Martin Indyk: I think the settlement issue will be resolved
Former U.S. ambassador to Israel says what happens privately in Mideast negotiations is what is important, not what is learned by the media.
By Natasha MozgovayaMartin Indyk served as the U.S. ambassador to Israel from 1995 to 1997 and from 2000 to 2001. Today he is vice president for foreign policy at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington.
 |
Martin Indyk at a conference in Israel last year. “Abu Mazen understands the importance of entering the direct negotiations,” he said. |
| Photo by: Nir Kafri |
Assuming Benjamin Netanyahu's government has no intention of extending the freeze on construction in the settlements in September, what impact might that have on direct talks?
I don't envy Netanyahu. The settlement freeze will be difficult for him to extend and difficult not to extend as well, especially if by then direct negotiations have begun. Then Israel will be responsible for blowing up the negotiations. And of course, if he does extend the settlement moratorium, he'll be assailed by the right wing, including members of his own party. It puts him between a rock and a hard place. I don't envy him in terms of how he will deal with this. But again - once the Palestinians are in direct negotiations, what Abu Mazen [Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas] will particularly care about most - is to move quickly toward an agreement. I might be wrong, but I don't think that either Netanyahu or Abu Mazen - certainly not [U.S. President] Barak Obama, [U.S. Secretary of State] Hillary Clinton or [special envoy] George Mitchell - want to get waylaid again by an argument about settlements. I think they all want to focus on the main challenge which is to reach an agreement on what the borders of the Palestinian state will be. And then the settlement issue will be resolved as a result of that.
Following your recent visit to Ramallah and Jerusalem, you reported a growing optimism, which could signal a readiness for Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. Have recent Palestinian responses changed your mind?
On the contrary. I was talking about the public mind shift. It's a mistake to get too preoccupied with what is said by either side for public consumption, because what happens privately in these negotiations is what is important. From my own perspective, based on the people I've talked to on the Palestinian side, my strong sense is that Abu Mazen understands the importance of entering the direct negotiations and he is looking for a way to explain it. The most important question is whether he will get an endorsement from the Arab League at the end of this month - that will be the big argument. But my feeling is there will be support for the direct talks.
Dan Meridor recently proposed a kind of partial freeze - to continue building just in parts that are supposed to become Israeli territory after the agreement, plus East Jerusalem.
I don't know whether that will fly or not. It's an idea. It kind of goes back to an idea that [Ariel] Sharon and then [Ehud] Olmert tried to promote with the Bush administration. I can't make a judgment on whether it's going to work or not, but what's critical is that the parties now get into direct negotiations and through these direct negotiations start to establish the seriousness of each side. Netanyahu must be prepared to indicate how far he is willing to go, particularly on the territorial issue, in the proximity talks. If there is a sense of seriousness on both sides on the territorial issue, I think the settlement problem will be resolved.
Netanyahu's recent visit to Washington was described in some reports as a "restart" in relations by some and as a pre-midterm-elections gesture by others. Was it a success?
I think it was a success and I think people have been too cynical about this. Because it does look like Obama veered away from Israel in his first year and now he is veering back towards Israel in his second year. But I think that along the way, both President Obama and Netanyahu learned some important lessons, and this meeting was a reflection of what they learned. Obama, I think, came to understand that he can get a lot more through working with the Israeli prime-minister than working against him. And I think that Netanyahu came to understand that he needs, and can have, an American president at his side, if he is willing to be serious and to take the president into his confidence about what he is prepared to do in those negotiations. I think this meeting was a reflection of the fact that they both came to understand, each for his own reasons, that it's better to work with each other than against each other.
Do you think it's possible to reach an agreement with Netanyahu's current coalition?
Oh, I do. I long believed that this coalition will support him in going into negotiations and potentially coming out of negotiations with an agreement. I know that doesn't reflect conventional wisdom, but first of all, Netanyahu committed himself to this solution. Secondly, [Avigdor] Lieberman is prepared for a radical territorial compromise. My experience with Lieberman is that he is often underestimated because he often plays to his domestic audience. But it doesn't mean he won't support the agreement. His major requirement is separation, and that's what the agreement is about. And there is Shas, and for Shas, it's the matter of price. Its spiritual leader said peace is more important than territory. It doesn't mean it will be easy and there won't be drama and hysteria, but as long as he moves quickly and reaches an agreement before the next election time, he can bring an agreement.
We've seen some attempts to put Israel on the electoral agenda in the United States ahead of the midterm elections. Will it have any effect?
American Jews traditionally are pretty supportive of the Democratic Party. They voted overwhelmingly for Barak Obama, they tend to vote for Democratic candidates and they provide a good deal of funding for political campaigns. So the Jewish factor is always a critical factor for Democratic candidates. I don't think it's telling any secrets that there are a lot of people who have been upset with President Obama. And I think that the White House came to the understanding that they have a real problem there and they are going out of their way trying to show they are friendly to Israel and committed to peace. Republicans will try to exploit the anger, and Democrats will do their best to convince there is no reason for anger. But after all, these are local elections.
You said in the Middle East Policy Council that Iran is not interested in peace in the Middle East. Other participants on the panel claimed it's impossible to marginalize Iran and its proxies if one is interested in moving the process forward.
I have had enough experience with the Iranians to understand very clearly that they can exploit the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. That's always been their policy. So can you imagine you can strike a peace deal with them, when they want to promote violence and terrorism? President Obama tried to engage them. President [Bill] Clinton tried to engage them. In terms of preventing them from interfering in Arab affairs - the best way to do that is trying to resolve the conflict, but they won't cooperate in the process.
And what about the notion that their nuclear-program clock is ticking?
There are so many clocks ticking in the Middle East. [Egyptian President Hosni] Mubarak's clock and [Lebanese Prime Minister Saad] Hariri's clock, or Saudi King Abdullah's, or Bibi Netanyahu's electoral clock. So it's a problem and the best way to try to affect the clocks' ticking is to take the initiative and move ahead with it, instead of reacting.
Do you believe that Turkey is really shifting its alliances away from the West, and is there anything the U.S. or Israel can do?
It's very important at this stage to calm the waters and it may be that the Turkish government also wants to calm things down and then diplomats can go to work on both sides' concerns. [Turkish] Prime Minister [Recep Tayyip] Erdogan sees an advantage in using Gaza to build his position in the Arab world, but there are dangers here if Turkey pushes it too far - particularly in its relations with the U.S. And if they really want to play an effective role in the Middle East, they must be able to influence the resolution of the conflict. And if they don't find the way to resolve the conflict with Israel, they simply won't be able to play this role.
There has been some talk recently that it's about time for Israel to give up its nuclear ambiguity. Does that sound reasonable to you?
I think that Israel needs to be creative in the way it deals with this problem and find a positive approach of the kind that Yitzhak Shamir found.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
"The Jordan Valley and the territories that dominate it shall be under Israeli sovereignty." - Likud Election Platform 2009 Only recently did Netanyahu repeat this fantasy. Right here the Palestinians lose some 15-20% of the West Bank, while the Clinton parameters considered a 5-6% loss, of which about half should be returned in the form of Israeli territory. To this Barak agreed in Taba (2001) while Olmert seems to have agreed to a 1:1 territorial exchage less than 2 years ago. Netanyahu will be laughed out of the peace process with such a map. The laugh will be even louder because this thinking is so outdated. The Jordan Valley was viewed by Israel as protection against Iraqi tanks, but Saddam is dead, Iraq has no tanks, and the IAF can put an end to an Iraqi invasion force. The US freed Israel of the Saddam worry at immense cost, but Likud refuses to consider this as real.
and i think he could never tell you what he knows.i know we have read many such articles and i conclude israel is pursuing a course decided on decades ago,in share with the u.s.a
In the past I've heard Indyk being very pessimistic and now I hear him being cautiously optimistic. He knows alll the players, he's been dealing with these issues for years, he supports an agreement along the llines of the Geneva agreement. What's interesting is how any optimistic assesment stricks fear and anger into those posters, and we know who they are, for whom the end of the conflict would be a big disappointment - they wouldn't know what to do with themselves
Bibi will have to reshufle his coalition in order to make progress. It will finally happen if Obama REALLY wants . It seems that Obama does not want very much, or at least he has some more urgent things to deal with, among them Iran I must admit that iof that is the case...then Obama is finally right, there are hundred more urgent issues than some buildings in the West bank.
When you observe a radical cooling down in PA anti-semetic propaganda then you can start thinking about peace. In the present situation, if Israel offered to give up everything except Tel-aviv, the Airport and the Beach....the Arabs would reject it. Stop kidding yourself Martin, the Arabs will NEVER sign a piece of paper that says............'end of conflict'.
We all know that most leaders are playing the media game, mostly for domestic consumption. The insight portrayed here should not amaze anyone. Peace, without territory is not some mantra, it is the truth, no matter how hard to digest. The desynchronizing of the FM and his party members, includes all members of the current coalition. Probably, back-room deals are in the process. The present and past dangers cannot rule the future. The US midterm elections are not about Israel, more than likely the GOP will bring out the total waste in Afghanistan, where we ALL know that the US will leave and that the Taliban cannot be defeated. Then again, the economy, which will most likely be the weapon of choice. The fact that both Pres.Obama and PM Netanyahu have opened a frank dialogue, may well become the first of many building blocks towards a just and eventual peace. Abu Mazen, may well have a direct line into the Oval Office, for his hesitation in the past may well be also due to similar or mutual misgivings by Pres.Obama. However nobody can prophesize less so when dealing with the regime in Tehran,their agenda and their proxies. Turkey, has the prestige and must remain in its position, even Pres.Assad has agreed that Israel and Turkey must retain their relations. It could well be, that Turkey, will become a major role player with Tehran's proxies and a possible peace arrangement with Israel. Contentious issues such as East Jerusalem, must be brought to the forefront, not left to the last minute, history has proven that, ever since Oslo.There is a solution, without dividing the city. Good day to all.
The mention of the Arab League endorsement on negotiations is indicative of all that,s wrong in the Palestinian camp as the Saudi monarchy calls the shots through it,s Arab League Amr Moussa mouthpiece ,so many sheep so few sheepdogs?
They're the rules Israel agreed to by joining the UN.
Go complain to them, they refuse to negotiate UUNSCR 242 makes clear that the current borders are not final
The de-militarization of Palestine is the sticking point. Bibi made clear shortly after he was re-elected that a Palestinian state west of the Jordan must be de-militarized. And for good reason. And he has stuck to his realization of this fact. There is no other way. Unless those who want peace for Israel truly wish for us the peace of the dead.
...Israel, take control.
So here again, we have a career diplomat ( or you can call them filthy liers ) intertwining words. You speak to your very own people in a different language and in altogether different tone for the international audience. And this has been accepted as " politics " . Since when lying has been taken as politics. For whatever it takes, let us all speak the truths for it even shame the devil.
Mr. Indyk is a very sharp diplomat.
After more than 40 years of occupation and suppression,Idyk is still speaking about seiousness of either side of the conflict. If israeli leaders were serious in withdrawing from the occupied arab territories, then peace would have pevailed long time ago.
One place is here: "I think they all want to focus on the main challenge which is to reach an agreement on what the borders of the Palestinian state will be. And then the settlement issue will be resolved as a result of that." It is a ludicrous statement precisely BECAUSE Israel will insist that the borders have to go *here* and *there* so that it gets to "keep the settlements". The alternative something that Indyk never even considers: stress the illegality of the settlements so that Israel can not simply demand them as a gift i.e. every settlement that Israel wants to "keep" requires an equal concession from Israel. That is fair, which is why such a strategy never occurs to Indyk, and why such a strategy is anathema to the Israelis.....
and come clean on what your real and final demands are for peace. Both states by the back door ? Forget it Arafat the Egyptian tried the "all hell"routine sucide bombers,drive by shootings etc etc etc. It did not work for him either and since then you are in 2 warring camps. PS When are you going to free the vast majority of mandate Palestine? Jordan.! Tells us what your real problem is doesnt it.
Then it can end it's occupation, stop stealing land and go live in Israel for once.
So, a former American ambassador to Israel, who now runs Saban-funded training ground for Zionists in the US government tries to sound like a scholar and diplomat. Unless you are under the AIPAC brain-washing program, what he says in this article doesn't make any sense. "Direct talks" is the flavor of the month like "Annapolis", "Geneva Accord". I think the audience for this kind of nonsense is getting smaller and smaller.
