Doc's Talk: Peace within a Year? Israeli-Palestinian Direct Talks Resume

Friday, August 27, 2010

Peace within a Year? Israeli-Palestinian Direct Talks Resume

David Makovsky

On Friday, August 20, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the resumption of direct peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians, to be launched in Washington next week. On September 1, President Obama will welcome Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas, as well as Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah. Direct talks between Netanyahu and Abbas are scheduled to begin the next day, with the objective of reaching agreement on the permanent-status issues of borders, security, Jerusalem, and refugees within a year. The meeting will mark the first time that Israeli and Palestinian leaders have discussed these issues directly during the Obama administration.Road to the Announcement
A number of turning points led to Clinton's announcement. The first was President Obama's July 6 meeting with Netanyahu at the White House. In sharp contrast to past encounters, which were often strained, Obama called the meeting "excellent" and went out of his way to vouch for Netanyahu's sincerity: "We had an extensive discussion about the prospects for Middle East peace. I believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu wants peace. I think he's willing to take risks for peace."

Obama's uncharacteristic portrayal generated speculation that the Israeli leader had confided in him for the first time during the meeting -- specifically, about how he envisioned the endgame with the Palestinians. Previously, Obama had expressed sympathy for Abbas's reservations about opening seemingly futile peace negotiations, but after the Netanyahu meeting, he became the leading advocate for resuming direct talks.

At the same time, Obama listened to Abbas's insistence on support from Arab states before he could agree to such talks. On July 29, amid pressure from Washington, the Arab League publicly endorsed new talks, leaving Abbas to determine the start date. The endorsement stands in contrast to the league's standard recalcitrance about supporting even minor gestures toward Israel.

Some question the extent to which Obama's ardent desire for talks was driven by a Netanyahu policy shift rather than other factors. At the policy level, the president clearly views direct talks as beneficial to the United States at a time when the world is imposing sanctions on Iran to halt its bid for nuclear weapons. And at the political level, some have questioned whether the push toward talks is being driven by a desire to score a foreign policy achievement before the midterm elections. Others point to the fact that Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak -- a key interlocutor on Iran told Secretary Clinton during a July visit to Washington that he urgently needed peace talks or he would face a September Labor Party convention demanding that he leave the Netanyahu coalition.

Settlement Moratorium
One issue could quickly derail the new talks if mishandled: the future of the ten-month-old West Bank settlement moratorium, currently set to expire on September 26. On Monday, Abbas's aides disclosed that he had written a letter to Obama stating his intention to leave the talks if the moratorium is permitted to expire.

The intersection between settlements and peace talks is complex. In past interviews, Abbas admitted that he had insisted on a settlement freeze solely to avoid being outflanked by the Obama administration, which made such a freeze central to its public statements on the peace process beginning early last year. Yet in summer 2009, U.S.-led diplomacy resulted in a moratorium that exempted construction in east Jerusalem. Abbas deemed that outcome insufficient and refused to hold direct talks. Today, however, he insists that the moratorium is valuable and must be extended, believing that he will be criticized at home if he reverses course after months of refusal only to have construction resume throughout the settlements in September.

In Israel, amid considerable domestic political pressure, Netanyahu has indicated that the moratorium will not be extended. Yet this could simply be a means of extracting concessions from Washington and Abbas. On the latter front, Netanyahu may hope to secure renewed Palestinian pledges against incitement. The PA has shown significant progress in removing mosque imams who call for suicide bombings and identifying teachers who promulgate Hamas hatred in West Bank schools. Yet it has not made headway in cleaning up state-run media or quashing other highly visible forms of incitement (e.g., naming children's summer camps after "martyred" terrorists).

Continuity or Discontinuity?
Many observers will no doubt compare the new peace talks with the last serious effort to make peace, beginning with the late 2007 Annapolis conference and continuing through Abbas's 2008 talks with former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert. The latest relaunch will be more low-key than Annapolis, which was attended by top officials from across the Middle East. Senior U.S. officials correctly note that past high-profile ceremonies have not led to diplomatic breakthroughs, so repeating such pomp and circumstance in the current environment could simply heighten public cynicism. Yet the limited Arab involvement in the upcoming launch raises questions about U.S. and Israeli expectations regarding further help from Arab states after September.

Whatever the case, individuals close to Netanyahu have indicated that he wants to personally head the peace talks once the launch is over and the parties return to the region. This was the approach favored by Olmert, who believed that weekly meetings with Abbas were the best way to focus on principles. Similarly, Netanyahu does not want the talks to become a three-way affair with U.S. mediators constantly in the room. This approach does not reflect a desire to exclude Washington -- U.S. officials will be deeply involved in the overall effort, and both Abbas and Netanyahu will brief them regularly. Rather, Netanyahu's "close hold" on the talks should be seen in a domestic context, with the prime minister looking to avoid leaks that could turn into political dynamite and trigger the dissolution of his government.

Substance of the Talks
Netanyahu has signaled his willingness to discuss border demarcation as a function of reaching satisfactory understandings on security. In particular, he wants to ensure that the arms smuggling seen in Gaza will not be repeated in the West Bank. Various parties have shown guarded optimism about bridging differences over these issues.

There is less optimism about the other two, more highly charged final-status issues: Jerusalem and refugees. This helps explain why the negotiations will initially focus on borders and security. At the same time, the administration showed ambition in putting forward a one-year timetable to resolve all issues. Many may criticize that decision, arguing that the White House has raised the stakes beyond what is warranted. In all likelihood, however, the current Palestinian and Israeli domestic environments would have hindered any efforts aimed at a partial solution declared in advance of the talks, regardless of their actual progress. Both sides have been hesitant to yield leverage prematurely in order to pursue such an approach. Others will criticize the one-year timetable as being too ambitious, yet Netanyahu himself used the year target date in a recent speech in New York.

Domestic Political Contexts
Given the issues on the table, it is important to look at the domestic political situation on each side. Ironically, past failures and low public expectations could give both leaders more room to negotiate than expected. And if members of Netanyahu's coalition decide to make his negotiations difficult, he has the option of either inviting the twenty-eight-member parliamentary opposition Kadima Party to broaden his government or opting for early elections.

Some critics argue that any talks are doomed without Hamas participation. Implicit in this critique is the belief that the group could actually be convinced to support negotiations. Hamas officials have already denounced the new talks, however, and Abbas has made clear that the group is not even interested in reconciliation with him, let alone Israel. He also noted that Iran continues to give the group some $500 million per year. In other words, Hamas is unlikely to support a constructive resolution until Iran's regional influence is curbed, and even then it may prove intractable.

Conclusion
President Obama was pivotal in helping Netanyahu reach his objective of directtalks. What actually occurred in the Oval Office during their July 6 meeting will become evident during the course of the new negotiations, as we find out whether Netanyahu and Abbas will move toward each other.

David Makovsky is the Ziegler distinguished fellow and director of the Project on the Middle East Peace Process at The Washington Institute.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk