How Obama boxed Netanyahu in to an imposed solution

Here is the beginning of my post. And here is the rest of it.

This article was originally published in March 2010. It is the successor to Obama Plans to impose a solution written 4 months earlier. Although Obama didn’t succeed in finishing the job in the first term, he is well on his way to finishing it in his second term. Given all the concessions Netanyahu has made and the determination of the US, the EU and the UN to impose this solution, what choice does Netanyahu and Israel now have?

By Ted Belman
During the lead up to his election victory, he surrounded himself with a host of vehemently anti-Israel advisors including Lee Hamilton, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samantha Power, Susan Rice and Gen Jones, many of whom advocated imposing a solution on Israel..
He also made common cause with Jewish leftists represented by J Street and Israel Policy Forum who were urging him to increase the pressure on Israel and if that didn’t work, to impose a solution on Israel.

So it was no surprise that he started his term of office by attacking Israel, America’s best and most steadfast ally, declaring that all settlements were illegal and demanding a complete settlement construction freeze east of the greenline including in Jerusalem. He went so far as to repudiate the US commitment set out in the Bush letter ’04 to Sharon, declaring there was no agreement. Elliot Abrams and others involved in the negotiations which led to the letter, testified otherwise.
This letter also affirmed that “as part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.” Pres Bush had always supported a negotiated settlement and this letter did likewise. Noticeably absent was any reference to the Saudi Plan. The letter also contained a commitment, that ”the United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan”.

By repudiating this letter as a U.S. commitment, Pres Obama opened the way for a settlement to be imposed according to the Saudi Plan rather than Res 242.
He set a goal of achieving an agreement in two years. One year is up, what has he accomplished? At first blush, it would appear, not much. But the reality is otherwise.

He got PM Netanyahu to agree to a two-state solution for the first time and to the terms of reference for negotiations, namely,

“an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles 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.”

[Note , in my original posting I had a link for this but it is no longer working. I am trying to find confirmation of this agreement but so far have not found any.]
These terms leave very little wiggle room so it does not matter that Pres Obama agreed with PM Netanyahu’s demand that there be no pre-conditions or that negotiations not start where Ehud Olmert left off.

Noticeably absent from the terms of reference were Jerusalem and refugees, two items that could scuttle talks and probably will. Pres Obama is on record of wanting Jerusalem divided and not favoring the return of refugees to Israel.
He also got Netanyahu to agree to a temporary constructions freeze, not near what he was demanding, but enough to enable him to get Abbas to agree to the proximity talks.

Since attaining these building blocks, Pres Obama’s has witnessed falling approval ratings and increasing pressure to focus on domestic issues. How will this affect the progress made?

The Arab League has given its support to “proximity talks” but only for four months. This has enabled Abbas to likewise agree. The talks therefore will start soon and end before the temporary freeze ends. But no one expects an agreement to be reached.

The U.S. managed to accomplish this by sending a document to the Palestinians responding to their enquires which provided, “We expect both parties to act seriously and in good faith. If one side, in our judgment, is not living up to our expectations, we will make our concerns clear and we will act accordingly to overcome that obstacle”

The document also committed the US to “sharing messages between the parties and offering our own ideas and bridging proposals.” and reiterated “Our core remains a viable, independent and sovereign Palestinian State with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967,”
This commitment by the U.S. was a determining factor in the Palestinian’s and the Arab League’s decision to agree to the U.S. proposal on indirect talks.
Both the agreed terms of reference above quoted and this document imply that Israel must return all occupied territories rather than some occupied territories as was the original intention of Res 242.

One wonders why PM Netanyahu would enter fruitless negotiations that would result in Israel being blamed and ultimately dictated to. In doing so, PM Netanyahu abandoned Israel’s previous demands for direct negotiations thereby allowing the Arab League to have a say. For that matter, Abbas also abandoned a long held position that only the PA can negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians.
The Arab League has thus given Obama four months only to achieve an agreement, failing which it will take over of the process. Pres Obama is only too happy to pass the buck.

When the Arab League announced their support, their Secretary General said;

“We intend in four months time to bring back the whole of the peace process to the Security Council thus ending the role of honest broker role played so far by the US and to put an end to the peace process.“We will put the results of the talks before the Security Council and then ask this important body in charge of maintaining peace and security to decide on the steps forward.”

This in effect would abrogate the Oslo Accords and the Roadmap which heretofore have been considered binding.

Pursuant to Article 33, of the United Nations Charter, members, Israel included, who are ”parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice” and the Security Council “shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.”

Israel could well be ordered to submit to arbitration or judicial settlement. Perhaps this is the reason PM Netanyahu keeps reaffirming Israel’s desire to negotiate.
The Security Council has the “”primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security”. In fact, Article 37 provides, “If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate.” Chapter VII gives the Security Council the right to enforce these recommendations.

You can be sure that the Arab League is well aware of these provisions. It is highly doubtful that the US will veto any such move.

The EU is already on board. European Union foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, told a British audience in London on Saturday,

“After a fixed deadline, a UN Security Council resolution should proclaim the adoption of the two-state solution,”“It would accept the Palestinian state as a full member of the UN, and set a calendar for implementation. It would mandate the resolution of other remaining territorial disputes and legitimize the end of claims.”
“If the parties are not able to stick to it [referring to the UN-imposed timetable -ed.], then a solution backed by the international community should be put on the table.”

Solana added that the UN-imposed “two-state solution” should include resolution of issues such as control over Israel’s capital, the city of Jerusalem, as well as border definitions, security arrangements and the “right of return” by millions of foreign descendants of Arab refugees who abandoned their homes during the 1948 war.

Netanyahu will thus be faced with making the best deal he can for fear of a worse deal being imposed. He can also decide to reject the authority of the United Nations resulting in Israel’s expulsion and the imposition of serious sanctions.

Speaking of serious sanctions, it appears unlikely they will be imposed on Iran. Israels only option then is the military one, the sooner the better.
Pres Obama may well decide to posture as Israel’s defender and save her from the worst thereby improving his reelection chances without jeopardizing the imposed solution. For him, a win-win all around, that is, if Israel doesn’t reject it.