You're Wrong and Unhelpful Yourself, Mr. Ambassador

Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro spoke to a crowded ASEAN Auditorium at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts this week.

Among the things Shapiro said was this about "expanding settlements in the West Bank Judea and Samaria"

“It’s unhelpful both because it changes the map over time … but also because of the political impact and the way it suggests to Palestinians that decisions are being made before they are at the negotiating table.”

You see, Mr. Ambassador, calling the territory of regions of the historic Land of Israel as the "West Bank", a geo-political term of obfuscation created in April 1950 when the illegal occupier of Judea and Samaria, Jordan's King Abdallah I annexed that land to his kingdom, is unhelpful, an interference with the neogtiaons for a peaceful settlement, discriminatory to Jewish rights and claims as well as being unauthentic as even the United Nations 1947 Partition Plan used the terms Judea and Samaria to delineate the borders of the future two states (a compromise plan rejected by the Arabs, incidentally, and due to their subsequent aggression, the map changed).

Using "West Bank" has quite a negative impact.

It affords the Arab side an ability to claim, before they are at the negotiating table, that they have a right to all of that territory.

But I suspect you intended that.

^

Biblical Diplomacy Suggested?

From a review of Secretary John Kerry's latest efforts:

Netanyahu and Abbas both doubled down on their positions and refused to take even the most minimal step to restore calm,..Kerry’s meeting with Abbas was no better. Sources briefed on it said Abbas refused to take even minimal confidence-building measures like condemning stabbing attacks, or at least not voicing support for the perpetrators. Abbas kept asking what Kerry had brought him from Netanyahu, and when he realized the answer was nothing, he began threatening to turn the keys of the PA over to Israel or start new diplomatic and legal campaigns against Israel at the United Nations.Afterward, Kerry phoned Netanyahu while en route to the airport and told him, “I’m out of ideas,” a source briefed on the conversation said.
The White House had already concluded that Netanyahu and Abbas were a lost cause, but now, Kerry’s aides are coming to the same conclusion.
“Our begging and pleading isn’t helping,” one American official said. “Maybe what’s needed is simply for the situation on the ground to force the sides to take action.”

2 Samuel 2:14 

And Abner said to Joab: 'Let the young men, I pray thee, arise and play before us.' And Joab said: 'Let them arise.'

^

The NYTimes Does the Kerry Peace Process

Seems Saeb Erekat tried to work his "Natufian" magic on the Americans:-

Martin S. Indyk, trekked with a Palestinian leader to ancient ruins in Jericho

and explained:

“I meant to take Martin to ruins to show him nothing lasts and life goes on,” Mr. Erekat explained. “These were great empires — they’re gone. I know that the Israeli occupation will go. I know.”

But this may be relevant:

Mr. Erekat repeating certain mantras...“I don’t walk around with a neon sign saying ‘stupid’ on my head.”

In any case, whether or not Indyk was convinced that "Palestinians" predated Jews in this land, here is how the New York Times apportions blame for the failure of this latest round of peace negotiations:

The talks nonetheless collapsed two days later. Mr. Kerry has his share of the blame, at times leaving Israeli and Palestinian leaders with disparate understandings that would lead to later blowups and, toward the end, pushing beyond the White House’s comfort zone to create a new layer of internal negotiations that slowed events down.

But Mr. Netanyahu refused to risk alienating Israel’s right wing by restraining construction in West Bank and East Jerusalem settlements; about 13,000 new units moved forward during the talks. Mr. Abbas, looking for a dignified exit from the public stage and furious over the settlement building, never responded to the ideas Mr. Kerry’s team had formulated for a framework to guide further negotiations.

The correspondents did add this:

Tzipi Livni, acknowledged that continued settlement construction was a problem, but said the Palestinians knew it was coming. Twice in April, she pointed out, even as details of new deals were being completed, the Palestinians surprised Israel and Washington, first by joining 15 international conventions to protest Israel’s failure to release a promised fourth batch of prisoners, and last week by reconciling with Hamas.

and further detailed this:

The Palestinians were outraged not only at the scale [of construction plans announced in early November], but that Israelis were suggesting they had agreed to trade construction for prisoners, when in fact the “price” was a pledge not to join international agencies and conventions for the duration of the talks.

Odd.

I am fairly sure that that was the exact trade-off: the Pals. get prisoners and we continue building. After all, "settlements" are not restricted in any of the Oslo Accords, being reserved for final-status issues.

Then, there's this:

President Obama offered the framework outlines [in March] — though no document was ever shared — and Mr. Abbas simply did not respond.
“He had shut down,” said one of several American officials interviewed. “As he comes to the end of his life and certainly the end of his term in office, he’s fed up.”

As for Kerry, he

...had allowed the Palestinians to believe Arab-Israeli citizens would be among those freed without securing such a commitment from Mr. Netanyahu. The Israelis said no one would be let go unless talks were extended.  Mr. Kerry dangled the prospect of freeing Jonathan J. Pollard, the American convicted of spying for Israel, despite White House reservations.

And now this:

Secretary of State John Kerry issued an unusual statement Monday evening expressing his support for Israel after a controversy erupted over a politically charged phrase he used in a private appearance [that] Israel risked becoming an “apartheid state,”...

In the statement that Mr. Kerry issued Monday, which bore the title “On Support for Israel,” he said that...he did not believe that Israel was an “apartheid state” or intended to become one. Mr. Kerry did not dispute he had used the phrase but said it had led to a “misimpression” about his views.

“If I could rewind the tape, I would have chosen a different word to describe my firm belief that the only way in the long term to have a Jewish state and two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two state solution,” he said.

“In the long term, a unitary, binational state cannot be the democratic Jewish state that Israel deserves or the prosperous state with full rights that the Palestinian people deserve,” he added.

J Street, a pro-peace Jewish organization, defended Mr. Kerry...But Aaron David Miller, a former American peace negotiator now at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, said that Mr. Kerry’s comment had drawn him into an “unproductive fight with a close ally.”

But he did cover his tuches:

While Justice Minister Livni, former Prime Ministers Barak and Ohlmert have all invoked the specter of apartheid to underscore the dangers of a unitary state for the future, it is a word best left out of the debate here at home.

P.S.  Here's today's Haaretz's editorial:

Apartheid in planning rights

Israel’s discriminatory planning policy in the West Bank violates its most basic obligations.

^

Kurdled Kerry (and Kerplunked)

Remember this?

Kerry pushes Israel to consider Arab League peace plan
July 17, 2013

After meeting with Arab League officials and Abbas in Amman, US Secretary of State urges Israel to "look hard" at Arab peace initiative; Israeli officials say plan is fine as basis of discussion, not a dictate.

Well, now we have this:

Arab League declares 'total rejection' of Jewish state recognition March 26, 2014

The Arab League announced on Wednesday its full backing of a Palestinian refusal to meet Israel's demand to be recognized as a Jewish state, a condition Jerusalem says it requires for peace.  "We express our total rejection of the call to consider Israel as a Jewish state," read a statement from the final day of the Arab summit in Kuwait.

And, in case you missed it:

Abbas defiant in speech of '3 noes' January 14, 2014

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas says the Palestinians will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state, will not agree to any deal that does not make east Jerusalem the future Palestinian capital and will not give up the right of return.

_______________

UPDATE

Just saw this:

Third-Party Conflict Management and the Willingness to Make Concessions

Abstract

Third-party conflict management, particularly legal dispute resolution (arbitration and adjudication) and mediation, can help improve the willingness of disputants to make asymmetric concessions by ameliorating commitment problems and providing political cover. In both regards, and especially pertaining to commitment problems, mediation has substantial limitations when compared to legal dispute resolution. We develop these arguments and test the observable implications on the Issue Correlates of War data. To get traction on the mechanisms at work, we distinguish between challenger concessions and defender concessions, positing that challenger concessions face the primary hurdle of political cover while defender concessions face the primary hurdle of commitment problems. We find that legal dispute resolution strongly increases the propensity for concessions by both challengers and targets, even major asymmetric concessions. Mediation, on the other hand, only helps increase minor challenger concessions. Also consistent with expectations, mediation best enables asymmetric challenger concessions in the highly salient cases that need the most political cover, and legal dispute resolution best enables asymmetric concessions when there has been a history of failed conflict management attempts that perpetuate mistrust.

^

Saeb Erekat, Peace Partner: "Punish Israel"

Remember Saeb Erekat's "Natufian origin" statement?

He's upping it:

...Erekat flew to Munich for a symposium about the Middle East peace process at which he had a heated argument with Livni.

Erekat explained that the reason for the argument was her insistence that Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

“I told her in front of the whole world that we will not change our history, our religion or our civilization,” Erekat said. “We are the lawful sons of Palestine; we will not accept Israel as a Jewish state”.

He added: “I informed Livni that Israel must apologize for Palestinian refugees, because they weren’t displaced by a volcano or a tsunami, but by the establishment of Israel. They should apologize to them and solve their issue on the basis of the Arab Peace Initiative and international decisions.”

“Livni accused us of not wanting peace, and I told her that Israel is racist against Palestinians in ways that did not happen in South Africa. The world should rise against this racist regime, hold it accountable and punish it,” he added.

Such wonderful peace partners.


Thanks to IMRA. ^

PLO: We Are Partly To Blame

The Executive of the PLO (the Palestine-before-1967 Liberation Organization) decided, among other matters, to declare that (thanks to IMRA)

 ثانيا: تؤكد منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية أن التعثر في العملية السياسية الراهنة يعود اساسا الى استمرار مواقف وممارسات حكومة نتنياهو في التوسع الاستيطاني غير المسبوق، وفي السعي الى الغاء مرجعيات عملية السلام المقرة دوليا واستبدالها بمرجعية تكرس ضم القدس والسيطرة المطلقة على اجزاء واسعة من الضفة الغربية بحجة الامن تارة او الكتل الاستيطانية تارة اخرى.

And that reads, in Google Translate:

Second, confirms that the stumbling in the current political process is due mainly to the continuation of the attitudes and practices of the Netanyahu Government's unprecedented settlement expansion and in its seeking to cancel the internationally approved terms of reference of the peace process and to replace them with the annexation of Jerusalem and absolute control over large parts of the West Bank under the pretext of either security or at other times, the settlement blocs.

If the blame is "mainly" Israel's fault, then part is that of the Palestinian Authority, at least part.

That is the logical reading comprehension.

Which recalls the punchline of the Lord Beaverbrook tale:

Madam, now we're just trying to determine the degree

^

Kerry Connects the Dots

Connect the dots, from:

Secretary of State John Kerry said Thursday that he had provided Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel with “some thoughts” about security arrangements that could be put in place if Israel and the Palestinians negotiated a peace agreement.  Mr. Kerry presented the ideas on security arrangements in the West Bank and in the Jordan Valley along with John R. Allen

to:

Secretary's Remarks: Statement Following Meeting With President Mahmoud Abbas12/05/2013 12:01 PM EST
Statement Following Meeting With President Mahmoud Abbas
...the goal here for everybody is a viable Palestinian state with the Palestinian people living side by side in peace with the state of Israel and with the people of Israel.
I think the interests are very similar, but there are questions of sovereignty, questions of respect and dignity which are obviously significant to the Palestinians, and for the Israelis very serious questions of security and also of longer-term issues of how we end this conflict once and for all.
So we will continue. I’m returning now to Jerusalem to have further conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and then shortly, perhaps in a week or so, may return for further discussions

to:

PA Official: We Reject US Safeguards for Israel in Peace Plan 

and to

Palestinians held talks with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday on a possible future peace accord with Israel and emerged with mixed descriptions of how much common ground they had found with Israel's most vital ally.
One Palestinian official told Reuters his side had rejected Kerry's ideas for future security arrangements, without giving details of the proposals.

to - and who said:

"...for the settlers, by the settlers, from the settlers.”

Saeb Erekat.

See the connections?


Oh, and do not forget:

The Palestinian negotiating team [aka Erefat] has already presented its resignation over the issue, but Abbas has not yet accepted it.

P.S.

Guess what?

New Wave Poll: 87.5%:6% current talks with Palestinians will not reach deal
Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA 6 December 2013

Do you believe that the negotiations underway now will reach a peace
agreement with the Palestinians?
Yes 6%       No 87.5%        Don't know 6.5%

^ 

I'm Unenthralled

In the New York Review of Books, Nathan Thrall, who thralls me not, doesn't write a book review but notes three books and then goes off to compose a comment piece briefly referring to the books.

His subject is a peace agreement, or the lack thereof, between Israel and the Arabs-who-call-themselves-"Palestinians".

A few of my observations on selected extracts from his writing:-

1.   According to Olmert, his plan granted the Palestinians a state...Jerusalem would be a shared capital, its eastern, Arab neighborhoods part of Palestine, its Jewish neighborhoods in both halves of the city part of Israel...

I think there is a comma missing in there (its eastern, Arab neighborhoods, part of Palestine) but, in any case, there are Jewish neighborhoods in the "east" and there were Jewish neighborhoods there before 1948.  So it's not so quite clearly defined what is Jerusalem.

2.   ...Olmert frequently asserted that he never heard from Abbas again. “I’ve been waiting,” he recently said, “ever since.”  This story, which is widely accepted in Israel and has done much to discredit the idea of a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian settlement, contains a number of inaccuracies. First, Olmert and Abbas did negotiate again on more than one occasion, as noted in Tested by Zion, former US deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams’s detailed, frank, and perceptive account of the George W. Bush administration’s involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...

That sounds rather definitive but a few paragraphs on, Thrall notes:

He presented his map the day before Livni was named as his replacement. Several days later, Olmert formally resigned. “The weaker he became politically,” Abrams writes, “the more Olmert seemed willing to risk.”

So, how could negotiate if he left office?

3.   Abbas had good reason to be cautious...There was no prospect of Hamas accepting such an agreement.

And there never was any such prospect and more importantly, there never will be, even with Fatah and surely not the Islamic Jihad.

4.  First, over the past two decades, Palestinian positions have barely budged.

Quite true, as I wrote above.  And their positions are the same as in the 1920s and 1930s, not to mention the 1940s.  And how does that assist peace-making?  If there is to be a "compromise", what are the Arab compromises?

5.   Yet Netanyahu’s declared support for Palestinian statehood seems to have grown only firmer. Last May, Netanyahu for the first time used a demographic argument for a Palestinian state—Jews now make up less than half the population of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza—saying that the purpose of an agreement was to prevent the eventuality of a binational state.

But are the numbers supporting this demographic "threat"?

6.   ...the Palestinians, who believe that the core of the conflict is Zionist settlement in Palestine and the expulsion of Palestinians during the 1948 war that established the Israeli state.

