Renewing Israeli-Palestinian talks is obvious way to end impasse
It's only a matter of time before negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians resume.
By Aluf Benn Tags: Israel newsThe signs are multiplying: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has exploited to the hilt his refusal to talk with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. U.S. envoy George Mitchell is hungry for action. Netanyahu is whiling away the time, and soon people will begin asking him why he went to so much trouble to return to the Prime Minister's Office. In such circumstances, renewing the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations seems an obvious way out for all parties, even if a few more weeks of preparations are needed.
Speaking on uber-interviewer Charlie Rose's PBS television show last week, Mitchell spelled out the aims of the negotiations he will broker, specifically: "full implementation" of the Arab peace initiative. The latter calls for an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the Shaba Farms area to the June 4, 1967, borders and the establishment of a Palestinian state and "a just and agreed-upon" solution to the Palestinian refugee problem, in return for an end to the conflict and the full normalization of relations between Israel and the Arab world. And Mitchell wants to achieve all this within two years.
The envoy's optimism may seem excessive, but it is not diminishing. In Northern Ireland, where Mitchell acquired his reputation as an international peace broker, he encountered the same tendency for each side to say no and to blame the other for everything. He did not give up until the two sides changed their minds and reached an agreement. Mitchell believes he can use the same tactic in the Middle East and is not deterred when the complexity of the conflict is explained to him.
"If it were [former Egyptian president Anwar] Sadat facing me, everything would look different," Netanyahu has told his aides.
In the meantime, the Arab states, led by Egypt, which is impatient with the stagnation in the talks, have agreed to try to soften the Palestinian demands, but in essence nothing has changed. Even if Abbas has dug in his heels, the international community still blames Israel for the continuation of the conflict - because of its insistence on controlling the territories and filling them with Jewish settlers, and its efforts to "Judaize" East Jerusalem. As a result, there is global sympathy for the Palestinians and support for the establishment of a Palestinian state soon.
"We are pushing for negotiations that are not time-restricted and are conducted from 'the bottom up,' explained a top cabinet minister this week. "There's no way a final-status agreement could be obtained within two years."
Israel's Ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, told The Washington Post last week that Mitchell's timetable is "unrealistic and might prove counterproductive."
The Palestinians want a faster pace and seek U.S. backing for the establishment of a state within the 1967 borders, with minor territorial exchanges and a capital in East Jerusalem. To this Netanyahu says: Okay, but let's open up everything to negotiations, and we too have demands - recognize Israel as a Jewish state and commit to the end of the conflict and an end to your claims. According to the cabinet minister, such counter-demands are aimed at making it clear that discussion of a final status agreement will lead nowhere and that it's better to start with small steps, from below, as it were.
Mitchell is proposing that the parties discuss only the border, an issue that appears to be less complicated. As soon as the boundaries are drawn, the settlements problem will solve itself. It will be clear to Israel where it may build and where it may not. The Palestinians will also then be free to build their state-in-the-making. The issues of Jerusalem and the refugees will be set aside. But Netanyahu objects to focusing on the border.
"It's a trap," the same ministerial source said. "We only give, we don't get anything."
In meetings of the "forum of seven" senior ministers, Vice Prime Minister Moshe Ya'alon has warned against making any concessions regarding territories or the evacuation of settlers. In his opinion, each time that Israel has given something up since the Oslo Accords were signed, it has paid in blood. And evacuations only send a message of weakness and encourage the enemy.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak believes in an interim arrangement. He supports moving up Phase II of the road map, which calls for the creation of an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders. He believes this will take two years to negotiate and an additional three years to implement, and that by then Israel will finish developing its anti-rocket defense system. Barak assumes that the interim arrangement will necessitate the evacuation of settlers; the majority of them will leave under a voluntary arrangement involving monetary compensation, while others will choose to remain as citizens or permanent residents of Palestine. He believes that only a few settlers will choose the latter option. The Palestinians object vehemently to an interim arrangement, which they see as an Israeli plot to stick them with a fragmented, besieged state. But Barak hopes they can be persuaded to agree that a state without permanent borders is better than what they have now.
