Zalman Shoval
Quartet representatives, in Israel again for their habitual visit, announced that Israel and the Palestinians "have agreed to move on to the next stage within the established guidelines," meaning that each side will submit its proposal for security and borders within three months. According to a Quartet spokesman, "Both sides expressed their willingness to participate in the formulation of a draft agreement, overcome the obstacles, and streamline bilateral negotiations, without hesitation and without preconditions." Really? Although Israel has accepted the outline, the Palestinians rejected it even before the Quartet representatives landed in Israel. Their public declarations left no doubt that they aimed to thwart any practical effort to renew the negotiations. Even if Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is a "stabilizing force," as some people in Israel refer to him, his leadership "stability," as well as that of his cohorts, has been expressed in recent years mainly through his diversionary tactics, which are meant to frustrate any chance of a renewal of the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reveals in her new book that Abbas refused to accept even the most generous of offers proposed by former prime minister Ehud Olmert, which incredibly included Jerusalem and the return of Palestinian "refugees."
Abbas operates the way he does to avoid a well-known dilemma. He does not want to be forced to answer "yes" or "no" to demands, compromises, or concessions, even concerning the issues of refugees, Jerusalem, borders, and the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, something that was already established by the U.N. in 1947.
Yasser Arafat, who found himself in a similar position during the talks at Camp David with former U.S. president Bill Clinton and former prime minister Ehud Barak, chose the way of violence -- the intifada -- to undermine the talks. Abbas prefers a diplomatic intifada, turning to the U.N. and other international forums for recognition of a Palestinian state.
Either way, Abbas feels as though he is caught in a self-made trap with the Quartet's plan, which is why he continues to create preconditions without calling them that. According to Abbas, they are not preconditions, but "past understandings that need to be fulfilled." In other words, he means that Israel must stop all construction beyond its pre-1967 borders, accept the pre-1967 lines as the borders of a Palestinian state, and agree to free hundreds of Palestinian prisoners who were not included in the Shalit deal.
It would be interesting to see how Abbas would react, and which excuses he would come up with, if Israel announced today, as the late Menachem Begin did in his time, that it is willing to freeze all construction in Judea and Samaria for several months, in tandem with a renewal of the negotiations.
A paragraph in the Quartet plan which demands that each side immediately submit "its proposal for borders and security," contains a hidden risk for Israel. It also negates the principle of no preconditions. Israel must insist that the logical and practical meaning of that paragraph is that the issue of future borders, in addition to our other legitimate interests, has to be dealt with within the context of our security concerns. Which is what Security Council Resolution 242 enshrined.
No comments:
Post a Comment