Is Obama more Zionist Than Dubya Bush?

Remember last year when there was a great deal of commotion about President Barack Obama's reference to the 1967 lines being used as the basis of negotiated land swaps between Israel and Palestine?

It was hard to forget. Obama's political foes and even some of his friends accused him of throwing Israel under the bus. Netanyahu used the opportunity to slam Obama for this and stated that "Israel will not return to the indefensible boundaries of 1967". In fact, when he said this before Congress they gave him one of 29 standing ovations.

As Republican candidates vie for the party's nomination, they have not shied from using this issue to attack Obama as well, following Netanyahu's lead.

But, successive administrations have stated the same thing time and again about the US position which is in line with UN Security Council Resolution 242. Most reasonable observers knew at the time that Obama's statements where in no way a major shift in policy.

Or was it?

If it was, Jeffery Goldberg, for one, didn't notice. He wrote, in a post titled 'Did Obama Say Something so Different than Bush?' (emphasis mine):

In 2005, Geoge W. Bush stated that it is "unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949" (the 1967 boundaries of Israel, in other words). Today, Barack Obama said that he believes "the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states

Seems straightforward enough. The immediate predecessor to Obama, George W. Bush, talked about the 1949 Armistice line which Goldberg tells us equals the 1967 line. So essentially, Bush and Obama had the same position, right? Here is an excerpt from President Bush's speech in the Rose Garden in 2005 (emphasis mine):

Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today, it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations.

If we go by Goldberg's translation, 1949 Armistice lines = 1967 lines. This formula is not just the Goldberg standard. Here is the New York Times on this issue (emphasis mine):

Those commitments came in a letter from President George W. Bush which stated, among other things that “it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949,” another way of describing the 1967 boundaries.

To be sure, NPR checked with Glenn Kessler, author of the Washington Post's "Fact Checker" column to, well, check the facts:

President BARACK OBAMA: We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.

CONAN: And Glenn, is that a substantial change from what presidents have said before?

Mr. KESSLER: Yes, it is. I mean, in the context of diplomacy, what President Obama said that was different was that he actually referenced 1967, the 1967 lines, the de-facto border that had basically existed since the end of the 1948 war of independence.

CONAN: So if he had said the armistice lines of 1948, would that have been different?

Mr. KESSLER: No, what I did is I researched and looked at what all previous presidents had said, and actually they never said anything about lines one way or the other.

I'm not sure what kind of research Glenn did to miss the statement by President Bush buried deep down in this dusty archive. But its not just the fact the Bush made reference to the 1949 armistice line that contrasts with Kessler's statements. He seems to be saying, like the New York Times, Jeffery Goldberg and even some Palestinians that the 1949 Armistice Line = the 1967 line.

Well, to be perfectly accurate, we are all wrong. The 1949 armistice line is not the same as the 1967 line. Here is why, check out the map of Gaza below (enlarge). The red line you see is the actual armistice line from 1949. The blue line is what we see on maps today which often is refered to as the Green Line or the 1967 line. So what happened to all the area, some 200km², in purple?

Essentially, the Israelis just took it. The blue line is actually the 1950 modus videndi line. This was an agreement between Egypt, which filled the vacuum of power in Gaza at the time, and the Israelis that established a temporary buffer zone (the purple area) on the Arab side of the actual armistice line. The agreement divides the territory up into areas A,B and C and resulted in a permanent Israeli land grab. (Why does this sound so familiar?) Dr. Salman Abu Sitta, an outstanding Palestinian historical geographer, made a great presentation about this, the Nakba, and other Israel land grabs here at the Palestine Center.

There are areas other than Gaza where the lines diverge. This ironically includes the villages in the triangle area in the north eastern part of the West Bank which Israel was not supposed to enter and today, for reasons of 'demographic threat' probably wishes it never had. I'd encourage you to watch the whole presentation.

President Obama actually visited this purple area grabbed by the Israelis in the map above. President George W. Bush, despite all the damage his policies did in the region, clearly chose to use the language of the 1949 armistice line over the 1967 lines for a reason. By doing this, Bush actually signified the correct dividing line on which negotiations should be based. By reversing from the Bush language of "1949 armistice lines" to 1967 borders, Obama actually supported a Zionist land grab.

I wonder what his right-wing detractors have to say about that?

In sum, this is just another example of how, over time Zionist expansionism has taken more and more of Palestine, constantly changing the starting point and re-leveraging their negotiating position. It also goes to show you that over time, the temporary becomes permanent and a lie told often enough becomes truth. (At least we have the internet to set things straight.)

Is it any wonder why the Palestinians want a complete stop to any such expansion before even thinking of negotiations?

read more...

Obama Gives Everything, Netanyahu Wants More

President Obama's speech in response to the changes in the Middle East yesterday covered many different areas. While people who care about the human rights and self-determination of Arab peoples might be pleased by some elements of the speech, others will also question the sincerity with which these points were delivered given the U.S.'s history for supporting some of the very rulers Arabs rebelled, and are rebelling, against.

The Arab Spring however, which came not only after President Obama delivered his first speech in Cairo but more importantly after he failed to fulfill the promises of that speech, signified that Arabs are not waiting around for American leadership or vision to shape their own destines. If there would be any litmus test of American commitment to supporting positive change in the region however, it would be the discussion of the Palestinian issue in the speech.

The question of Palestine took up a more significant portion of the speech than any other single country and yet, despite the remarkable changes in the region, President Obama's speech offered nothing new. While some in the US are busy, for domestic political reasons, attacking Obama for mentioning 1967 lines with agreed swaps as the basis for territorial negotiations, this is no departure from the norm established and operated under by successive negotiating sessions.

As far as the negotiations are concerned, this principle of land swaps was not really where Israelis and Palestinians disagreed. The disagreements arose over which particular land to swap based on the geopolitically sensitive locations of massive Israeli settlements. The Israelis wanted an extra 10% of the West Bank, the Palestinians argued that such plans would make a Palestinian state impossible and permanently usurp Palestinian water resources. A look at the map linked here, made available thanks to the leak of classified "Palestine Papers" negotiations documents, shows that in such a scenario to go from the Palestinian city of Qalqilya to Hebron - a crow's flight distance of less than 50 miles (or vice-versa) - would mean either crossing international borders drawn to accommodate illegal settlements 4 times or circumventing these 'fact's on the ground' by making a trip that should take less than an hour into a zig-zaging afternoon. The proposed state that Palestinians had to look forward to seemed practically the same as occupation.

The problem was not the baseline of a two-state solution (except in Jerusalem where the Israelis unilaterally annexed occupied territory) the problem had always been that when Israel wanted to take what the Palestinians couldn't afford to give, no one stopped them. This was perhaps best brought to light by another conversation revealed by the "Palestine Papers" when in a trilateral meeting a similar disagreement arose over the particularly sensitive settlement of Maale Adumim, a massive settlement deep inside Palestinian territory that practically cuts Jerusalem off from the rest of the West Bank:

Palestinian Negotiator Ahmad Qurie: Just like Ariel, Maale Addumim is a problem. Jerusalem is out if they take Maale Addumim.

Condoleeza Rice: No – Jerusalem is not out! Everyone understands that what is Jewish is Israeli and what is Arab is Palestinian.

Qurie: But we don’t want to fly to Jerusalem by helicopter!

Rice: I don’t think that any Israeli leader is going to cede Maale Addumim.

Qurie: Or any Palestinian leader.

Rice: Then you won’t have a state!

What this excerpt clearly demonstrates is not that the baseline from which to swap was the problem, but when it came to which territory would be swapped, the United States - supposedly playing the role of even-handed mediator- tells the Palestinians they have to accept the Israeli position or else. This is why the concept of the settlement freeze was so important as well, not only was settlement building entirely illegal under international law, but the Israelis were also using it to leverage their bargaining position so that the blocs they knew the US would support them in keeping would only grow each time they met at the negotiating table.

This is exactly why even the Palestinians who were most willing to negotiate realized that American-led negotiations simply would not bring fruit to their quest for dignified national liberation. If it did anything, Obama's speech simply confirmed this conviction among Palestinians. If you look at the demands outlined by Netanyahu in his speech to the Israel Knesset this week prior to his trip to Washington it is clear to see that Obama's speech left space to accommodate all of them.

Let's take the points outlined in Netanyahu's demands during his recent Knesset Speech and see how the points in Obama's speech yesterday relate.

Netanyahu Knesset Speech Demand: The Palestinians must recognize Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.

Obama on this point: What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows -- a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

Problems: Obama here is accepting Netanyahu's pre-condition for peace. Even though Palestinian negotiators recognized Israel as a pre-condition for negotiations 20 years ago, Netanyahu and the Israelis continue to set the bar higher and higher. Palestinians will not and should not recognize Israel as a Jewish state for two important reasons 1) This recognition implies a relinquishing of claims of the national rights of the Palestinian minority which exists in Israel today amounting to 20% of Israel's population and 2) It is not up to Palestinians to define Israel, that is Israel's job. But knowing that this is yet another hurdle that would divide the Palestinian house, Israel has thrown it in the path of Palestinian negotiators precisely because they know it can not be accepted. That Obama supports this pre-condition so openly speaks to the lack of credibility of the United States as mediator.

Netanyahu Knesset Speech Demands: The problem of the Palestinian refugees must be resolved outside Israel’s borders. Jerusalem will remain the united, sovereign capital of Israel.

Obama on this point: I’m aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.

Problems: While Obama doesn't repeat Netnayhu's points here, he is hardly precluding them. (He actually mimicked Netanyahu's demand on Jerusalem at the AIPAC conference in 2008) By saying any issue will be left up to negotiations with such ambiguous language, and given the US's history as a mediator highlighted above in the Condi Rice conversation, they have no reason to believe anything but Netanyahu's demands will an option the US let's them consider.

Netanyahu Knesset Speech Demand: Israel will retain the settlement blocs.

Obama on this point: We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.

Problems: Again, as demonstrated by the conversation above, there is no conflict here between what Netanyahu is asking for and the principles Obama lays out. Behind closed doors, the US has supported Israeli demands for keeping the settlement blocs which dissect the West Bank.

Netanyahu Knesset Speech Demand: A Palestinian state must be demilitarized and not endanger Israel’s security. Israel would be allowed to keep a military presence along the Jordan Valley, as part of those security arrangements.

Obama on this point: Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

Problems: Can you see a trend here? If Obama is not echoing Netanyahu's exact demands in his speech, it's because the issues must be agreed on in negotiations. What he doesn't tell you is that during those negotiations the United States will act as a tireless advocate for Israel's demands. Plus, the idea of pre-conditioning the existence of a state on its inability to defend itself empties the concept of sovereignty of any of its meaning.

So the only way you can really say that Obama's speech and Netanyahu's Knesset speech are incompatible is if you are not really paying attention to one of them. While Netanyahu might be putting on a temper tantrum now, he got everything he could have asked for in this speech with the well-established assurances that in the areas where Obama did not repeat his demands, the US negotiating team would behind closed doors. The tensions on display from Netanyahu are playing to an American political spectrum he knows well.

The section of Obama's speech which discussed Palestine is a a very strong reminder that the United States is not in a position to mediate this conflict. After an 18-month showdown between Obama and Netanyahu over settlements, this speech coming in the last week of work for the newly resigned envoy George Mitchell, should only embolden Palestinians to seek liberation strategies that circumvent American-led negotiations.

read more...

‘Peace’ Had a Rough Weekend

Over Columbus Day weekend, while the onset of the erasure of a native people of this land was marked with buy-one-get-one-free sales, Israel drove three more nails into the coffin of the two-state solution as part of their effort to rid Palestine of its native inhabitants – the Palestinians. Few, if any, were paying attention.

Still, in this short period of time, a series of events poisoned the atmosphere between Israelis and Palestinians at a moment when it had become hard to imagine that the situation could get any worse. The political and diplomatic reverberations of this weekend’s events will be serious and debilitating to any peace process, even if the Obama administration can succeed in resuscitating it.

First, came the report late last week that a new law in Israel would force all Israeli citizens, including the 1 million-plus Palestinian citizens of Israel, to swear loyalty to a Jewish state. By Sunday, the anticipated law was modified so that only non-Jews would have to swear loyalty to a Jewish state. The Palestinian population in Israel, which has held steadfast to the land its ancestors lived on despite numerous efforts at depopulation, was clearly being targeted. Either they would have to swear allegiance to an ideology (Zionism) that is responsible for their dispossession and the dispossession of their kin, or be stripped of their citizenship and denied the mere second-class rights they are currently afforded by the state of Israel. It is the equivalent, if you can imagine, of a law passed in the United States demanding all non-whites to swear allegiance to a “White state” as a condition for citizenship. This law is a result of a dangerous and growing trend within Israel which supports a super-ethnonationalist narrative. This is evidenced by the success of Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu party, now the third largest in Israeli politics. The loyalty oath law is a new benchmark in the trajectory Israeli politics is taking to the extreme right.

Then the news came that the Israeli government supported legislation that would ensure that the negotiated return of occupied territories – like Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza and the Golan Heights – would have to be subjected to a referendum of the Israeli public. With an Israeli electorate that has continued to move to the right over the years, and has elected pro-settlement expansionist parties which currently comprise the most right-wing coalition in Israeli history, subjecting the return of occupied territory, an Israeli obligation under international law, to a public referendum effectively sets the bar for withdrawal far out of practical reach.

Finally, the Israeli prime minister’s long post-settlement freeze silence was broken when he stated what needed to happen for a settlement freeze to be extended for another 60 days. The offer of Binyamin Netanyahu was to extend the Israeli settlement freeze for two months if the Palestinians recognize Israel as a “Jewish state.” For Palestinians, this is problematic for some of the same reasons the loyalty oath is. Simply put, the recognition of a “Jewish state” would mean the justification of the creation of the Israeli state which led to the dispossession of the Palestinians, and would lay the groundwork for 1 million-plus Palestinians in Israel to face even greater hostility as minorities in their native land.

Of course, the settlement freeze is an Israeli obligation and the 10-month moratorium which recently expired was neither comprehensive nor properly enforced. So in essence, what Binyamin Netanyahu is asking the Palestinians for is an unthinkable, upfront concession in return for temporarily and incompletely fulfilling a decades-old obligation.

The peace process, which was expected to grind to a halt, has done so. Meanwhile, the Obama administration is consumed with impending domestic elections and has made no mention of the additional obstacles to peace created by the Israelis this weekend.

As many Americans went shopping in malls, or enjoyed the last hints of summer sun, in places like Chicago, Manhattan and Massachusetts – all named for the native populations who used to exist there – another native population’s drive for self-determination and survival was set back immeasurably.

read more...

Will Abbas Say Good-Bye?

Reports this morning in Haaretz indicated what many had speculated since the passing of the settlement 'freeze' deadline which destroyed American credibility and the credibility of a PA leadership that had stuck their necks out for the American-led process:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas informed U.S. envoy George Mitchell last week that the renewal of settlement construction will not only bring about the collapse of peace talks but it will also induce his resignation from the post of Palestinian Authority president.

According to Palestinian sources close to the PA leadership, Abbas told Mitchell of his plans during their last meeting together.

Surely, Abbas' resignation would be welcomed by his political opponents and those who believe that the institution of the Palestinian Authority stands in the way of progress toward a just and equitable solution. If Abbas stepped aside and the PA were to dissolve, it would be an tremendous shake-up in the way the diplomatic process has been thought about since the beginning of the Oslo process.

But how credible is this threat? Abbas is only getting older and is probably growing tired of being stuck in a process that is becoming less likely to advance the cause of Palestinian independence, and is, in the meantime, continuing to dispossess them through settlement expansion, home eviction and the other daily horrors of the occupation. If there was ever a time to say "The heck with it! I'm through." this would probably be it.

Still, this wouldn't be the first, second or third time threats of resignation have been made by Abbas. There was the this instance in 2009, this one in 2008, this one in 2007, and this one in 2006. There were basically threats to resign in every year during Abbas' term and after it. This doesn't even include threats to resign from previous posts under Arafat's presidency. The perennial nature of Abbas' resignation threats would lead one to be surprised only if a year goes by when he does not threaten to resign.

Does this mean the most recent threat to resign is not a credible one? Who knows? Maybe he will actually follow through with it. But I wouldn't be worried that we are on the cusp of a Palestinian leadership change until it actually happens.

read more...

To Unfreeze or Not to Unfreeze?

Today, President Barack Obama repeated his call on Israel to extend its partial, nine-month moratorium on its illegal settlement building in the West Bank.

Obama used his address at the UN General Assembly in New York to stress the importance of settlement freeze for the on-going talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders:

Israel’s settlements moratorium has made a difference on the ground, and improved the atmosphere for talks. Our position on this issue is well known: we believe that the moratorium should be extended.

Though this was echoed by the Quartet's diplomats, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas indicated to a meeting of American Jewish leaders that an end to settlement freeze wouldn’t necessarily bring to an end the talks, according to a Jerusalem Post report. If this report is accurate, it would be a departure from his prior position, which effectively conditioned progress in the talks on a continued moratorium.

A labourer walks through a construction site in the West Bank settlement of Elazar. Photograph: Baz Ratner/Reuters

It would move the Palestinians closer to the Israeli position. Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon suggested that his government disagreed with the view that ending the settlement construction freeze threatened the talks.

"Settlements have never been an issue, because once we agree on borders everything will be obvious. So let's concentrate on the real issues and not just put the obstacle in the settlements," he said to reporters at the UN.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dismissed the idea of extending the freeze, though he suggested construction would be limited to the major settlement blocs.

Earlier in the day, Palestinian Authority spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeina said the next 10 days would be "decisive and determine the fate of the direct negotiations".

"There is a very large international effort made to overcome the obstacles in the way of direct negotiations. In particular, the obstacle of the settlements."

If the Jerusalem Post report is accurate and the PA has shifted course in this demand, it would be a tremendous break from Palestinian public opinion. In one recent poll, 82% of Palestinians "rejected" direct talks while Israel continues to build up the settlements. Only 15% supported it.

Though American and international observers laud the freeze as an important step, it should be noted that it was always partial, as Peace Now noted: "work continued on 600 housing units, of which 492 were in violation of the moratorium. Work has continued on some 2,000 homes, in many cases because builders rushed to start projects before the freeze took effect."

As cynical as Palestinians are about the freeze, a change in the Palestinian stance would be a politically untenable position, especially in light of the land grab and vast expansion of Israel's colonial project during the Oslo period.

Despite Ayalon's dismissal of the issue, settlement construction is seen by Palestinians as Israel's purposeful changing of the facts on the ground. This changes the negotiating positions of the parties and directly impacts the discussion of borders, as much as Israelis claim to be willing to abandon settlements.

As the settlement freeze deadline nears and the question of an extension continues at the fore, the Palestine Center is hosting and event on Tuesday on this precise subject. The event, "The Settlement Freeze and the Peace Process Freeze," will feature Michelle Dunne, Senior Associate, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the editor of the Arab Reform Bulletin. Joining her will be Daniel Levy, the Senior Research Fellow, American Strategy Program.

If you can attend the event, make sure to RSVP. If you cannot, you can watch it webcast live.

read more...

The World Bank's Palestinian State

Today the World Bank published a report, 'The Underpinnings of the Future Palestinian State: Sustainable Growth and Institutions' (pdf).

Presuming success on the political track, the Bank's analysts naturally take an institutionalist and economics approach to the prospects of Palestinian statehood. They suggest that the viability of a future Palestinian state hinges on the strength of its institutions and its ability to sustain economic growth. The summary states optimistically:

If the Palestinian Authority (PA) maintains its current performance in institution-building and delivery of public services, it is well-positioned for the establishment of a state at any point in the near future.

However, no matter how well-developed domestic institutions are, external powers can always sabotage their inner workings. This is the central blindspot of two-state solution advocates. They fail to provide an explanation of how a Palestinian state would assure its own sovereignty.

The main points made by the World Bank's report touch on Palestinian dependence on foreign actors, but the Bank still presumes that a simple agreement, combined with institution-building and sustainable economic growth, is all that is needed for statehood.

The report's main findings, as outlined by the World Bank, are (my comments are in brackets):

• PA spending remained within budget targets and improved collection rates resulted in higher than projected domestic tax revenue.
  
• Progress on major reform initiatives strengthened the PA’s fiscal position (it lists examples).
  
• The West Bank economy continued to grow in the first half of 2010 and the real growth rate, combined with Gaza, is likely to reach the projected 8 percent for the year. It notes that some of the increase in economic activity can be attributed to improved investor confidence and the partial easing of restrictions by the Government of Israel (GoI). The main driver of growth, however, remains external financial assistance.
  
  [In other words, outside funds are what's making the economic success story. This is an artificial growth. This artificiality is central to the optimism of the two-state solution, or the political program of Fayyadism, as named by Thomas Friedman.]
  
• The sobering news is that despite the numbers, sustainable economic growth in the West Bank and Gaza remains absent. Significant changes in the policy environment are still required for increased private investment particularly in the productive sectors, enabling the PA to significantly reduce its dependence on donor aid.
  
• The obstacles facing private investment in the West Bank are manifold and myriad, as many important GoI restrictions remain in place: (a) access to the majority of the territory’s land and water (Area C) is severely curtailed; (b) East Jerusalem -- a lucrative market -- is beyond reach; (c) the ability of investors to enter into Israel and the West Bank is unpredictable; and (d) many raw materials critical to the productive sectors are classified by the GoI as “dual-use” (civilian and military) and their import entails the navigation of complex procedures, generating delays and significantly increasing costs.
  
  [These barriers to private investment, it must also be noted, not only also involve infringements on Palestinian human rights, but are not likely to be resolved by any agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. And if they are, Israel will retain the ability to resurrect the obstacles, the equivalent of an axe over the neck of the Palestinian state. Its government will in effect be as accountable to its Israeli neighbor as it will to its own people and private sector -- a major check on the sovereignty of the state.]
  
• Despite the reliance on foreign aid and reforms, despite its improved fiscal performance and expenditure control within budget ceilings, the PA still faces a shortfall possibly as high as US$300-400 million by year's end.
  
  [The PA's political program is being subsidized externally, which raise questions about control and direction. They also raise question about agency and the legitimacy of any agreement. In whose interests do negotiators ultimately act? It will be a mix of their own, their perception of their people's, while making sure to satisfy the paymasters and political overlords -- a recipe for disaster if there ever was one.]

The World Bank warns that without fundamental policy changes -- such as ending Israel's stronghold over the Palestinians (which went unnamed by the Bank) -- the PA will remain donor dependent and its institutions, no matter how robust, will not be able to underpin a viable state.

While it is correct to cite policies and practices as central, missing from this discussion is the problem of power and domination. In this sense, the World Bank's prescription is a de-politicized one. As with the famous joke of an economist assuming he has a can opener when asked how he would open a found can of food on a desert island, the World Bank assumes too much self-containment in Palestinian society. Taking Palestinian institutions and governance in isolation of the geo-political context is a deeply limited framework.

The World Bank's illusion is that a Palestinian state could ever be self-sufficient and free from fundamental external control and infiltration. Given the asymmetries between Israel and the Palestinians, the history of displacement and occupation, and Israel's on-going interests in keeping a Palestinian state de-militarized, weak and economically independent, how can a viable state be treated as a realistic outcome, or as an organizing concept for discussions of economics?

Sadly, it takes more than a vibrant business elite, construction, and good governance to make a state. It often needs minimal outside interference, something the Palestinians seem even further from in 2010 than they were in 1993.

read more...

Reality, not skepticism, suggest failure of peace talks

There are many doubters when it comes to the peace process just launched between Israelis and Palestinians. In fact, there are so many skeptics that the optimists may actually be fewer than the number of people in each negotiating delegation. For these talks to have any chance of success, the United States must do what it has failed to do since the inception of these talks: act as an even handed mediator.

This is not a conflict between two equal, or even relatively equal, sides in strength. While the Palestinians have the principles of human rights and international law on their side, the Israelis dominate the Palestinians in just about every category including militarily and economically with utter disregard to those principles. The Israelis have done whatever they please with the Palestinian territory they occupied, and have illegally established settlements housing hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers and jeopardizing the contiguity of any Palestinian state on that territory. That is why someone must step in during this process and pressure the Israelis to fulfill both their obligations under international law and their previous agreements when -- not if -- they break their commitments.

Take the recent debate over the settlement freeze for example. First, it should be mentioned that, according to the settlement watchdog Americans for Peace Now, Israel violated the 10-month settlement freeze nearly 500 times. When Israel was not violating the simple rule of “thou shall not build on thy neighbor’s land,” it was violating the corollary by demolishing Palestinian homes at a dramatically high rate this summer.

This freeze, which was announced by the Israelis in November 2009 and is set to expire this month, was not, as the Israelis claim, a concession. Rather, a stop to settlement activity is a requirement under international law and is Israel’s first phase obligation under the Road Map. The Road Map, as you may recall, was an American initiative and was accepted by both parties in 2003. In the initial phase, Israel was to halt all settlement activity and expansion, including for reasons of “natural growth.”

Of course, settlements continued to expand after 2003, and the United States did nothing to compel Israel to fulfill its obligations. In the past seven years alone, the number of settlers in the Occupied Territory increased by 100,000. Since the Madrid Conference in 1991, the number of settlers has increased by over 250,000.

Since the Palestinians can’t stop Israel from taking more occupied Palestinian land for settlements, and the United States refuses to help, it is no wonder that the skeptics abound when the Israeli prime minister today reneges on what an Israeli Prime Minister agreed to, albeit on paper, seven years ago.

It is also disheartening to see the Obama administration cave into the demands of Netanyahu’s government. These peace talks were launched on Netanyahu’s terms and not anyone else’s, leaving Palestinians convinced that little if anything will be different this time.

Whenever peace process theatrics begin, with photo opportunities and “historic enemies” shaking hands seated next to each other, there is revived discussion of optimism, pessimism, hope and the prospects for peace.

Lost in the spectacle is that making peace in the Middle East is not about how hopeful the parties or spectators are. It is simply about the dynamics of power, the persistence of a decades-old, Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and the failure of an even-handed mediator to stop it.

The chances of these talks succeeding will ultimately be a function of what the United States is prepared to do. This of course is not only about the United States’ willingness to stop Israel’s expansionist settlements, but it also extends to all core issues including Jerusalem and the right of return for refugees. If, the United States is prepared to use its leverage over Israel and can display this in the immediate future, the likelihood of these talks succeeding will increase. However if instead the United States continues on the path of simply bringing the parties together, and failing to step in as Israel violates international law and previous agreements, it’s likely that Israel’s occupation will simply persist and these talks will join a long list of their many failed predecessors.

[cross-posted from TheHill.com]

read more...

Radio: Another President, Another Try for Middle East Peace

Palestine Center executive director Yousef Munayyer appeared on a Public Radio International program, To the Point, to discuss the return to talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

The panelists included:

Robin Wright: Senior Fellow, US Institute of Peace
Martin Indyk: former US Ambassador to Israel
Yousef Munayyer: Executive Director, Palestine Center
Yossi Beilin: former Israeli Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister

DOWNLOAD

The blurb from the show:

Secretary of State Clinton today formally opened the first direct talks in almost two years between Israel and the West Bank Palestinians. In a public ceremony, she addressed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Under non-stop pressure from the United States, the challenge is to resolve decades-long disagreements in the next year, but even advocates of a Palestinian state say failure could make matters worse. How far apart are they on settlements, borders, the "right of return" and the status of Jerusalem? Neither Abbas nor Netanyahu has much domestic support for historic compromise. Did they come together because of their worries about Iran?

read more...

Hope Without Reason: The Logic of the Direct Talks

By Yousef Munayyer

Hope without reason is irresponsible and dangerous. I've been telling people that if the task before you was getting an elephant into a phone booth, you wouldn't be talking about hope or optimism. This current process is similarly impossible. Ultimately, hope in this case may hurt the elephant and leave the booth irreparable. It's time to get real.

Last night's comments by Benjamin Netanyahu display just how problematic this process is. Last year, the Obama administration pressed him to say the words "Palestinian State'" he did no such thing last night and spoke instead vaguely about a peace of security or a lasting peace and so on. Netanyahu has always been opposed to a Palestinian state and while every other leader spoke of this goal last night, Netanyahu chose vague platitudes instead which reassure people that this is the same Netanyahu who claimed credit for torpedoing the Oslo Accords and not the Netanyahu the Obama Administration wants us to believe it is.

Keep in mind that of the three, Netanyahu is in the strongest domestic position, followed by Obama, and then Abbas in a very distant third. The current process provides an incentive structure which only encourages Hamas to derail, bringing them into the discussion, however unpalatable, would force them to be more accountable for their actions and allow Israel to make peace with its enemies, not just its friends.

Palestinian division is a real obstacle but it is being exacerbated by the insistence of the U.S. and Israel to have peace talks while Israel is building settlements and demolishing Palestinian houses. The "settlement freeze" which is due to expire on Sept. 26th, was violated well over 490 times in the last 10 months according to an American Jewish settlement watchdog. So what is needed is not simply an extension of a deadline but an end to all settlement activity and house demolition. This is not a precondition either, nor is it simply what international law dictates, it is rather an obligation which Israel accepted under the Road Map agreement in 2003.

But the biggest problem is the absence of a even-handed mediator. The Road Map was an American initiative, it pushed both sides to agree to it. After seven years the U.S. is still failing to get Israel to abide by its first phase obligation. How can any progress be made when there is such a tremendous power imbalance between both sides and a mediator unwilling (or unable) to enforce obligations which have been agreed upon?

The timing and way these talks came about also suggests their inevitable failure. Abbas spent months telling Palestinians, many of whom question his legitimacy as their leader, that he would not enter talks without a settlement freeze. Netanyahu was telling his constituents the opposite. Obama's policy of pushing Netanyahu to announce a settlement freeze was being criticized from inside the administration and from outside of it by domestic allies and opponents. If this settlement freeze deadline came and went with nothing to show for it in terms of talks, this would seem to validate the critical claim that Obama's Mid East peace efforts since the beginning of his administration have unfairly targeting Israel.

To get both sides to agree to direct talks, the Obama administration had to basically speak out of both sides of its mouth to garner consent of the parties. While the official invitation from the State Department, which Netanyahu accepted, mentioned talks "without preconditions" (i.e. settlement freeze), the Quartet invitation, which Abbas accepted, talked about a settlement freeze and ending the occupation of East Jerusalem. I go into detail about the wording here.

With an election around the corner, one that features those on the right associating those on the left with being Muslims, un-American, or Socialists, Obama could not afford to seem that his pushing of Netanyahu for a freeze was an unwarranted failure. There is no shortage of races in this country where the right is using Israel policy as a bludgeon and the generating no talks before the end of the freeze deadline would lend ammo to Republicans.

But why would Obama move toward talks even if its clear they are destined to fail? Obama's actions are very simple to explain, the political costs of not holding these talks before the Sept. 26th deadline are significant whereas the costs of them failing can be displaced, as they always have, on the Palestinian side.

[cross-posted from POLITICO.com]

read more...

Which Netanyahu Is It?

Last year, when the anticipated tensions were rising between the Obama and Netanyahu administrations, a speech Netanyahu gave in which he supposedly supported the notion of a Palestinian state was viewed by some as an evidence of Netanyahu's willingness to break from past stances and accept the need to end the occupation. Here was the beginning of the New York Times story on that occasion:

The prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, on Sunday endorsed for the first time the principle of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, but on condition that the state was demilitarized and that the Palestinians recognized Israel as the state of the Jewish people.

In a much-anticipated speech meant in part as an answer to President Obama’s address in Cairo on June 4, Mr. Netanyahu reversed his longstanding opposition to Palestinian statehood, a move seen as a concession to American pressure.

This was heralded precisely because Netanyahu was a late comer to the now 20 year peace process based on the two-state framework. The Israeli Prime Minister never believed in a Palestinian State and the charter of his Likud Party denies the possibility of a Palestinian State west of the Jordan. Here is the charter's vital excerpt (emphasis mine):

The overall objectives for the final status with the Palestinians are: to end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians on the basis of a stable, sustainable agreement and replace confrontation with cooperation and good neighborliness, while safeguarding Israel's vital interests as a secure and prosperous Zionist and Jewish state.

The Likud government will honor all the international agreements signed by its predecessors and strive to achieve a final status arrangement with the Palestinians. The only way to reach a final status arrangement is via dialogue and political negotiations.

The permanent status arrangement will minimize the security dangers implicit in the Oslo accords. The primary such danger is the presence and the possible expansion of the Palestinian security forces within close range of Israel's population centers, government offices, emergency warehouses and staging areas of the Israel Defense Forces.

The permanent status arrangement shall be based on the following principles:

The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.

The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state.

Of all the leaders who spoke at the launch of the talks last night at the White House, every single one spoke of a Palestinian State.....EXCEPT Netanyahu.

This may seem trivial to some but when you take into consideration how sickeningly common phrases like "Palestinian State" or "two-sides living side by side in peace" and "two-state solution" are in the diplomatic discourse on this issue, its evident that a real effort has to be made to avoid such language.

Netanyahu spoke of a number of things consistent with the language in the Likud Party charter "a secure and durable peace" and a "peace that will end the conflict between us once and for all," a "peace between peoples". But through this, Palestinians heard only what they have heard from Netanyahu for years, that Netanyahu wants peace and security for Israelis and recognizes that "another people shares this land" but stops short of recognizing the necessity of that other people, the Palestinians, to have sovereignty.

Netanyahu's hope is for an economic peace of Palestinian submission, not independence. He hinted at this in his remarks when he said "I see what a period of calm has created in the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, of Jenin, throughout the West Bank, a great economic boom. And real peace can turn this boom into a permanent era of progress and hope."

It seems that this didn't sit well at dinner with the other leaders and President Obama since Netnayahu's remarks this morning at the State Department made clarifications referencing the Bar Ilan speech and his willingness to accept a Palestinian state (that isn't a state). He mentioned reconciling Israel's requirements of security with Palestinian requirements of sovereignty and he mentioned a Palestinian state. But this entire episode, evolving in less than 24 hours, speaks to just how deceptive Netanyahu's words can be and underscores the importance of judging Israeli intentions by actions and not words.

Considering it's actions include the expansion of illegal settlements, the demolition of Palestinian homes, the de-Arabization of Jerusalem and the collective punishment of Gaza, and it's words are coming from someone who said American is easy to push around and admitted he undermined past peace negotiations, what reason do Palestinians have to think anything Netanyahu says about peace is genuine.

read more...

Video: Munayyer Debates the Direct Talks

With the US war in Iraq drawing to a close, the Middle East moved front and center for administration officials Wednesday as President Barack Obama held a series of high-stakes meetings with Israeli and Arab leaders. Both Daniel Pollak from Zionist Organization of America and Yousef Munayyer from The Palestine Center agree that there will not be a peace deal in place after these negotiations.

read more...

Israel's Security Comes First in Talks

This Al Jazeera English report focuses on some of key elements of Israel security-first position. According to AJE,

Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister has already said Israel's security demands will come first before any discussions on borders and final status issues.

Among Israel's security concerns is the Jordan valley. This is an area that was occupied in 1967 and is meant to be part of a future Palestinian state.

Israel, however, wants to maintain a military presence in the Jordan Valley to make sure it remains a buffer zone protecting Israel from any external threat.

It insists that any future Palestinian state must be 'demilitarized' which raises the question for whom will the Palestinian state be providing security Palestinians or Israelis?

If Israel's security continues to trump Palestinian rights, how can any progress come about?

read more...

Can the United States Prevent the Next Intifada?

In one month, we will reach the decade anniversary of the start of the last intifada. Shortly after the collapse of talks, and in the face of Israeli settler-colonialism, it only took a provocation from an ambitious politician, aspiring leader Ariel Sharon, who visited the Haram Al-Sharif with a legion of armed guards in tow, to launch a spate of fighting that left thousands, mostly Palestinians, dead. Ten years later, the pressure of Israel's occupation on the Palestinian population is greater, and the hope of a two state solution is still dim.

Israel's Program

The slow movement of Israel's long-term project to change the "facts on the ground" through geo-demographic engineering has created a high pressure situation that can explode at any minute. If the United States is serious about engaging in peace talks, it must find ways to check Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s agenda. It would have to surpass the current settlement freeze, which has done little to prevent escalating tensions. However, the United States has not shown an ability to conjure nor use political leverage against Israel where it is needed most - at severely scaling back the occupation. This calls into question the potential for a positive outcome in talks and only highlights a troubling context that can very easily cascade into something far worse.

This Netanyahu government is more than glad to use overt and latent force to further settler-colonial aims via expansion into Palestinian areas. Israel's use of construction of Jewish areas, and the building of roads, walls and even a train to further separate them, and extract more territory, from the Palestinians, is one menacing dynamic. The other is the destruction of Palestinian residences and further seclusion of what Israel treats as its expendable non-Jewish, occupied subjects. In tandem, these complementary patterns of Israeli policies and practices are building up a reservoir of rage amongst a people long overdue a solution.

Besides the machinations of the state, Palestinians suffer from the rise of a militant and aggressive class of settlers who employ violent self-help, such as armed intimidation, to assert their proprietorship over land in the occupied territories. Their anti-Palestinian violence is often tolerated by complicit Israeli authorities who are sympathetic to their ideological aims and consider them brethren.

The weight of state policies and rabid settlers has only barely been relieved by token gestures of goodwill by the occupation authorities. For example, in the past year, Israel removed roughly 20% of the West Bank checkpoints that obstruct internal Palestinian mobility. Still, more than 500 remain.

Each announcement of Israeli goodwill gestures involving checkpoint removals may ease life for some and boost an economy already ravaged by Israel’s policies, but they are a grim reminder of remaining Israeli prohibitions faced by Palestinians everywhere. Thus when Israel, in 2009, made a US-induced effort to remove large checkpoints and roadblocks between Ramallah and Nablus, near Jericho, and Tulkarem, it only begged the question about why any Israeli restrictions on Palestinian internal movement exists.

The geography of these restrictions, which fall in every shrinking pieces of the West Bank, are also testament to the ghettoization of Palestinians into pockets of their own land.

That so fundamental a right as the freedom of movement is granted as a goodwill gesture speaks to the general state of depravity that typifies Israel’s occupation. Can Palestinians really be expected to translate incremental compliance with basic human rights standards into a greater tolerance for the Israeli occupation or a belief in Israel's willingness to part with the occupation? In other words, the steam keeps building up, and the concessions won by the United States will prove to be less than adequate drivers of the Obama administration’s political agenda. At this point, the big idea of two states side-by-side as a solution outcome requires much bigger moves than the United States can muster,

Other Factors and the Imminent Spark

The divided and increasingly repressive Palestinian leadership in Gaza and the West Bank is matched by the obvious futility of outside actors such as the United States, Europe and Arab states to reign in Israeli excesses. Palestinian Authority affiliates broke up a meeting of Palestinian dissidents critical of the direct talks. That such a silencing campaign is undertaken to defend a process few have faith in and many question the legitimacy of, only adds to the mounting frustration and anger.

With such a tinderbox matched by systematic political inaction, it only takes one small spark to ignite a seemingly exhausted Palestinian population. There are daily incidents of Israeli abuses. Any one of them could send the population off against the occupation forces.

Today saw just one of the many potential sparks. The Israeli border police fired rubber-coated bullets and tear gas canisters at rioting Palestinians in the Silwan neighborhood of East Jerusalem. The site of Israeli home demolitions and protests in June, Silwan’s tensions were this time lit by settlers who stormed Al-Ein mosque. The settlers denied they entered the mosque. Palestinians have been worried since four Palestinians mosques have been vandalized or attacked in the past year. This did not grow into a larger fight, but the next incident could very easily.

The previous intifada, which began only 13 years prior, was sparked when an Israeli army tank vehicle ran into a group of Palestinians, killing four and injuring more. Systematic frustrations at the very same policies Israel carries out today were at the root.

Uprisings are the natural and logical human response to any externally imposed system of domination. It is far more necessary to address as the root cause this legacy of domination, rather than the rebellion against it. Otherwise, we are doomed to a never-ending sequence of attacks, arrests and dispossessions, and an almost as aggravating cycle of poisonous talks.

The Big Picture

Sadly, the United States cannot or will not induce Israel to take the necessary step of ending its settler-colonial agenda, a deeply ingrained ideological impetus. The main reason is that it has been a project taken-for-granted by Israeli policymakers and influential American thinkers and officials. Thus a demilitarized semi-sovereign “state” is the best outcome up for grabs in the current framework. Perhaps such an agreement would temporarily halt the growing pressure cooker. Only later it would become clear that imbalanced negotiations produced an only wishful statehood. Palestine would be an appendage state. But even this type of outcome, as unsustainable as it would be, is still politically miles away.

Overarching Israeli power and its alliance with the mediator of the talks, the United States, have given way to a cynical and hopelessly repetitive industry of negotiations. In the skewed universe of “direct talks,” simple adjustments to Israel’s authoritarian administration of the Palestinian people are really considered acts of goodwill, as compromise, while the obvious patterns of Israeli encroachment are left to be endlessly negotiated for.

Token goodwill measures are meant to curry favor in a bombarded Palestinian public opinion which has for over two decades seen little, and grown to expect little, of negotiations. They are meant to show the United States can mediate and provide “deliverables” against the Israeli agenda. They also are meant to show the United States means business when it comes to the Israel-Arab conflict, as it’s termed. Of course, the United States is hyper-sensitive to the Israeli side, no matter how far it transgresses neutral standards such as international law. Merely tinkering with the occupation, an inherent evil, rather beginning to disassemble it is indicative of the superficiality and inherent partisanship of the United States. And this is why failure, and more uprisings, are imminent.