Netanyahu has asked Barak why he insists on an interim arrangement, saying that a final-status arrangement is preferable. But the forum of seven has heard the prime minister identifying with Ya'alon's opposition to evacuating settlements on the grounds that it would be interpreted as a weakness. Netanyahu has also said that this time around, he realizes the importance of establishing a diplomatic basis for taking certain measures vis-a-vis the Palestinians.
After the prime minister announced a 10-month freeze on construction in the settlements, and accelerated Jewish building and settlement in East Jerusalem - which has infuriated the Palestinians and the Americans - his associates say he had no choice. Netanyahu remembers how the right forced him out of the government during his first term as prime minister after signing the Wye River Accord with Yasser Arafat. He needs to strengthen his coalition.
According to a veteran negotiator who served in senior positions with Netanyahu's predecessors, the obstacles to an agreement with the Palestinians are in fact the issues that appear easiest to resolve.
"You [journalists] write that everything will fall through over Jerusalem and the refugees, but these are trivialities," the negotiator said recently. "The agreement will stand or fall on issues of daily life, on the security arrangements. The real problem is that [the Palestinians'] perception of independence is entirely different from ours." What Israel sees as legitimate security demands the Palestinians view as a continuation of the occupation and of Israeli control.
Eight-point plan
When Ehud Olmert was prime minister, Israel submitted to the Americans its security demands in a future agreement with the Palestinians. Israel Air Force Commander Maj.-Gen. Ido Nehushtan, then the head of the Israel Defense Forces plans and policy directorate, coordinated the drafting of this so-called eight-point document. Olmert's diplomatic advisor, Shalom Turgeman, oversaw the diplomatic aspects. On his last trip to Washington, in November 2008, Olmert asked the outgoing administration of president George W. Bush to pass the document along to the incoming administration of President Barack Obama. Olmert's advisors say this was done.
Among Israel's demands in the eight-point plan were the rights to supervise Palestine's border crossings, to fly in Palestinian airspace, to regulate radio frequencies and to build hilltop warning stations. In daily life, it looks like this: The people of Nablus are used to hearing IAF aircraft in mock dogfights above the city and to seeing the forest of antennas on Mount Eival - and Israel wants this to continue.
There is no clearer manifestation of a country's sovereignty than its ability to decide who and what will enter its territory. From Israel's perspective there is no greater danger than an open Palestinian border through which rockets will flow into the West Bank. The rockets from Gaza have made life in southern Israel a nightmare. Rockets from the West Bank would threaten Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Ben-Gurion International Airport, and all of Israel would become a firing range for Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Netanyahu sees disarmament of the Palestinian state and the prevention of weapons smuggling into its territory as the main issue. When Barak showed him the eight points, the prime minister commented that supervision of the border must be "effective." In a speech about two weeks ago, he said: "I doubt that anything can do this except for a real presence of the state of Israel, of Israeli forces."
Barak is proposing the establishment of a "regional framework" to supervise the border that could include both Jordan and Israel. The supervision would begin on the Jordanian side, providing depth, while the regional nature of the mechanism would downplay Israel's involvement. It is not clear that the Jordanians will be keen on the idea. Amman's relationship with Netanyahu's government is terrible, and he does not want to bring them into the peace process because of the special status in Jerusalem that is promised to them in the peace agreement.
In any case, the discussion is still theoretical: Mitchell's deputy, Fred Hoff, who has taken on the security brief in the negotiations, still does not know who will be facing him on the Israeli side - Barak and his people, or National Security Advisor Uzi Arad.
Mitchell will return to the region this week, where he will continue to work out the format for the negotiations. It is not clear whether there will be direct or indirect talks between the parties but it does not appear that Abbas and Netanyahu will hold frequent meetings as Abbas and Olmert did. It is more likely that Yitzhak Molcho, the prime minister's envoy, will pursue the exchanges discreetly. At some point - one year from now, two years from now - the time for decisions will come. And then Netanyahu's promises and Mitchell's declarations about the possibility of an agreement will be put to the test.
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
Dear Jasper, Obviously you didn't read the Arab peace proposal, it's about making peace with Israel and nothing more. Perhaps you don't read well. This is a serious and sincere offer, that 22 Arab countries proposed. It wass serious enough for the Olmert and Livni met with 17 Arab leaders in Annapolis, Maryland, USA in Nov '07. It's time to make peace.
Mr. Benn, the 'impasse' is caused by two mutually exclusive conditions. The Palestinians seen no point in negotiating while settlement expansion continues. Israel has no intention of ending settlement expansion. There is no way to have useful negotiations so long as the goal of Israel is to stall until the Settlement of Judea and Samaria is complete and there is nothing left to negotiate over.
Applying double standards by requiring of [Israel} a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation" is anti-Semitism. For over 46 years, Turkey has knocked on Europe's door requesting membership in the European Union. The Europeans, however, have been in no rush to invite a Muslim country into their midst, even if it is the most westernized and most democratic Muslim country in the Middle East. To add to it, Turkey is already a strategic partner in NATO and nearly 3 million of its citizens are peaceful and productive immigrants/guest workers in Europe. Joining the EU, however, demands of Turkey far-reaching political and social reform "on the ground" and "10 to 15 years of negotiations" while the Turks prove democratic changes are "irreversible." On the other end, U.S. [and the Quartet] yardsticks for the Palestinian Arabs, a hostile society demanding statehood, amount to praise for fabricated non-existent reforms and call to abandon the required incremental progress as clearly stated in the "goal-driven Roadmap." The end to violence and democratic reform, that Palestinians have yet to begin, is tolerable by the U.S. administration -- all in order to forge the way for the establishment of a Palestinian state within two years, one which will endanger the very survival of a free and democratic Israel and the rest of the free world. "realities on the ground" are totally ignored by the EU and the U.S. in their effort to advance immediate Palestinian statehood. Requiring Israel to cede parts of its land in favour of the Palestinians' empty promises, while their Charters call for the dismantling of the Jewish State, is "applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation." More @ http://www.hudsonny.org/2010/01/palestinians-their-charters-call-for-dismantling-the-jewish-state.php http://www.mythsandfacts.org/ Visit http://blog.z-word.com/2010/01/gerald-kaufman-not-what-he-seems/
Israel-Palestinian, talks. What 'Peace' are you people talking about ? What about Gaza. Say, are people; blind, deaf & stupid ? Who can make peace ? How ? & with Whom ? To be optomistic. It will take no less than a hundred & fifty years to achieve a semblance of peace. All the rest,is like throwing sand in the eyes of the participants !?
Most states in the world earn security by mutual respect with neighbours. Israel wants to achieve security by creating an emasculated Palestinian state. What independent country can cede control of its airspace to its neighbour? Israel's coolness towards the Arab initiative is instructive as to their malevolence, for there can be no fairer offer. Withdrawal from occupied land and fair treatment of refugees is to be rewarded by recognition by not only Arab but other Muslim states. Intelligent people see this as a win-win situation. Israel prefers win-lose, with them in front. Israel will play for time while consolidating settlement activity. It is a travesty that, with all the hot air emanating from world capitals, no country or group, no Quartet or Quintet, can insist that Israel does the right thing by its neighbours, with sanctions to follow rejection.
For all his rhetoric, Netanyahu has so many preconditions, its obvious he's not ready for negotiations. Abbas isn't ready so neither has a partner. And Netanyahu forgets that Sadat had a military option. Begin knew that too, Abbas has taken the military option off the table. And what is deemed "Israel's legitimate security demands" will assure no peace, never. Peace cannot be had with injustice which is what is being demanded. Israel is unwilling to grant to Palestinians what it demands for itself: Security from attack and sovereignty and independence. If both sides can't have that, neither side will, except through the jackboot. And the jackboot never brought anybody peace.
Renewing Israeli-Palestinian talks is obvious way to RENEW an impasse.
Before beginning negotiations Israel must insist on the proper leaga lterm of disputed territotries as this is the crux. Israelis have no obligation to give up land unless they feel there is a real peace agreement that is lasting. US, EU and UN should only be aprt of the process if they respect prior legal designations of disputed territoty.
Continued illegal settlements never did and do not now provide security. They provide the opposite: loss of Palestine land and dignity, leading to more insecurity for Israel. If Israel had been serious about a "two state" solution, they would never have started settlements. (Having no rational argument in the matter, Israelis will now fall back on the god delusion, saying that they were "given" such land to settle.) Well that is not how the world sees the situation. Unless and until Israel disbands ALL illegal settlements, straightens the "wall" and settles behind it and ceases occupation, gives back the Golan and the Farms without condition, there will be no peace. Mitchel and Obama, as everyone before them, are wasting their time and our (the US's) money. Remember, it is not the Jews that folks are upset about, it is the actions of the Jewish State. Zionism may be near to coming crashing down upon itself.
Why is it that under any peace agreement with the Palestinians, Israel ends up in existencial threat? My answer is: that is the proof that Israel was a bad idea from the very start (1948). I will be accused of anti-semitism and everything that goes with it... Anyone else is free to give their answer. That is just what I honestly think. All muslims/arabs put aside, I am still far from being the only one who thinks this. Winston Churchill, a supporter of zionism, latter said that establishing Israel was a bad decision. Even Albert Einstein said that the jews must never organize themselves into a political identity in the Middle East (see "The World as I see it" by Albert Einstein). Today the Jews would be much more secure and prosper in the USA or Europe. It is religious fervor, the same that animates Jihadism, that makes you stay.
Palestinians have two things to offer, and both are declarative, Peace and recognition. Israel must give up its strategic depth. Thus, it is obvious that Israel needs security that the palestinian state will not become a base of Iran. The equation is simple: No security no palestinian state. This status quo may remain forever. It is not
"...it's better to start with small steps, from below, as it were..." Nonsense. "Small steps" have been the program for decaded. Not only does everything always get bogged in these small steps but inevitably a spoiler from either side throws a bomb into their midst - end of "steps". Start with a fait accompli of the borders, then decide the details within those borders. David
Idiotic proposition that borders for a "Palestinian State" should be guaranteed first without requiring from them explicit recognition of the Jewish State of Israel (demanded of them by the UN back in 1947), end of ALL warfare against Israel and the Jewish people, and dropping Arab demands to "return" to Israel, is solidly opposed by a vast majority of both Congress and US populace. Israel will simply, safely ignore Mitchell if that's the path he thinks he'll take - Bibi tells Obama to take a flying leap, Obama(again) looks stupid. "Land" part of Land-for-Peace is already well known, minor details excepted, and a "guarantee" in advance, no matter what Arabs give in return, is self-defeating. "Land" laid out already by all parties in 2000 Clinton negotiations. What Obama needs is getting off his dead butt to work equally on "Peace" part of Land-for-Peace, because PA and the Arabs States totally reject all efforts to pin them down on this - fake Egypt-style "normalization" is not enough.
Your second paragraph is so true from the Palestinian perspective also . As long as there are radicals in the Israeli society/Govt who lay claim to Arab East Jerusalem , to" Judea and Samaria" the true West Bank , who claim no Israeli full or partial responsibility for the Pals. refugee problem and solution ,who in fact justify the conituation of the occupation to ensure the so called Israeli security , a de Facto forever occupation , a continued colonization movement , sanctionned and supported by Irsaeli Governements , protected by the IDF and expanded by continuous land exproprition , how can peace ever be achieved ....????
"withdrawal from the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the Shaba Farms area to the June 4, 1967, borders ..." This all sounds reasonable, less world not do. Why on earth does the Israeli government continue with the occupation. It only destroys lives and is long term disastrous for the future of Israel.
It solves the settelement issue by default and next phase should be security arrangements. It is obvious the Israeli demands are such that no sovreign entity can accept, international or Nato forces sould be incorporated into thos measures.
"Renewing Israeli-Palestinian talks is obvious way to end impasse" - Haaretz Only if there is intent to achieve a settlement. Israel has made it very clear that it's goal is to achieve Settlements. Obama had big dreams and a total unwillingness to do what was necessary to achieve them. He defeated himself before he first met Netanyahu by stating he would not take actions to leverage Israel. Then when he met Netanyahu he capitulated totally. One can only wonder why the Obama administration continues to humiliate itself.
It seems from Israeli point of view, final status mostly means formalization of the current status. Which is why Arafat was not able to sign under it! How that can be sold to Palis or anyone is a mystery right now. What exactly are Israelis willing to give up? Syrian lands? Palestinian lands, sea, fish, airspace, water? It is like gambling with someone else's money and still calling it gambling. Can they not see that no one is buying it? How can they be so delusional?
