Time to lift the carpet
The major issues that were swept under the rug at Camp David twenty years ago must now be dealt with.
By Yoel MarcusIt may be a mere coincidence, but the Camp David conference that generated the framework agreement for peace between Israel and Egypt also began in September (1978 ). It set out to deal with the core of the conflict between us and Egypt and draft a framework agreement for a peace treaty.
Menachem Begin came with a written list of 13 expressions that were not, under any circumstances, to appear in the peace agreement. They all pertained to the Palestinians and included "the just, legitimate rights of the Palestinian people," "all aspects of the problem," "the inadmissibility of seizing territories by force" etc. etc.
After 13 days of discussion, Begin agreed to include all the "forbidden" terms in the treaty. The White House mediators, headed by President Carter, presented 23 different drafts for framework agreements, one of which had all the forbidden expressions in it, masterfully disguised with verbal special effects. Anwar Sadat withdrew his demand to establish a Palestinian state and the Palestinian problem was swept under the carpet.
Much water has flowed in the Jordan and much blood has been spilled, both before and after the Oslo Accords, which brought Yasser Arafat to Gaza in a convoy of Cadillacs loaded with weapons and munitions. The dream of peace between the two peoples became a reality of blood, hate, tears and missed opportunities. The Israeli peace camp's efforts to negotiate, whether by American mediation or directly, also failed to extract us from the reality of bloodshed and hatred.
The Palestinians missed the opportunity presented by the evacuation of the Gaza Strip and Ariel Sharon's shelving of the greater Land of Israel dream. They missed the opportunity provided by months and months of direct talks with Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni under the auspices of the Bush administration. And above all, they missed the opportunity of Barack Obama's visit to Cairo and his famous speech about regional peace, as well as Benjamin Netanyahu's speech at Bar-Ilan University on June 14, in which he first announced the goal of two states for two peoples.
That speech was a historic precedent: A right-wing leader par excellence had for first time recognized a Palestinian state and, by implication, was willing to give up territories and settlements to achieve permanent borders. But the Palestinians, encouraged by President Obama's middle name, Hussein, and his support for their demands, toughened their stances. They are still not even ready to recognize Israel's existence as a Jewish state. They have not changed their position since the UN partition resolution of 1947.
Obama's disappointed envoys and his implied threats toward Israel hardened the Palestinians' positions even more. But as the Congressional elections draw closer, Obama is realizing that his disregard for American Jewish power was a mistake - both because American Jews were his chief financial supporters in the presidential election and because they could be a force for peace if Obama's approach to Israel were more balanced.
Netanyahu's success in passing a decision to suspend construction in West Bank settlements for 10 months, and in rigorously enforcing it, proves he understands he will not have a second comeback. The invitation to the Washington summit on September 2, which will also be attended by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah, was concocted by George Mitchell as a new beginning, which is supposed to lead to a happy ending within a year, with concessions on both sides. Mitchell was quoted after his disappointing visits to this region as saying that "in Ireland we had about 700 days of failure and one day of success" (the day the agreement was signed ).
That day of success is still far from us. But it is very important for Netanyahu to build up a relationship of trust with the administration. First, he must appear to want the summit to succeed, and if necessary, he must extend the construction freeze in the territories. Second, he must conduct himself in such a way that the administration won't be able to say he was the one who sabotaged the summit. And he would be wise to also keep a line open for an agreement with Syria, which would be in keeping with the administration's interests.
The two-day summit has been well prepared, and it is too bad the Palestinians, in line with their tradition, are already making threats. Both Mahmoud Abbas and Saeb Erekat are warning that continuing the freeze is a sine qua non. Why threaten when you can talk?
Netanyahu is hinting in closed talks that he will surprise us, that he will be ready to discuss core issues and dividing the land. It is time to deal with the real problems that Sadat and Begin swept under the carpet.
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
According to Mr. Marcus the Palestinians are to blame for their own failures. We, for our part, have made them some wonderful offers which they have foolishly rejected. This is, of course, the argument made by Barak. The truth is otherwise. The Palestinians may have done some foolish things, but all the "wonderful" offers we have made were not all that wonderful. The simple truth is that we have never offered the Palestinians a real, independent , state. What we have offered is at best an ersatz "state" controlled by us. Maybe the Palestinians would have been wise to accept this. But, Mr. Marcus is certainly wrong to put all the blame on them.
