August 2011
It's perfectly possible that Netanyahu will present a peace plan by the newly announced target date.
By Aluf BennThe immediate result of the announced resumption of direct Israeli-Palestinian talks was the setting of a new target date on the Middle Eastern calendar: August 2011. That is when talks on all permanent-status issues, as well as Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's project of building a Palestinian state-in-the-making, are both due to conclude.
Israelis have a complex attitude toward such target dates. On one hand, they discount their importance: "For 17 years we've been talking to the Palestinians and nothing has come of it." On the other, they fear them, warning that they create unrealistic expectations that will not be met and will ultimately lead to a new intifada. These slogans sound good in political debates on the radio, but the reality is more complicated.
Since the Oslo Accords were signed, 17 years have come and gone, but the elusive peace has yet to be achieved. Throughout that period, however, final-status talks took place just twice - once during Ehud Barak's term as prime minister, and once during Ehud Olmert's term. Each round of talks lasted less than a year and yielded an Israeli peace proposal that seemed to be far-reaching.
In both instances, the Palestinian leader rejected it as insufficient. But the results on the ground were different. After Yasser Arafat turned down Barak's proposal at Camp David in the summer of 2000, bloodshed was unleashed. After Mahmoud Abbas rejected Olmert's offer in the summer of 2008, nothing happened. Few people even noticed that such a proposal had been made in the first place.
The difference between the two cases lies not in the fine print of the proposed deals but in the level of expectations. A decade ago, people believed that an agreement was "within touching distance." Two years ago, in contrast, the Olmert-Abbas talks were viewed as a pointless exercise aimed at passing time.
What both cases have in common, however, is that in each, a one-year deadline was announced when the talks were launched. And both times, the parties abided by the timetable: Israeli peace offers were submitted to the Palestinians 10 months after the summits that inaugurated the talks. The concept of target dates turned out to be an effective tool that spurred on the leaders.
Benjamin Netanyahu is entering the third round of final-status negotiations with expectations even lower than they were during Olmert's talks. The prime minister's critics, both in Israel and abroad, say he is pulling the wool over people's eyes and cannot concede even one millimeter to the Palestinians. His past positions, the influence of his father and wife, and the composition of his coalition are used as evidence against him.
But Netanyahu's political situation is much better than Barak's and Olmert's were during their terms, and he is more in need of the American administration's support, due to the growing threat from Iran. Will this be enough to motivate him to strike a deal for a two-state solution, as he promised at the start of his term?
Netanyahu's problem is rooted in the contradictory expectations harbored by both sides. From his standpoint, the establishment of a Palestinian state is supposed to "end the conflict." His Palestinian interlocutors are relying on a statement issued by the Quartet, which said an agreement is meant to end "the occupation that began in 1967." The gap between those two formulations is wide. The Palestinians and the international community want to close the chapter that began with the Six-Day War. Netanyahu, like Barak before him, wants to end the conflict that began decades earlier, and which strikes at the heart of both peoples' self-definitions.
The key element Netanyahu introduced into the process was expanding the agenda by demanding that the Palestinians recognize Israel as "the state of the Jewish people." The Palestinians steadfastly refused. From their vantage point, the Jews are foreign conquerors who usurped the land and dispossessed its residents.
The disagreement over this issue forebodes problems and difficulties, but it also presents an opportunity. In the expected stalemate between Israel's demand for recognition and the Palestinians' demand for realization of the "right of return," there lies a compromise: Both sides could put aside the symbolic dilemmas and focus on a practical arrangement for dividing the West Bank between two states that will continue to argue over historical narratives and justice in the future.
If Netanyahu survives the thorny issue of a settlement freeze and manages to establish a semblance of trust with Abbas, he can anticipate months of quiet negotiations far from the public eye, at least until next summer's target date. Coincidentally or not, August 2011 is also when Iran will be capable of assembling its first nuclear bomb, according to American intelligence.
There is no doubt: It's going to be interesting here in August 2011.
 |
U.S. envoy George Mitchell meets with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on April 23, 2010 in Jerusalem. |
| Photo by: AP |
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 UN partition plan called for the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab one in Palestine. The PLO has approved this resolution in 1988.
then why are they refusing to do so in the current negotiations? Seems to me that it's a bit more complicated than that.
That's the real problem with all negotiations. Israel currently has all the land and natural resources it wants, plus a quiet Pal population in the West Bank and an out-of-sight-out-of-mind Pal population penned In Gaza. The only potential fly in its ointment is Iran. but that's not part of these negotiations anyway, and already the White House has its orders from Israel on Iran and is carrying them out. Peace with the Arab league would be nice, but as the cold peace with Egypt and Jordan shows, it's not necessarily something to get hugely excited about. Let's face it, Bibi is only going to these talks at all because of US pressure, so, ultimately, the talks will only succeed if US pressure on Bibi is maintained and if it's backed by credible threats, like cutting off military aid or suspendinbg the use of the US veto in the security council. Otherwise, Bibi has nothing to win by peace and plenty to lose.
Lieberman is doing nothing to help the peace process with his recent settlement statements. Abbas has plans on the table. Now it is up to Netanyahu to put plans on the table timely before Lieberman destroys whatever good faith exists.
...time will not allow a minority "Jewish State" to dominate 100 million Arabs forever. Jews are riding the Tiger and are afraid to get off for fear they will get eaten. America must decide fro Israel at the UN, '67 borders, or the Vote, or both.
How does Hamas fit into this analysis? They are not included in the negotiation and if they are not part of the solution how can there be peace? Maybe a piece for Abbas but nothing for Israel. That won't work.
perennial wishful thinking No one in the government has the courage to face the evacuations or even the mention of evacuation. No one has the courage to confront the civil war and tame the lose fanatics - NO ONE
How long does it take to get that through some peoples grey matter. Israel wants an Arab Greater Israel. Oh and please don,t give me the Israel made peace with Jordan and Eygpt. Sure it did but that was because neither of those two states interfered with the Graeter Israel project.
Anything is possible. The probability of Netanyahu seeking a peace agreement is so infinitesimally small as to virtually not exist.
Israel only understand power struggle, retaliation. Thus unable to do what is needed to have peace with his neighbors : 67 borders, Jerusalem, Golan, Gaza, Lebanon's farms, quit (almost)all settlements. Soon or later ( sooner than most expect ) arabs will have sufficient deterrence to afraid lots of Israelis and they will ( as they did for more than 2000 years) emigrate from Israel. So I think it would be much better for Israel to accept now what Palestinians are asking for and get Peace than to struggle a few months or years and than to be "force" to leave for ever.
Romans raize Jerusalem, slaughter and expel Judea's Jewish population, forbid the Jews return to Israel and you call it "emigration". Real nice!
When it comes down to it, Netanyahu has to choose whether he wants to go down in history like Begin or Shamir. If he chooses the Begin paradigm, there's a chance that peace will be achievable whereas if he chooses to act like Shamir (his former political sponsor) we're not going anywhere good. We need to also remember that Israel can't make peace by itself, Abu Mazen needs to choose between the Sadat and Achmedijad paradigm, it's not at all clear that he'll choose peace during money time. Let's hope that both leaders choose peace over ideological purity.
There can be no real peace without an end to the conflict, and no end to the conflict without a resolution of the basic issues between the Jewish and Arab people, which AB says can't be resolved. If these issues indeed can't be resolved in a year, the question is whether the any alteration of the current situation will improve the position of BOTH people. Given the extremely small space 'between the river and the sea,' it might be easier to strike an agreement that recognizes the fundamental demands of both people -- the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish homeland, the need to rehabilitate the Palestinian refugees, a viable Palestinian state with some acceptable accommodation on Jerusalem, and measures to assure Israel's security. And given the fact that Israel has in the past essentially agreed to these 'basic' Palestinian demands, it seems as though Palestinian acceptance if Israel's basic demands is the key to a lasting peace.
at these negotiations that has'nt already been discussed. Most parties know that the only formula for lasting peace is one which requires israel to give back all lands it occupied in 1967 in return for full peace with all its neighbours. No ifs, no butts and no settlements. The refugee problem will be solved without full right of return. Most players seem to know this is the most "Fair" outcome yet I doubt we'll get there.
Israel is not the sort of nation to make lopsided deals in which they receive nothing but hardship. This fact alone screams out that there will be no peace. Israel is simply stringing along Obama and will back out of any peace deal using one of a hundred different strategems.
why would any nation make a lopsided deal that brings nothing but hardship??
dont make us laugh !!!
What a lot of rubbish !
If there is another freeze there will be a new government and Netanyahu will be sitting at home watching TV ! These talks will not last. If the Palestinians were offered the Moon and the stars, they would also demand the Sun or nothing ! One has to realilze that these so-called Palestinians have been forcibly ejected from most countries in the Middle East. Look what happened when they tried to take Jordan ! They are only permitted to live in Lebanon in refugee camps and that has not been peaceful either.
...both motives and outcomes--why not just let the darn process unfold--see how it turns out--and then--if it is determined that one of the sides "peed in the soup"--nail that side's hide to the wall. (All of which is subject to "endless negotiation and/or vitriolic debate," of course--right?)
As for the gist of your commentary - yes...there is great potential for compromise. But one thing that BOTH sides need to understand is that compromise seldom results from outright demands - nor will it come from confrontational discussions or those laced with animosity. These will invariably result in hair being raised and heels digging in deep. And there's one other thing...one of the parties really needs to relinquish the strategy of trying to gain as much as it can and come to terms with the fact that ITS part entails the 'return' of territory to which it was never entitled - and it also needs to approach the subject of retaining its large settlement blocks with that fact soundly in mind.
"Any deal will have to be based on security arrangements and a recognition of Israel as a Jewish state" - Netanyahu/// Being more explicit, Netanyahu said that first there should be talk about security issues and only then on borders. Let us see how it will work: First Netanyahu will demand the Jordan Valley (15-20% of West Bank), then the area overlooking BG Airport, etc., as security measures, and then he will talk about borders of what is left. Then Netanyahu will demand that the palestinians should recognize israel as a Jewish state, then claim that Palestinian refugee cannot return to a "Jewish" state and will be willing to discuss the refugee problem on this basis. I am not saying that the refugees should go back to Israel, but discussing the issues as a whole, trading concessions in Jerusalem for concessions on the refugees, is the way to conduct negotiations. Netanyahu is trying to cheat people who are expert cheaters like himself, and fool the rest of the world who know he is an expert liar. Not going to work.
Indeed. Start with ludicrous demands, like control of Palestinian airspace and borders, then slowly get negotiated down to simply positions that heavily favour Israel. Then when borders come up, you can say "Well, we did want to offer you a good deal on borders, but I'm afraid you didn't accept our security needs so we can't risk it..."