Mr MITCHEL AS A BROKER YOU DO NOT DETERMINE THE END RESULT OF THE NEGOTIATION WHILE THE NEGOTIATIONS ARE IN THE PROCESS .WHAT KIND OF A BROKER ARE YOU, I SUGGEST TO REPLACE YOU BY THE COSTA RICAN PRESIDENT OSCAR ARIAS WHO TOLD TO PALESTINIAN TO FOLLOW THE COSTA RICAN EXAMPLE OF A STATE WITH NO ARMY.THIS WAS REJECTED BY THE PALESTINIANS.
Israel is expected to negotiate with the man who mearly by negotiating with israel is considered a traitor to large segments of the palestinian street and arab masses .Abu mazzen can not deliver any form of peace nor can he speak on behalf of the palestinian street.
"The rockets from Gaza have made life in southern Israel a nightmare. Rockets from the West Bank would threaten Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Ben-Gurion International Airport, and all of Israel would become a firing range for Hamas and Islamic Jihad." We believe it or not, that looks the only possible solution for next 10 years
A question how come here in costa rica people from other countries do integrate into the costarican society after 10 years max one generation but in arab countries which have the same religion same language and same traditions palestinians after 3 generations are still not integrated and still in a refugee status.Show me another case in history that people that live in a country over 50 years are still refugees.ISRAEL CAN NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROLOGATION OF THE REFUGEE STATTUS OF THE PALESTINIAN IN ARAB COUNTRIES,GIVE THEM CITIZENSHIP OF THE COUNTRY THEY ARE IN AND END OF STORY.
..fly over rights on Palestinians lands, control radio freqquencies, control border crossings and build hill-op watch posts..
No israel, No Palestine. One State Solution is the best for all. One Man, One Vote, Equality for all inhabitants. Equal Pay for Equal Work, Equal Water Rights. No Apartheid, No Segregation...A Very True Secular Democrac Let us call it :?State of Holy Land?.
And the fine print says, "end of Israel". The entire world, speaking through the UN, created Israel. The only folks that didn't get with the plan were the Arabs. Not then, not now, and apparently not ever. Sad. But Israel will last as long as Israelis want it to last.
Israel is in a longtime war to seize all possible land outside Israels borders. The Palestinians are fighting for their survival. The Israelis are motivated by greed. There is no action that the Palestinians can take against Israel that is unjustified. All Israelis are invaders and occupiers, not just the IDF. Palestinian resistance is surprisingly low. This can be made up in one fell swoop. At some point in the future, Israelis will ponder the choices they have made over the years.
"Ya'alon's opposition to evacuating settlements on the grounds that it would be interpreted as a weakness." ... which is totally paralyzing and unjustified... there has been systematic theft and highway-robbery of Pal assets, and until we show the strength to recify that, partially or totally, what sort of peace-shmeace can we hope for...?
"It's a trap," the same ministerial source said. "We only give, we don't get anything." " ... such clearly ridiculous declarations, when Israel holds all the territorial cards in its hands, will always lead to dead-lock, and that is precisely the policy of this government...
Netanyahu has set out 5 preconditions that make it sure that no agreement can be made. No Sovereignty No Security No Independence No give whatsoever on Jerusalem No negotiating on Borders - Take what Israel dictates or nothing. Unlike Sadat, Abbas gave up his military card. Israel isn't willing to give up his. The next negotiations will be after the next elections, maybe. Some time after Israel appoints Abbas' successor.
The present Gov't, The Netanyahu Gov't was established largely as a result of the election of Obama. It had to be this way and it shows that the Israeli Public generally are on the ball. Now Mr. Benn is wrong and I believe he knows it. There is absolutely no prospects for any agreement during The Obama Presidency. ZERO
the main issue is: why would israel need the security arrangements put forth by aluf benn. why would israel still fear lethal attacks from the palestinians even after agreements are reached on jerusalem and the refugees. the answer is very simple. the palestinians have no intention to honour any agreements they make with israel. as long as the palestinians harbour radical elements amongst them, and as long as their security forces are incapable and unwilling to impose their authority on their territory, any palestinian state is an impossibility.