How can Yoel Marcus complain that Sadat and Begin (and Carter) at Camp David in 1978 swept the real problems under the rug when what they accompished there has been unmatched in terms of the advance it represented by anything the Israelis or Palestinians have done in the thirty years since?
In this article Yoel Marcus asks why the Palestinians threaten instead of talking. Actually earlier in his article he answerwed the question by himself. He wrote that the Palestinians are still (in 2010) not ready to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. He prefaced this statement with the comment that since the 1947 partition agreement, they haven't changed their position. These two comments by Marcus clearly explain why the Palestinians threaten instead of talking. Apparently they have nothing to talk about with the Jewish state of Israel.
Yoel, "Rigorously enforcing it" - the construction freeze in the West Bank- you obviously haven't done your reading on this subject, not least facts reported in this paper!
you have it wrong mriron there never was a palestine and the romans knew there was an israel so did the ancient greeks , the assyrians and the babylonians !
Israel is just about the only native country in the region. All these Arab countries are made up places of the 20th century. Look at centuries of maps.
Netanyahu's coalition is built on the condition of "no real negotiations and freezing the status quo" The kabuki theater serves only to hide the reality to the rest of the world. Here in Israel the results have already been fixed.
Yoel Marcus's advice to Netanyahu is that in order to "build a relationship of trust" he must "appaear to want the summit to succeed". Secondly, he must behave in a way to insure that he will not be seen as having sabotaged the summit. Great advice!! It's irrelevant whether Netanyahu is serious or not about striving toward a peaceful resolution of the conflict here. What is most important is that he bone up on his skills at dissembling and deception. This piece tells us as much about Marcus's integrity and commitment to peace in the area as it tells us about how he sees Netanyahu's role as the leader of our nation.
the problem is that most of us do not trust this administration.
I re-read that article just to make sure, but no, nowehere in all that does he say 'Israel was wrong to do that' or 'israel should have done that, but didn't.' By contrast he spends a whole paragraph repeating the rotten old hasbara that it's all the Palestinians' fault for missing so many opportunities. 'Israel loves the Palestinians and is just dying to give them freedom if only they'd be nice.' The best offer Israel ever made to the Pals was a bit of the West Bank now, and 92 per cent of the west Bank in 15-20 years if Israel didn't change its mind in the meantime. And we all know how somehow, despite Israeli commitments those settlements just keep growing and expanding. What's the betting that If the Pals had signed up to the deal, Israel would have found a way to suspend handing over the territory and the settlements i thaat 15-20 years?
didn't you read the last sentence?
Netanyahu should "appear" to want the meeting to succeed. This is thinly vieled code for "we're all counting on you to collapse the talks but not to *appear* like you're doing that". Don't worry, Zionist scum, you run things here in the States, we know. Take what you want, but just leave us our football.
This articles discourse based on Palestinians missing opportunities is unfortunately part of the Israeli mindset. Having studied the record it does not stand critical scrutiny and is merely Israeli propaganda. It does only serve to help to whitewash the Zionist cause. Camp David was a failure based on Israeli insistence on a Palestinian bantustan, with the US and Israeli negotiators advocating Israeli needs instead of Palestinian rights according to international law. Begin was forced to give up Egyptian territories under pressure. It required the Yom Kippur war to make Israel even think about giving up Egyptian territory. The negotiations under Olmert did not go further because his government period was over and he was accused of corruption. Olmert never recognized East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian people, even though Israeli propagandists claim so. Taba is the closest to come to a peaceful settlement, but Barak's governments term was over and Sharon completely discarded what negotiations had accomplished at Taba. The siege of Gaza has continued even though Sharon decided to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza and evacuate the settlers. This strategy of leaving Gaza was based on increased settlements and moving Gaza's settlers to the West Bank.
your "history" lesson is incomplete. e. g. the peace settlement of taba: the fact that it was not concluded was not because mr. barak's term was over but because the palestinians had started the second intifada instead of going on with sincere negotiations. concerning the gaza settlers: most of them still live in temporary houses in southern israel and not in settlements in the westbank as you claim.
