle East is not Northern Ireland. Here
we all have a pretty good idea of what the end game looks like (on both
tracks) and we also have 18 years experience of failed process.

The parameters of agreement are more or less known. The needs,
interests, threat perceptions and means to answer them are known on
both tracks by experts but have not yet been detailed and no
international commitments have been made to provide for them. The
possible agreed outcomes of negotiations are light years away if left
to the standard classical negotiating process. Yes, the parties must be
brought back to the table and there must be a process where they can
relate to the substantive issues. But we don’t need to wait for them to
produce the substance in a bilateral process.

Resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict is a US and international
strategic interest, which means that the old formula stating that “the
parties have to want it more than us” is no longer true. The parties no
longer have the right to veto peace and to allow the conflict to
continue to endanger the security of the region and the whole world.
The United States and the Quartet must not be held hostage by domestic
politics in the US, Israel or the Palestinian Authority (in Syria, this
is less relevant).

There are several possible alternatives to bilateral negotiations.
The following is what I propose for the Israeli-Palestinian track:

The Quartet requests from the parties to provide answers to the following questions within three months:

• What are the difficulties and obstacles that you would face in
  implementing a “two-states for two peoples” solution to the
  Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
• What are the primary concerns that you would face (including but
  not limited to domestic concerns) in implementing this solution?
• What are the primary threats that you would face as a result of implementing the solution?
• What mechanism/means would you propose to monitor, verify and
  ensure compliance with obligations undertaken by the other side in
  accordance with a peace agreement?

The objective of this exercise is for the parties to detail the
specific difficulties they would face within the parameters of the well
known solutions to the conflict without them having an opportunity to
put their maximalist positions on the table. After receiving the
answers, the Quartet (led by the US) would spend the following months
developing detailed responses to the threats and difficulties spelled
out by the parties. A major emphasis within the Quartet plans would
have to be on the role of credible third parties and third party
multi-national forces (military, police and civilian–led by the US but
without necessarily having US soldiers on the ground) and not solely
reliance on the parties themselves to deal with those threats
unilaterally or even bilaterally, which they have proven over the years
incapable of doing.

The Quartet’s responses would entail expansion of its “diplomatic
tool box” to comprise a large quantity of “carrots and sticks”. The
“carrots” are specific ways to deal with as many as possible of the
threats and obstacles detailed by the parties. The Quartet must be
willing to include its own commitments for meeting the real needs of
both parties. All threats must be treated with the utmost sincerity and
the answers provided must be based on real commitments. Likewise, the
diplomatic toolbox must contain “sticks”–those consequences backed by
commitments that the Quartet is willing to use if the parties fail to
cooperate.

Once the Quartet has designed the package providing responses and
solutions to the obstacles, difficulties and threat perceptions
presented by the parties, including the mechanisms they propose to
confront issues of monitoring, verification and enforcement of
implementation of treaty obligations, the Quartet would place on the
table for the parties the draft of a full peace agreement (in the
format of a declaration of principles) including all permanent status
issues. The DOP would state that the agreement relates to all the
relevant territory including Gaza that will be included in the
implementation of the treaty once the political situation there enables
it.

There are additional non-bilateral possibilities. One is to
encourage the “Fayyad plan” for building the institutions of the
Palestinian state from the bottom up. Another could be Israeli
transfers of parcels of land in area “C” to the Palestinian Authority
for development of large infrastructure projects. Israel could also
turn over the four settlements in the northern West Bank that were
vacated in the 2005 disengagement. The US president could present the
“Obama parameters”–a revision of the Clinton parameters adding the
regional dimension made possible by the Arab Peace Initiative–and call
on the parties to negotiate on the basis of those parameters. Finally,
a new UN Security Council resolution could preserve the viability of
the two-state solution by including the basic parameters of peace
(borders, Jerusalem, refugees, etc.) within the text.

Originally published on Bitter Lemons.

Prime Minister Netanyahu today announced a partial 10-month settlement freeze. And, understanding that Netanyahu’s freeze is meaningless, the far right is backing him 100%.

According to the New York Times, “A statement from Mr. Netanyahu’s office said the moratorium would be in Judea and Samaria, the biblical names of the West Bank, meaning it would not include Jerusalem, and would not apply to new residential building, so existing construction would continue and public structures like schools and community centers would be unaffected.” (And, I’d guess, also parks, hospitals, day care centers, bakery cooperatives, Weight Watchers centers, synagogues, more synagogues, Arthur Murray’s dance studios, aviaries, fine restaurants, zoos, etc).