When this round of talks eventually ends, and violence and bloodshed descend again, Israel and its settlers will continue on their violent way, hoping to blame the occupied. The United States will nod and help manufacture such fictions as Palestinians rejecting the “most generous offers.” This will conveniently deny the fundamental flaw of American custodianship on this issue: its inability to really halt the project of Zionism or even erode the occupation.

The starting point for the United States, if it really means business, is to form a global coalition of states and forces who will root out the occupation first. At this stage, any other approach will be more of the same. Given the problem of domestic politics, it is not likely the United States can even accomplish what it needs to do in order to reach its own stated objectives of a two-state solution.

One positive consequence is that the inconsequential collapse of these talks will further embolden organic forces for peace among Israelis, Palestinians and foreigners who have alternative future visions based on higher ideals than separatism and inequality. When states fail to correct injustices or only make matters worse through flawed interventions, people power can emerge with the solution, even if this only happens rarely. This particular conflict is ripe for a new framework and is well-suited to be such a historical example of non-state resolution. It's a geographically, religiously and politically central global issue. People from all over the world are learning about it and taking action. This holds more promise than do these talks.

read more...

Talks Off to a Predictably Shaky Start

I touched on how both the Israelis and Palestinians accepted invitations to direct talks in Washington on September 2nd and how each party referred to different statements when accepting the invitation. The US strategy seems to be "if we can't get the Israelis and Palestinians to agree on the necessary conditions for successful peace talks, let's let them each think, or tell their people, they got what they wanted". In essence, that is what the US has done by crafting careful and different statements through the State Department and through the Quartet. This is clearly problematic, for a number of reasons, and we don't have to wait until September 2nd to understand why.

Every Palestinian party was opposed to accepting the invite to Washington except for one, Fatah. Even within Fatah there is hesitation. Azzam Al-Ahmad, a Fatah official, confirmed that the PLO was clinging to the Quartet statement. From a Maan News report:

Al-Ahmad, a Fatah Central Committee member, says that if the US does not adhere to the Quartet statement, "Obama’s invitation will not be more than a dinner party. There will not be real negotiations; they might not even be launched."

While Clinton insists that the talks should renew "without preconditions," the Quartet reaffirmed its commitment to previous statements including one on 19 March which called on both sides to adhere to the Road Map and specifically demanded that Israel "freeze all settlement activity, including natural growth."

Abbas had insisted that talks would not resume without an end to settlement construction in occupied Palestinian territory, a request Netanyahu refused as a "precondition."

Welcoming Clinton's invitation, Netanyahu said Friday that he was "pleased with the American clarification that the talks would be without preconditions."

Abbas accepted the invitation but warned Sunday that continued settlement expansion would derail the talks.

Al-Ahmad noted that the remarks made by US Quartet envoy George Mitchell, which followed Clinton’s announcement, contradicted those outlined in the Quartet statement.

The Fatah official said that while the PA considered the Quartet statement to be a reference for talks, Mitchell said the agenda for talks would not be set in advance but would be worked out during negotiations.

Then, we see this from Asharq AlAwsat:

Asharq Al-Awsat has learned details relating to the reaction of the Palestinian leadership in the moments following US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton statement, in which she invited Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to direct negotiations in Washington on 2 September 2010. In her declaration, which does not refer to the subsequent International Quartet statement, Clinton clarified that the negotiations will take place without preconditions.

Asharq Al-Awsat can reveal that President Abbas was furious upon hearing the statement. Informed sources say that President Abbas was enraged to the extent that he asked Presidency Media Spokesman Nabil Abu-Rudaynah to contact US Peace Envoy George Mitchell directly, to express his anger.

Netanyahu, who insisted on direct negotiations without preconditions, laid out some of his own preconditions at the beginning of a cabinet meeting yesterday:

This agreement will be based on three initial components: First of all, on real and sustainable security arrangements on the ground; secondly, upon recognition of Israel as the national state of the Jewish People, and this means that the solution of a problem like the demand for return will be realized in the territory of the Palestinian state; and the third component, the end to the conflict. We are discussing a peace agreement between Israel and a demilitarized Palestinian state.

It's unclear why Netanyahu wants negotiations if he has already determined the outcome of the agreement. Or why Palestinians are willing to engage with an Israeli government whom they have no leverage over and without an even handed broker who can provide that leverage. The PLO chief negotiator, Saeb Erakat, stated that a failure to extend the settlement freeze, which is set to expire on September 26th, would mean and end to talks. This is the same settlement freeze that Israel has violated 492 times. We will be hosting a briefing on September 28th to discuss the implications of whatever happens after the settlement freeze deadline. And what of the chances of even a dysfunctional settlement freeze being extended? Here is what some critical members of the Israeli cabinet had to say about that earlier this summer:

Begin, who is a member of Netanyahu’s premier decision-making body known as the septet, made his comments in the Knesset at the first meeting of the Land of Israel Lobby to discuss campaigning against an extension of the freeze.

“There is no chance that Netanyahu will extend the freeze,” Begin said. “I don’t see a situation where the prime minister will convene the security cabinet and decide to extend the freeze, even for a period of three months.

“We expect pressure to build toward the end of the period, but we need to understand that the 18th of Tishrei (the Hebrew date when the moratorium expires) is a significant and decisive strategic, security and national event for the State of Israel.”

Tuesday’s meeting of the Land of Israel Lobby was the first the newly formed group hopes to have with each of the ministers in the septet.

Another septet member, Intelligence Agencies Minister Dan Meridor, said at a press conference on Monday that Israel would not be obligated to continue the moratorium once it ends.

He said that while no policy decision on how to proceed had been formally discussed, let alone decided, he favored a partial lifting of the moratorium, saying that in his view Israel should build according to agreements reached with the previous US administration.

Those understandings gave Israel a green light to build inside settlements within the large settlement blocs that are likely to remain in Israel’s hands under any agreement with the Palestinians.

In a further indication that the issue is increasingly on the ministers’ minds, Vice Premier and Regional Development Minister Silvan Shalom also addressed the matter on Tuesday, saying during a tour of Ariel that he had opposed November’s decision to freeze new settlement construction.

“I think that it was a bad mistake to make that decision before negotiations even started,” Shalom said, adding that the government needed to renew construction once the moratorium expired.

“I am having discussions with ministers and Knesset members to see how to start the construction and development at the end of the freeze,” he said.

Last week, another septet member, Vice Premier Moshe Ya’alon, vowed publicly that settlement construction would resume, saying in Maon in the South Hebron Hills, “We will renew building after the moratorium ends.”

So while those wily US diplomats thought that they could satisfy both sides by speaking out of both sides of their mouth by issuing two statements, they have also given both sides an easy out from negotiations because both parties can now point at the other to lay blame. Who really thought this was a good idea?

Given the domestic dynamics in Israel, the US and among Palestinians, when push comes to shove, it will likely be the Palestinians who get blamed when talks set up for failure collapse. Of course, those buying into peace process optimism might say the US could just be playing this game to get both sides together and then apply real pressure on Israel in private to extend an actual settlement freeze and abide by obligations to ensure "an environment for those negotiations to continue constructively" as a State Department spokesman said today.

But why should any Palestinian, or non-Palestinian for that matter, believe the US will have/use more leverage over Netanyahu once these talks start given the superpower's failure to get Israel to do something as simple as stop breaking international law? And in an election year too?

read more...

New Peace Talks Require Selective Blindness

So how did the the United States get Israel and the Palestinians to agree on going to direct talks. Well, I alluded to some arm twisting yesterday, but there was also a diplomatic dance involved. It's hard to believe that the US could find a way to get both sides agreeing to something they have been in stark disagreement about for months. The Palestinians have said regularly that they do not want to enter into direct negotiations before Israel freeze settlement activity (Israel's obligation under the Road Map which it accepted in 2003 and international law). The Israeli side refuses to enter into direct negotiations with a settlement free, what it calls 'pre-conditions' (Israel's obligation under the Road Map which it accepted in 2003 and international law).

So when the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued the initial invitation yesterday on behalf of the United States to both sides to come to Washington to launch peace talks and the parties responded, news stories, typified by this Reuters story, began to form the following narrative:

Israel and the Palestinians accepted on Friday an invitation by the United States and other powers to restart direct talks on September 2 in a modest step toward forging a deal within 12 months to create a Palestinian state and peacefully end one of the world's most intractable conflicts.

But what most stories missed is how the parties, in disagreement over the talks for months, finally accepted the invitation. It happened because in their minds, and before their constituencies, they accepted different things. You see, two different statements where issued yesterday. One by the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, which was designed for the Israelis, and another released by the Quartet (The US, UN, EU and Russia) which was designed for the Palestinians. They, in essence, contradict each other.

Here is Clinton's statement yesterday and the vital excerpt (emphasis mine):

As we move forward, it is important that actions by all sides help to advance our effort, not hinder it. There have been difficulties in the past; there will be difficulties ahead. Without a doubt, we will hit more obstacles. The enemies of peace will keep trying to defeat us and to derail these talks. But I ask the parties to persevere, to keep moving forward even through difficult times, and to continue working to achieve a just and lasting peace in the region.

As we have said before, these negotiations should take place without preconditions and be characterized by good faith and a commitment to their success, which will bring a better future to all of the people of the region.

Now, here is the response from Israel (again, emphasis mine):

Prime Minister Netanyahu welcomes the invitation of the United States to begin direct negotiations without preconditions.

The Prime Minister has been calling for direct negotiations for the past year and a half. He was pleased with the American clarification that the talks would be without preconditions.

So Clinton's statement said "no preconditions", which is what the Israelis have been demanding and the Palestinians have been objecting to. Clearly, as seen from the Israeli response, the American acquiescence to the Israeli demand resonated.

Well, what about the Palestinians? The statement drafted for them came from the Quartet. Here is the important excerpt (emphasis mine):

The representatives of the Quartet reaffirm their strong support for direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians to resolve all final status issues. The Quartet reaffirms its full commitment to its previous statements, including in Trieste on 26 June 2009, in New York on 24 September 2009, and its statement in Moscow on 19 March 2010, which provides that direct, bilateral negotiations that resolve all final status issues should “lead to a settlement, negotiated between the parties, that ends the occupation which began in 1967 and results in the emergence of an independent, democratic and viable Palestinian State living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbours”.

By reaffirming previous statements they made in the statement they made yesterday, they in essence said to the Palestinians that the Quartet does not recognize Israel's sovereignty over East Jerusalem (Quartet Statement from March 19, 2010 in Moscow), condemns settlement activity especially in E. Jerusalem and throughout the occupied territory, and calls for an immediate settlement freeze (Trieste Statement , New York Statement).

And how did the Mahmoud Abbas-led PLO Executive Committee respond to the Hillary Clinton's statement? It didn't. The response was based on the Quartet statement which said something completely different. Here is a report on the PLO response:

The PLO's Executive Committee on Friday accepted a US invitation to begin direct peace talks on 2 September by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a statement read.

"Based on the Quartet's statement ... the PLO announces its approval to resume negotiations aimed at solving all final status solutions," a statement issued by the Executive Committee read.

The PLO said it had agreed to negotiations with a timeframe of one-year based on the Quartet's statement, which "included calling both sides to abide by international law and in particular, stick to the Road Map, calling on Israel to stop all settlement activity."

...The PLO statement also cited "the Quartet’s confirmation that international community will not recognize Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem," when it accepted the US invitation.

The US's statement gives Netanyahu wiggle room and the Quartet statement does the same for Abbas, but neither side is on the same page, they have just been enabled to enter direct talks and show their domestic constituencies a statement that, especially on the Palestinian side, isn't worth the paper it is written on.

So what side is the US on? Does it stand by the statements it issued as part of the Quartet that calls for a settlement freeze or does it stand by the statement it made out of the Department of State that doesn't call for a settlement freeze.

After this diplomatic dance that was intended to give each principle negotiator a way to deceive their people into believing the other side had acquiesced to their terms of reference, Special Envoy George Mitchell says this when asked about the terms of reference question:

Only the parties can determine terms of reference and basis for negotiations, and they will do so when they meet and discuss these matters. As you know, both we and the Quartet have previously said that the negotiations should be without preconditions.

What? Now this is getting pretty ridiculous. The only Quartet statement that called for negotiations without preconditions was in June of 2010 and the statement issued yesterday by the quartet reaffirms all previous statements which contradict the June statement on preconditions.

None of these words have any meaning anymore. This is just a load of garbage designed to quell public dissent and get both sides together for a photo op that will look like a diplomatic victory for Obama, come at no cost to Netanyahu, and possibly be political suicide for Abbas.

So what happens when, in the midst of this process, Israel continues to build settlements which runs contrary to the stated Palestinian understand of the framework of these talks? From Reuters this morning:

The Palestinians will pull out of direct peace talks due to start with Israel next month if the Israeli government announces new settlement building, the chief Palestinian negotiator said on Friday.

We will inevitably run into a point where the understanding of this process is challenged. Whether it is because of settlements, the 67 borders, or the status of Jerusalem, it is clear that negotiations will not escape the minefield that they have set for themselves. At that point, the US, the so-called honest broker, will have to choose to stand with the positions it has taken with the Quartet or the position it has taken alone. It will be in that moment that we will clearly see the profile of Janus' ugly head and, if history is indicator, the US will fall squarely on the Israeli side of the dispute and abandon the positions they took with the Quartet.

This happened earlier this year. In March, the US joined in the Quartet statement calling for a settlement freeze before acquiescing to Netanyahu's demand for direct talks without preconditions.

The industry which kicks into gear every time there is an announcement like this is trained to "find the hope" in the peace process and shun critics of the process as "skeptics" and "pessimists".

But the reality is that criticism of this process has little to do with one's nature as an optimist or pessimist. Rather, it is about wisdom and naivete. No objective observer, in their right mind, can look at this and see anything other than a process that was built to collapse on itself.

read more...