Begin was not forced to give up the Sinai. After the 67 war Israel offered to return all land gained in exchange for peace, only to be answered with the famous "3 no's" of Khartoum. Further, nothing was accomplished in the end at Taba, due to the outbreak of the 2nd Intifada (though I'm sure that was all a part of Barak's plan, yea?)
"too bad the Palestinians, in line with their tradition, are already making threats. Both Mahmoud Abbas and Saeb Erekat are warning that continuing the freeze is a sine qua non. Why threaten when you can talk?" Netanyahu has been making threats for the last year and a half. One is that of a state of Palestine ONLY IF it will be demilitarized. Yet he is not willing to sign a non-aggression treaty first. So Israel could invade Palestine any time they wanted to. That's what the Soviets tried to do with all their neighbors. Secondly, Netanyahu has been adamant about not ever sharing Jerusalem with the Palestinians. No negotiation about that. All the while settlements in East Jerusalem are expanding and the silent deportation of Palestinians continues, constituting to a quieter version of ethnic cleansing. Netanyahu, why threaten when you can talk?
I have not seen so many Arabs in Jerusalem as I do today. They are every where the Eastern side the Western Side. Not in the 33 years of my life have I see so many Arabs in the center of the country either.
why is it a threat when israel wishes to have a demilitarized palestinian state? why should there be a non-aggression treaty when israel works already together with palestinian security services? (by the way: the one who shot dead israeli border policeman yossi tabeja on september 29th 2000 was his palestinian colleague policeman na'il suleiman, and he shot despite of all treaties between israel and the palestinians.) why is it a threat when mr. netanyahu wishes to keep jerusalem as israeli capital?
Yaron says he is seeing more Arabs in EJ. All the evictions and land thefts are a figment of the international communities imagination
a wise and true comment.
Putting pressure on Israel can result in hardening our attitude towards the Palestinians. They are waiting for a better deal. So did those who stood "waiting for Godot". He never came because he never existed. In the mean-time the economical situation of the Palestinian cities is getting better and better: this is an argument in Israel´s favour. In the end even the Palestinians themselves will see that a lesser deal without Gaza is best
1978 is not twenty (as stated!), but more than THIRTY years ago.
I'd like to think that the U.S. Congressional elections are not the pivotal motivation towards success in the near future for the Middle East. Whether it's the Democrats or Republicans, the same issues today would have applied to the logistics of developing a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Also, one of the requirements of Israel, which is most legitimate to emphasize, is that it be accepted as the Jewish state within the Middle East nations. But this issue needs to be stipulated after the establishment of the territorial boundaries between the two states is agreed upon.
agreement on borders and agreement that israel is the homeland of the jewish people must be simultaneous. regards, cipora
The Palestinians need to recognize the sovereignty of the state of Israel within its accepted borders, and the right of Israel to set its own constitutional and legal framework without outside interference. If Israel wants to declare itself a Jewish state and discriminate on behalf of one class of citizens, then its right to do so free of interference must be acknowledged. The insistence that Palestinians should recognize Israel as a "Jewish state" is merely a roadblock thrown up by Israelis to prevent a peace settlement. Whites in South Africa are not forced to recognize South Africa as a black state. Although a small minority, they continue to be the dominant economic class. Jews will continue to dominate Israel demographically, culturally and economically without forcing the Palestinians to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state.
The Palestinians need to recognize the sovereignty of the state of Israel within its accepted borders, and the right of Israel to set its own constitutional and legal framework without outside interference. If Israel wants to declare itself a Jewish state and discriminate on behalf of one class of citizens, then its right to do so free of interference must be acknowledged. The insistence that Palestinians should recognize Israel as a "Jewish state" is merely a roadblock thrown up by Israelis to prevent a peace settlement. Whites in South Africa are not forced to recognize South Africa as a black state. Although a small minority, they continue to be the dominant economic class. Jews will continue to dominate Israel demographically, culturally and economically without forcing the Palestinians to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state.