Re Mamilla Cemetry Wikipedia "it was discovered in February 2007 that a November 1945 article in The Palestine Post reported Muslim plans to build a commercial center directly over the cemetery. The article stated, "An area of over 450 dunams in the heart of Jerusalem, now forming the Mamilla Cemetery, is to be converted into a business centre. The town-plan is being completed under the supervision of the Supreme Moslem Council in conjunction with the Government Town Planning Adviser." Citing supportive rulings from prominent Muslim clerics at the time, the council planned to transfer the remains buried in the cemetery to a separate "walled reserve" in favor of "the public interest." In response to this revelation, the Simon Wiesenthal Center accused opponents of its building plans of "sheer hypocrisy," stressing that the museum was “not even being built on the cemetery itself.”[7] Rabbi Hier added that this new information "substantiates much of what Israel's Supreme Court said in its recent ruling: That the Mamilla Cemetery was regarded by many Muslim religious leaders as 'mundras,' or abandoned and without sanctity."[6]
Answer NO THING!
Indyk says that Netanyahu will be unable to extend the settlement freeze because of his coalition. He says that all parties should bypass the settlement freeze extension and go to direct talks to finalize the borders, making the settlement issue moot. Does Indyk really think that Netanyahus coalition, who would refuse the settlement freeze extension would remain silent while Bibi negotiated peace giving up most of the west bank settlements? Baloney! The government would collpase instantly. Indyk knows very well that the peace talks are meant to go nowhere. He just wants Israel to get paid for their peace fakery. Apparently this will not happen if there are no direct talks.
Martin Indyk: I think the settlement issue will be resolved. Martin Indyk: I think they all want to focus on the main challenge which is to reach an agreement on what the borders of the Palestinian state will be. Martin Indyk: It's a mistake to get too preoccupied with what is said by either side for public consumption. And are these quotes not meant "for public consumption"? What williness has Israel shown to return the lands it has stolen? What evidence is there that Netanyahu will offer a state as opposed to "fried chicken"
first, netanyahu agreed in a most flaccid manner to the two astate solution. That's first. and lieberman certainly will agree to seperation but a seperation that works only one way. remember that. He wants to rid Israel of its 20% at any cost but not relinquish any major control of settlements in tyhe WB. Indyk's suggestion that Abbas, might go for Meridor's suggestion is a no go since it excludes EJ which must be the capital of Palestine and the zionists must give up. As for Democrats or Republicans, it makes no difference. They are both dependent upon the zionist lobby for their campaign funds and election. If they are too critical of Israel, they will be destroyed.
...Mr. Netanyahu would like to get started with "direct talks" right away--is that he could use them as "cover," shall we say, for what he might be thinking about doing when the "freeze" ends. (Then again, I tend to think in a "Byzantine" fashion--or so my three wives used to say.)
He's arguing that realistically the parties need to engage in direct talks for an agreement to be reached by next year. He's more positive about the current coalition government in Israel, so that's good. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians have challenges ahead but by continuing the dialogue for peace, this marginalizes those unsupportive or cynical about advancing a peaceful resolution.
...is that this fellow is talking about avoiding getting sidetracked by people wanting to draw the conversation into why things CAN'T work--and keep focused on finding a way to MAKE THEM WORK. (Not a bad idea at all--but one which will make a lot of folks scream to high heaven.)
Will all the professional politicians pushing it resign and not voice another stupid idea. How many more years will they claim that they know what their talking about.? Rockects keep coming. Gunmen are stopped nearly everyday. Get real!
Arabs were killing and terrorizing Jews long before '67 and even '48 ('29 Hebron Massacre). Did it even dawn on you that MAYBE, just maybe, it is the Arabs who are the usurpers ??? Please don't revise the facts.
1880: 25000 Jews, 500 000 arabas in Palestine. Massive Jewish immigration during the first half of the 20th Century. 1929 revolt: 133 Jews and 116 Arabs killed in the riots Get your facts right, Gianni.
Answer....NONE. The Palestinians have not displaced anyone.