But how many Jews were left in the area of the proposed Arab state in Palestine and how many Arabs in the Jewish state in Palestine?  Who was more expelled?

7.   Jewish nationalist attacks against Palestinian communities in the West Bank have crossed into Israel, taking the form of arson, vandalism, and violence against Palestinian citizens of Israel.

As per a court decision of "guilty" or is that based on conjecture, press reports but not a fact?

8.   Jews and non-Jews cannot legally marry. Current residents of Jerusalem homes that were abandoned during the 1948 war have been evicted to make room for former owners and their descendants—but only when the deed holders are Jews.

Really?  No intermarriages?  And weren't Jews expelled from their homes in Shimon HaTzaddkit, Nahlat Shimon and the Old City of Jerusalem?
 

9.  The inequality of Jews and non-Jews within Israel’s pre-1967 borders—in which Palestinian citizens and residents lived under military rule from 1948 until the end of 1966—prepared the ground for still more unequal arrangements in the West Bank after the 1967 war.21 

21 Palestinians within Israel’s pre-1967 borders were not able to obtain citizenship until July 1952. Many remained unable to obtain citizenship even after 1952, because they lacked proof of identity or had not been counted in the population registry of 1949

First, who attacked in a war of aggression and second, what percentage is "many" and how are Arabs doing in the Knesset today?

10.  ...the forced displacement of a very large number of Palestinians during the war that followed is now a documented reality, one that for most Palestinians supports their claims to return, or to ample compensation for their losses, or to both.

A "documented reality"?  "Large"?  And does that not-so-quite-reality truly support claims to a "return"? 

11.   Many Israeli leaders believe that any such acknowledgment of responsibility or acceptance of Palestinian claims to return would shake the very foundations of the state, undermining its international legitimacy and upending decades of Zionist teaching by conceding that Israel was responsible for forcibly dispossessing large numbers of Palestinian civilians from their land and homes at its birth.

"Zionist teaching" or the historical fact?  As I've pointed out, he does not mention any Arab-initiated ethnic cleansing of Jews from the centuries-old residential locations all across the Land of Israel, what became "Palestine", the foreign-occupied country of conquerors be they Romans, Persians, Crusaders or Arabs, or British and Jordanian.

But let's be clear about a "peace".  As Shoshana Bryen succinctly sums up:

What are the competing claims between Israel and the Palestinians, and can they resolved such that a peace of some sort can emerge? In barest form, Israel's essential requirements are:

•Recognition of the State of Israel as a permanent, legitimate part of the region; the "secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force," that is the promise of UN Resolution 242.
•"End of conflict/end of claims." The Israelis expect this agreement to be the last Palestinian claim on additional territory or rights.
•Israel's capital in Jerusalem.
 
For the Palestinians, the requirements are:

•International recognition of an independent Palestinian state, while preserving the right to claim/restore more or all of "Palestine."
•The right of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to live in Israel if they wish, or to take compensation; the decision will be theirs, not Israel's.
•Jerusalem as Palestine's capital

The positions are incompatible.
 

As I wrote, I'm unenthralled.

^

 

Stuck With Shtayyeh (and Thank God for Abbas UPDATE)

[see UPDATE at end]

The State Department announced yesterday that Secretary Kerry

"personally extended an invitation to send senior negotiating teams to Washington to formally resume direct final status negotiations...The Israelis will be represented by Justice Minister Tzipi Livni and Yitzhak Molcho, and the Palestinians will be represented by Chief Negotiator Saeb Erekat and Mohammad Shtayyeh. 

And Secretary Kerry subsequently announced that the U.S. Special Envoy for Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations will be Martin Indyk.  His deputy is Kerry's senior advisor - Frank Lowenstein.

As already noted by me, Lowenstein comes from the fringes of progressive radicalism.  And Raheem Kassam informs us that

the true motives of the second most senior Palestinian negotiator - advocating the destruction of the entirety of the State of Israel...for one of Abbas’s negotiators however, the recognition of the State of Israel is one step too far, and reveals how these peace talks are more than likely to be completely in vain.

The far Left has tried in the past to defend Shtayyeh but can you imagine Livni with her father's map of "both  banks of the Jordan"

on her Facebook account (okay, she wouldn't but let's be imaginative)?  What would be the reaction of the pro-Pals you need not guess.

Shtayyeh has a past and in 2011, we learned:

Dr. Muhammad Shtayyeh, a Palestinian minister and president of the Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction didn’t seem as optimistic about the potential U.S initiative. He outlined the Palestinian leadership strategy, which included becoming a full member of the United Nations General Assembly. He also raised the possibility of taking Israel to the International court as a new avenue of the struggle against occupation. He also reiterated that the Palestinians don’t see a partner in Netanyahu’s government and therefore don’t have much hope in reaching a deal with it.