The freeze’s inapplicability to Jerusalem renders the offer almost meaningless.

Jerusalem, according to Israeli law, is not only the historic city but also towns and villages extending well into the West Bank which were never considered to be part of Jerusalem. Israel expanded the city’s borders in 1967 precisely so it could hold on to these areas by claiming them as part of Israel’s capital, which they aren’t.

By ruling out a settlement freeze in all of expanded Jerusalem, Israel will continue to grow in precisely the area where it is most determined to expand. It is also the area of most significance to the Palestinians who hold, quite legitimately, that a Palestinian state without any part of Jerusalem as its capital is like a French state without access to Paris. It’s ridiculous.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not go out on any limb in support of Bibi this time. Apparently, she knows the old adage: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

She merely acknowledged his move as a possible step toward negotiations to “reconcile the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.” The reference to the ’67 borders was a nice shot over Bibi’s bow.

Special Envoy George Mitchell said Bibi’s gambit “falls short of a full settlement freeze, but it is more than any Israeli government has done before….” I am not sure that it is true and, in any case, Mitchell’s praise is very faint praise indeed. Surely Mitchell understands that even this measly offer is unlikely to be implemented which means it is nothing but air.

AIPAC is, of course, pleased with Netanyahu which reveals the deep significance of this peace move. In a statement, the lobby said, “Israel is taking meaningful steps and tangible risks for peace. Now it is time – well past time – for the Palestinians and Arabs States to match Israel’s commitment to peace with actions of their own.”

That’s right, Palestinians. The ball is in your court now! You’ve got a quasi-freeze. well sort of a quasi-freeze anyway. Now what are you going to give up?

I am delighted Hillary has come to her senses on Netanyahu. Maybe she asked Bill about him and he told her the very thing he once told me about a man he loathes. “Bibi? You don’t know the half of it, my friend.”

WANT MORE INSIGHT FROM MJ,, write to mjrosenberg8@gmail.com. Include the word “subscribe” and Media Matters for America will soon be emailing my pearls of wisdom to you every Friday.

Daniel Levy and Amjad Atallah - Israeli PM Netanyahu announced today his cabinet’s
decision, “To suspend new construction in Judea and Samaria.” (Yes,
they still call it Judea and Samaria). The Obama Administration
responded within hours with a statement released by Secretary Clinton followed by a press briefing from Special Envoy George Mitchell.

On
the face of it, this was a step forward by the Israeli government,
acknowledged and welcomed (though not blessed) by the US government,
and a move that one hopes will facilitate Palestinian agreement to
resume negotiations.  But if one digs just a little bit
deeper, it becomes very evident that it was nothing of the sort.
Rather, today’s events closed the first chapter in a game of dare being
played out between the new leaderships in Washington and Jerusalem.

Today’s
statements appeared to be part of an elaborate and ongoing dance of
suspicion between the two supposed allies. During his first term as
prime minister in the late 90′s, Benjamin Netanyahu made an enemy of
then US President Clinton and played the Republican congress against
the Democrat president. This directly led to the collapse of
Netanyahu’s government and his fall from office. Judging by today,
Netanyahu is keen for a repeat performance albeit under circumstances
even less propitious for him politically. The response of the Obama
team might be an interesting pointer as to where things might be headed
on the peace front.

The
Obama administration has been calling on Israel to make good on a
settlement freeze commitment dating to the 2003 Bush-era Road Map (and,
questionably to the 1993 Oslo DoP).  Netanyahu has been
unwilling to do anything of the sort. He sought to codify a set of
exemptions to a settlement freeze or in plainer English, guidelines for
ongoing settlement expansion, and to have those blessed by Washington.
The Obama team refused to become the first ever American government to
formally authorize settlement expansion. That is the situation we have
reached with today’s announcement.

Netanyahu’s
cabinet clarified its so-called “settlement restraint” policy with
today’s decision (some have called it a “moratorium” or a “freeze” but
as you will see shortly, it is nothing of the sort, and those words are
an inappropriate description).

The only apparent restraint in the Israeli cabinet decision was
to suspend issuing of new permits or beginning new construction in the
West Bank for ten months. The less restrained side of the equation is
this: 3000 units already under construction will continue; all public
buildings and security infrastructure will continue to be built; no
restrictions would apply to occupied East Jerusalem; and construction
would resume after ten months.

Netanyahu
also repeated the totally (meaningless)commitment of no new settlements
or land confiscations (meaningless because since 1993, the official
policy is no new settlements yet via expansion, new neighborhoods and
outposts, the West Bank settler population has grown from 111,000 then
to over 300,000 today, and because although the built-up area of
settlements constitutes only 2% of West Bank land, double that amount
is slated for growth, and a total of 40% comes under the Settlement
Regional Councils, therefore land confiscation issue is a red herring).

While it is
technically true that this “restraint” is a new Israeli commitment, its
practical relevance is of very limited significance – building 3000
units in ten months neatly dovetails the regular annual settlement
construction rates. Moreover, Netanyahu made sure to assertively
mention all these caveats in today’s announcement - in effect, poking the Obama administration, the international community, and the Palestinians in the eye.

While
some claim this was a politically courageous act by Netanyahu, the real
litmus test is easy to apply: Has this led to any shakiness, any
crisis, any resignations in the most right wing coalition ever in
Israel’s history? The answer: absolutely not, and resignations in
Israeli politics are about as rare as Turkeys on Thanksgiving.
Netanyahu’s so-called “restraint package” was so minimalist that it
kept his coalition happy while doing nothing to advance a genuine peace
effort (Yes, there is some criticism from the far-right, and
Netanyahu’s supporters will point to it as proof of his bravery, but as
I say, the real test is in his coalition – and there: not so much as a
wobble).

The
interesting development today, indeed the unprecedented development,
was in the US response. Yes, Senator Mitchell did pro-forma explain why
this is new, why this was progress from the Israeli government. But the
real American response came elsewhere, in Secretary Clinton and Envoy
Mitchell’s statements. They did not bless the Israeli non-freeze,
explaining it fell short and that they expected more, and that “America
does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements”.
(Admittedly they could have explicitly said that after ten months and
the 3000 units, their expectation was for not a single new home to be
built, they didn’t).

But the new language
came in Secretary Clinton’s description of what American expects the
outcome of negotiations to be – for an “independent and viable
[Palestinian] state based on the 1967 lines”. Senator Mitchell quoted
Clinton in repeating the call for a Palestinian state “based on the 67
lines.”

Every
conflict and every situation has its own lingua franca. In the
Israeli-Palestinian context, a state based on the 67 lines is the
dog-whistle for what constitutes a real, no-B.S. two-state outcome. It
is also language that the US has conspicuously avoided using – avoided
that is until today.

Previous
administrations would speak of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and
338 (but those are interpreted differently by the Israelis and
Palestinians); the Clinton Parameters of December 2000 suggested
percentages on territory, but never mentioned the 67 lines; in June
2002, President Bush used the phrase, ending the “occupation that began
in 1967.” That language was adopted in the 2003 Road Map and used
verbatim by President Obama in his September United Nations General
Assembly speech. It is language very much open to interpretation. The
“1967 lines” language add a far greater degree of clarity – and, as
such,  is an anathema to the Greater Land of Israel, anti-peace forces (many of whom are represented in today’s Israeli government).

Interestingly,
Secretary Clinton had begun to play with this language during her
recent Middle East trip but had never been so explicit – until today.
It is true that this adoption of new language comes late (perhaps too
late) in the process and will need to be backed up by more concrete
steps. It is though progress.

So
the subtext of what went on today – the Obama administration is
beginning to up the ante, at least declaratively, in the signals it is
sending in response to Netanyahu’s stubbornness on settlements, and in
setting the table for the next phase of its peace efforts.

The
question of course is – what next? Senator Mitchell gave some hints
about that also. He suggested that the US was still pursuing a
comprehensive peace effort and notably discussed Syria at some length.
He briefly mentioned the option of resuming regional multilateral talks
with Israel and various Arab states on issues such as water and energy
at an appropriate time. Most interesting perhaps, Senator Mitchell
explained that negations, “will proceed on a variety of tracks,” and
while he continued to push for the resumption of direct
Israeli-Palestinian talks, he also spoke of parallel talks that the US
would conduct with each of the parties.

This
combination of back-to-back negotiations – US-Israel and
US-Palestinians – combined with the reference to the 1967 lines may
signpost the way out of the peace impasse. The US will need to
elaborate and put flesh on the bones of its “based on the 1967 lines”
parameter and then pursue a conversation, mostly with the Israeli side,
on how to implement that, and if necessary go public with a plan and  tie incentives/disincentives to its acceptance/rejection.

Cross-posted from Prospects for Peace.