The Palestinians need to recognize the sovereignty of the state of Israel within its accepted borders, and the right of Israel to set its own constitutional and legal framework without outside interference. If Israel wants to declare itself a Jewish state and discriminate on behalf of one class of citizens, then its right to do so free of interference must be acknowledged. The insistence that Palestinians should recognize Israel as a "Jewish state" is merely a roadblock thrown up by Israelis to prevent a peace settlement. Whites in South Africa are not forced to recognize South Africa as a black state. Although a small minority, they continue to be the dominant economic class. Jews will continue to dominate Israel demographically, culturally and economically without forcing the Palestinians to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state.
...because talks will fail, there never will be a Palestinian State without the Vote in Palestine Israel, two States, one Country. This solves all problems except the imaginary "Jewish State", a repeating Jewish dream of minority rule.
The deal falling through with Olmert - which was never anything more than discussion - was destined by the investigations pending against him. But if Netanyahu is for real, like your comments over his speech, et al, suggest - then why should the Palestinians even have to mention the need for settlement building to remain frozen? And why is there even any talk of resuming construction? And why doesn't Netanyahu want to pick up where Olmert left off? And why, since his speech, has he declared areas within Palestinian territory as Israeli national historical sites? And why the crackdown on peaceful demonstrations and activists? The Palestinians have definitely not made all the right decisions - but don't for a second try to convince anyone that those decisions are WHY they don't already have a state - because if they WERE - there'd be nothing to negotiate - RIGHT? And there would be no talk of settlement building to begin with - RIGHT? It would just be a matter of a few signatures and it would be done - RIGHT?
on one hand you say that the talk with mr. olmert “was never anything more than discussion”, on the other hand you complain that mr. netanyahu “doesn’t want to pick up where olmert left off”. what do you want to say by this? that the peace talks shall go on to be nothing more than discussion, without results? by the way: what do you think: why don’t the palestinians have a state for now? what are the reasons?
There are not a lot of people who Believe that Benjamin Netanyahu is sincere in his declaration that he is willing to achieve real peace. The way declarations are being made since the direct talks were announced, he's looking more like a politican that is positioning himself to look like the guy who is really ready to reach a peace accord and have the Palestinians look bad when the talks abort. All the declarations from the Israeli government since the last few days strongly point toward that strategy, i.e. convincing the American administration that there is no partner for peace on the other side. His next move will be to placate the Palestinians in a position where they will look like they are not negotiating in good faith by not renewing the settlements freeze and then asking for Israel security as preconditions to talks in other subjects (in the line of "agree to give me this and this and then I'll tell you, after you agree, what could be the basis for discussing other subjects). While he is refusing "preconditions" before the start of direct talks, he will impose many of his ones once the direct talks start and pressure the Palestinians with this strategy.
I think it's fair to say that Mr. Abbas has demonstrated that he is willing to do what it takes to reach a peace agreement: Palestinians extremist factions in the West Bank have been reined in and violence has been curbed. This has been done as part of the Quartet road map implementation. During indirect talks, the position of the Palestinians on key issues has been clearly expressed. Unfortunately, on the Israeli government side, we have only seen posturing and words. The real test for them will be what they do with tge settlements freeze.
i don't think that the settlements will become the real problem. of course they will be presented as the "real problem", but actually they aren't, among others due to the offer of land-swap. the real problem will be rather jerusalem, in my opinion.
It was designed to put the peace process in formaldehyde....how will a solution be found when lies keep being promulgated?
"was designed to put the peace process in formaldehyde"?
Sharon advisor Dove Weissglass referred to the Gaza pullout as formaldahyde that would preserve the status quo in the West Bank.
yes, that's known that mr. weissglass said so. but i doubt that john is his parrot!
A rather suspicious way to frame what N should do in Washington. Is Marcus suggesting that he should just do a good job of concealing what we know might be the fact, ie, that he does not want to succeed? Freudian slip? And what about after those two days. What happens between the Pals and Israel is more important than any wool pulled over the eyes in Washington.
it's rather a translation slip than a freudian slip because the original hebrew version uses the verb “see”, what means: first, mr. netanyahu must be seen as the one who wants the summit to succeed.