Dr. Shtayeh surprised the attendees by discussing the Palestinian Authority’s inability to continue its existence under occupation and warned that it could be dissolved if no political breakthrough is achieved. The Palestinian Authority was not created to offer municipal services to the Palestinian people. It was mandated to prepare the way for a Palestinian state and if the PA cannot deliver a state, it will not survive.

Well, now he can have fun negotiating with Israel but I need point out that if the PA can't even run and administer the most rudimentary municipal tasks, why give it a state to run?

Back in 2002, he wrote:

The donor countries say that they have invested some US$4.5 billion in the West Bank and Gaza since 1993. Do you think that they will continue donating now that the infrastructure they helped to build has been damaged or destroyed?

Well, we know they have continued with their largesse because they don't particularly like Jews and think the Arabs are a good weapon.  He also there turns the security aspect on its head, so:

They [the Israelis] have planted enmity in the heart and mind of every single Palestinian due to their actions during the continuous incursions and at the checkpoints.

But it was - and continues to be - the other way around.  Arabs initiate violence and terror and Israel wouldn't have been administering Judea and Samaria if it wasn't for the desire of the PLO to attack Israel in its pre-1967 borders. 

Two years ago, Shtayyeh laid out the "big issues" clearly:

— Fatah accepts and independent state using the 1967 borders. As he put it, they are willing to accept the state on "only 22 percent of what used to be called Palestine."

— Fatah accepts a shared Jerusalem, a united city with one governing body.

— Fatah accepts a demilitarized state.

— On the issue of refugee resettlement, he said that is something that will be decided at the negotiating table. But Fatah, he said, is "ready to sit down with the Israelis."

In Washington then, we have one inveterate liar (the 'Jenin massacre'; etc.) and another who doesn't recognize Israel and thought in 1998 that Netanyahu was "unfortunate" for Israel.  And both are ideologues for whom poliitcs is but an instrument.

UPDATE

Now this:

Abbas wants 'not a single Israeli' in future Palestinian state


(Reuters) - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas laid out his vision on Monday for the final status of Israeli-Palestinian relations..."In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli - civilian or soldier - on our lands," Abbas said in a briefing...Abbas said he stood by understandings he said he reached with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, predecessor to more right-wing leader Benjamin Netanyahu, that NATO forces could deploy there "as a security guarantee to us and them."

...On the future of Jewish settlements on the West Bank and the status of Jerusalem - among the most contentious issues facing the two sides - Abbas signaled no softening of his stance.

"We've already made all the necessary concessions," he said.

"East Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Palestine ... if there were and must be some kind of small exchange (of land) equal in size and value, we are ready to discuss this - no more, no less," he said...Abbas said on Monday that he refused to endorse any half-measure whereby he would let Israel freeze construction in smaller, more far-flung settlements but allow it to build in the larger and more populous "blocs" closer to the 1967 lines.

"There was a request, 'We'll only build here, what do you think?' If I agreed, I would legitimize all the rest (of the settlements). I said no. I said out loud and in writing that, to us, settlements in their entirety are illegitimate."

Asked if the Americans may try to get Israel to agree to a de facto settlement freeze, the president made a broad smile and declined to answer: "I don't know."

The Cheshire Cat move.

 
And

Senior aide to the president Tayyeb Abdul Rahim, accompanying Abbas, told Reuters: "We're between two opinions: should Israel agree to stop building settlements, or should they agree to a state on the 1967 borders to go back to talks.

"What's stronger? (The second) means that all settlements are illegitimate. America is convinced of our point of view ... Israel has not yet agreed to a state on the 1967 lines, but it will go to the talks on that basis."

^

I'm For Preconditions

As you probably know, Israel's official approach to peace negotiations withe the Palestinian Authority is clear:

Netanyahu says he will never accept preconditions for talks

Prime minister says Palestinian calls for a building freeze before negotiations constitute an ‘impassable obstacle’

and

”I want to achieve peace,” Netanyahu declared.  ”We’re ready to start negotiations now, without preconditions,” he continued, “and I hope the Palestinian leadership will be too.”

That was last month.  And back in September 2011:

Benjamin Netanyahu: 'Negotiations without preconditions'

And in April 2012:

Netanyahu to ask Abbas to return to negotiations without preconditions

And so, at the end of July 2013:

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu turned to the citizens of Israel in an open letter on Saturday explaining his decision to release Palestinian prisoners as a gesture to the Palestinian Authority ahead of the renewal of peace talks in Washington next week..."This is an incredibly difficult decision. It hurts the bereaved families, it hurts all of the Israeli people and it hurts me very much. It clashes with the most important principle, the principle of justice," Netanyahu stated..."sometimes prime ministers are forced to make decisions that go against public opinion - when the issue is important for the country."

which brought this reaction: 

Dep. Min. Danon: Release of Terrorists is 'Lunacy'

Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon (Likud) sent a letter to Likud ministers asking them to vote against the planned release of 104 terrorist prisoners as a “gesture” in advance of “peace talks” with the Palestinian Authority.

"I call on you to vote against the release of prisoners, but in favor of the negotiations, without preconditions,” he wrote.

Those prisoners?

Israel is set to release 104 terrorists for the questionable privilege of getting the Palestinian Authority to simply show up to the negotiating table. The identities of the terrorists have finally been released. All of them have served so far between 19 to 30 years for murdering Israelis, and even their fellow Arabs. Some of those slated to be released have been serving time for killing children, Israel Prize winners, and even Holocaust survivors.

But I want to be fair and open.


I am actually for preconditions for peace talks:


- first, Abbas has to get reelected

- second, Hamas has to make peace with Fatah

- third, all incitement stops

- fourth, peace programming enters the educational curriculum


Isn't that rational and logical?


_______________

P.S.


Daniel Pipes:
 

Lunacy, but also immorality. The exchange betrays the families of victims and it betrays Israel's allies. It is a repugnant action.  To those who would excuse Netanyahu on the grounds that he feels pressure from the U.S. government, I reply: this a lame excuse, for Israelis can and have often stood up to misguided American leaders; further, it appears to be inaccurate, for Netanyahu has recently suggested that, under the spell of the Ben-Gurion complex, has himself become convinced of the need for a Palestinian state in the West Bank.

_________________

P.S.

From David Gertsman:

What did the PA's minister of religion say?

On the eve of the renewed peace talks with Israel, PA Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud Al-Habbash said in his Friday sermon that when PA leaders signed agreements with Israel, they knew how to walk "the right path, which leads to achievement, exactly like the Prophet [Muhammad] did in the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah." Al-Habbash's sermon was delivered in the presence of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and was broadcast on official Palestinian Authority TV.

The Hudaybiyyah peace treaty was a 10-year truce that Muhammad, Islam's Prophet, made with the Quraish Tribe of Mecca. However, two years into the truce, Muhammad attacked and conquered Mecca. The PA Minister of Religious Affairs stressed in his Friday sermon that Muhammad’s agreeing to the Hudaybiyyah treaty was not "disobedience" to Allah, but was "politics" and "crisis management." The minister emphasized that in spite of the peace treaty, two years later Muhammad "conquered Mecca." He ended his comparison by expressing the view that the Hudaybiyyah agreement is not just past history, but that "this is the example and this is the model."

Since the signing of the Oslo Accords, there have been senior PA officials who have presented the peace process with Israel as a deceptive tactic that both facilitated the PA's five-year terror campaign against Israel (the Intifada), and which will weaken Israel through territorial compromise that will eventually lead to Israel's destruction.

^

And There's A New Poll and More Opinion Dichotomy

Thanks to Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA we now know (in English) that

61% Israelis oppose expected deal with Palestinians

and once again, the dichotomy of Israeli opinion - we want peace and will do all to engage in its making but heck, we don't want a bad peace and don't believe the Arabs want peace - is apparent.

The survey was commissioned by The Orly & Guy Morning Program of Channel 10 TV and conducted by telephone on 22 July.

Results:


Are you for or against Israel entering negotiations with the Palestinians in the wake of the visit of US Secretary of State John Kerry to the region?

Total:
For 59% 
Against 31% 
Other replies 10%
Jews: For 49% Against 41% Other 10%
In principle, are you for or against signing a full peace agreement with the Palestinians on the basis of the 1967 borders, including the exchange of territory and release of prisoners?

Total: 
For 29% 
Against 57% 
Other replies 14%
Jews: For 22% Against 62% Other 16%
Are you for or against signing a peace agreement with the Palestinians on the basis of the 1967 borders, including the evacuation of communities with the exception of settlement blocs, exchange of territory, Palestinians recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish People, and release of Palestinians with "blood on their hands".

Total: 
For 26% 
Against 61% 
Other 13%
Jews: For 18% Against 71% Other 11%


^

The Peace Gap

As Aaron Lerner notes, one question in this poll is wrongly wordly but first, the poll:

New Wave Poll:  

56.9%:28.6% Support talks but 55.4%:30.9% deal impossible
Do you support renewing the negotiations with the Palestinians?
Support 56.9%; Oppose 28.6%; Don't know 14.5%
Do you believe it is possible to reach a permanent arrangement?
No 55.4%; Yes 30.9%;  Don't know 13.7%
Do you support the Palestinian approach, namely release of prisoners, easing movement, etc.?
Support 19.6%; Oppose 69.3%; Don't know 11.1%
Assuming the negotiations are renewed, what should Israel refuse to concede on?
[AL: the wording of this question is problematic as forces the respondent to pick one thing]
Right of return 30.3%; Division of Jerusalem 35.5%; Settlement blocs 7.0%; All the territories 17.6%; Don't know 9.7%

What puzzles me is how can 7% seek not to yield the "settlement blocs" and yet 17.6% do not wish to return all of the territories?

Does that mean they accept the Arab definition of "occupation" as including all of Jerusalem?  And that would reflect the par?

But at least Jerusalem is still the highest priority.

And again, the peculiarity of Israel's public opinion on peace is evident - they are "for" but pessimistic about its chances.

But are they "for" because no one wants to be "against" or they genuinely feel that peace is a benefit, is good and a worthy goal?

^

That New Arab Peace Initiative? And Who Opposes?

Which new initiative?

Start here:

Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, who is in charge of the negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, met Thursday with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to discuss reviving the Middle East peace process, AFP reported.  Flying in under the radar from Israel, Livni met with Kerry for about 30 minutes, with U.S. officials declining to divulge any concrete details.

"This opportunity was part of the secretary's ongoing discussions with Israeli and Palestinian officials and Arab and European officials, who have much at stake, as well to explore possible ways forward to resolve this conflict," acting deputy State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said, according to AFP.  "They discussed the full range of political and security issues facing Israel," he added.

 
Continue here:

Arab League leaders appeared to make a surprise concession Monday in saying a Palestinian state should be based on the pre-1967 borders but with mutually-agreed land swaps with Israel.

Note this:

...the Palestinian envoy to the United Nations, Riyad Mansour, said that Israel was only "paying lip service" to peace talks.  "While serious regional and international efforts are under way to revive the path of peace and to salvage the two-state solution, Israel instead continues to choose colonization and confrontation," Mansour said.

Mansour slammed Israeli tactics in a letter to Ban and the UN Security Council which highlighted how "hundreds of Palestinians have been forcibly displaced" in the past week and others face eviction.

His reaction:-

Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh stressed on Hamas movement’s rejection to the Arab initiative for peace with the Israeli occupation, and to the idea of land swap.

...“Our borders are the historic land of Palestine. The land belongs to us, and we refuse the Arab initiative,” Haniyeh said. He stressed that the new Arab position that supports the exchange of land represents an unacceptable waiver and encourages the occupation to continue the settlement activity.

Gaza Premier called on the Palestinian people to adhere to the option of resistance as it represents the strategic choice. “What was taken by force can only be restored by force. Negotiations can never be the way towards the liberalization,” he said.

And his:

The Arab Peace Initiative seeking a swap of land between Palestine and Israel is “an attempt to alter history”, a senior Hamas leader said Friday. Mahmoud Zahhar said that no one can take the rights of Palestinians to return to their lands.

He added that Palestinians have four immutable rights: the right to their land, their beliefs, their holy places and their right to return.  Zahhar called on Palestinians to cling to these rights and not give up any small piece of “Palestine’s soil”.

His, too:

Political analyst Dr. Naji Batta said that Hamas movement had unequivocally rejected the Arab initiative, and said that "it does not meet the minimum rights of the Palestinian people."  Batta told PIC on Saturday that the Arab initiative and the idea of land swaps crossed red lines and pointed to more concessions.  "The Arab initiative is originally rejected, because Palestine is not for sale or rent," the political analyst said, stressing that no one has the right to give up any part of the land of Palestine.

What "peace initiative"?

^

Get Ready: The New Unilateralism

The New York Times does it again.  Another op-ed from the left.  Despite attempts, has the NYTimes ever published an op-ed from someone, not an elected politician or government official, supporting the viewpoint that Israel has a right and need to be in Judea and Samaria, and Gaza, and to contruct communities there?

Well, today, we have "Peace Without Partners" from Ami Ayalon, Orni Petruschka and Gilead Sher (Ayalon is a former commander of the Israeli Navy and head of the Israeli domestic security agency and a failed politician, Orni Petruschka is an entrepreneur (?!), and Sher was a peace negotiator and chief of staff to Prime Minister Barak from 1999 to 2001.


Excerpts:


...Israel doesn’t need to wait for a final-status deal with the Palestinians. What it needs is a radically new unilateral approach: It should set the conditions for a territorial compromise based on the principle of two states for two peoples, which is essential for Israel’s future as both a Jewish and a democratic state.


Israel can and must take constructive steps to advance the reality of two states based on the 1967 borders, with land swaps — regardless of whether Palestinian leaders have agreed to accept it. Through a series of unilateral actions, gradual but tangible changes could begin to transform the situation on the ground.


That is a recipe for disaster, see: Unilateral Disengagement and Yossi Beilin:


"The greatest risk underlying unilateral action is the strengthening of extremists," wrote Yossi Beilin, a former Israeli justice minister and one of the architects of the Geneva Accord, an unofficial peace plan.
Israel...should create a plan to help 100,000 settlers who live east of the barrier to relocate within Israel’s recognized borders. That plan would not take full effect before a peace agreement was in place.


But, what "recognized borders"?  If unilateral and, regardless if the Pals. accept it, ...are they crazy?


...Israel should also enact a voluntary evacuation, compensation and absorption law for settlers east of the fence...


Can we do so to Arabs west of the new "recognized borders"?  Why not?


Our organization, Blue White Future, holds regular meetings with settlers. We have found that many would move voluntarily if the government renounced its sovereign claims to the West Bank, because they would see no future for themselves there.

Actually, that sounds like the Black-and-Blue Future.

Critics will argue that unilateral moves by Israel have been failures — notably the hasty withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005, which left settlers homeless and allowed Hamas to move into the vacuum and launch rockets into Israel. But we can learn lessons from those mistakes. Under our proposal, the Israeli Army would remain in the West Bank until the conflict was officially resolved with a final-status agreement. And Israel would not physically force its citizens to leave until an agreement was reached, even though preparations would begin well before such an accord.


Oh, they read my mind.  Have they read the Pals' minds?  No way will that be acceptable to the other side.  Have they read Hamas' latest "we won't accept a [peace treaty" statement?
And after reading this, ask youselves, out of 360,000 Jewish resident revenants in Yesha, how many are the "many" of whom they write?

We don’t expect the most ideologically motivated settlers to support this plan, since their visions for Israel’s future differ radically from ours. But as a result of our discussions and seminars with settlers of all stripes, we believe that many of them recognize that people with different visions are no less Zionist than they are. We have learned that we must be candid about our proposed plan, discuss the settlers’ concerns and above all not demonize them. They are the ones who would pay the price of being uprooted from their homes and also from their deeply felt mission of settling the land.


There's more but it is platidudinal prose.  No logic, no realpolitik.


Too bad the NYTimes wastes column inches on such.

^

The Good News From Abbas

Here:

Palestinian President says he will not resume negotiations unless Israel freezes settlement construction and accepts the pre-1967 borders.

Of course, we have President Obama, not of the Palestinian Authority, to thank for that insistence on 1967. But that is a non-starter. Not in Jerusalem and not in Judea and Samaria and not on the Jordan River. They initiated the war and if "territorial compromise" is a principle, they have to first compromise on territory.

...an Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said disagreements emerged in the Amman talks but that his government remains committed to a year-end target for reaching a final peace deal. He said documents submitted by the Palestinians were "recycling" long-standing positions that Israel opposes.

I think we should all stand back from that table of non-negotiations and readjust ourselves to the reality of Arab incitement, hostility and unwillingness to recognize Israel as the Jewish state of the Jewish people in the Jewish homeland. With that subtext, peace is not an issue but rather the approach of "righting an historical wrong" that the Arabs seek.

Useless.

^

It's Busted Or, Obama's Failure

Jackson Diehl in the WashPost:-

...[P]resident [Barack Obama]’s biggest failures have been his own ideas.

The easiest one to document — and the one most likely to draw Republican attention next fall — is the busted Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Obama arrived in office afire with the ambition to create a Palestinian state within two years. But his diplomacy was based on a twofold misunderstanding: that the key to successful negotiations was forcing Israel to stop all settlement construction — and that the United States had the leverage to make that happen.

Veterans of the Middle East “peace process” shook their heads in wonderment as what at first appeared to be a rookie error evolved into a two-year standoff between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. There was only one possible explanation for this persistence in futility: The president himself was fixed on it...

... in pursuing “engagement,” Obama has mishandled the biggest international development of his presidency: the popular revolutions against autocracy. Detente with dictators can sometimes yield results, but Obama’s outreach turned out to be spectacularly ill-timed. Following the failure to back Iran’s Green movement, the strategy caused the administration to lag in supporting the popular uprisings in Egypt, Syria, Bahrain and elsewhere.

The consequences of all this are not yet clear...[but his] signature initiatives have flopped.

My, my.

^
^

Kurtzer and "Where the Negotiations Left Off"

In an op-ed in the January-February issue of The National Interest, and interestingly enough, copied and distributed by the virulent Foundation for Middle East Peace, Daniel Kurtzer writes of "Reviving the Peace Process" and at one point explains that

...The only serious option, therefore, for a United States that sees itself as a leading world power is to act like a world power and lead. In the peace process, this would mean unveiling a comprehensive strategy now—right now, when everyone else is drifting further and further apart. Such a strategy should encompass at least four elements:

First, we should develop a set of parameters on all the key issues which would then become the starting point and terms of reference for negotiations. These parameters should be developed on the basis of where the two sides left off negotiations in 2008...

And therein lies the rub.

The Arabs have always expected, and have always received support from those "neutral" friends of Israel, which includes Kurtzer, former United States ambassador to Egypt and Israel and now, rewarded for his treacherous actions against Israel, the S. Daniel Abraham Professor in Middle Eastern Policy Studies at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, that the next stage of negotiations will always start where the two sides left off.

But that is a wrong approach.

If the negotiations did not succeed from were they were "left off", then that point of "left off", then it would seem that that point is wrong. We should insist on going back at least one point. The sides should be even punished for not fulfilling that point in the line of negotiations.

For sure, no proceeding from a failure point.

Isn't that obvious?

In fact, the Arab side always can rest assured that whatever they do or do not do, the negotiations will always begin again without them losing anything. They always march forward, always pressing Israel, even though they have fulfilled little, if at all, their obligations.

They incite? Who cares? Start from that point.

They inculcate hostility in their schools? Who cares?

They permit terror? Who cares?

Start from "that point" no matter what.

A formula for failure or for Israel's insecurity.

Kurtzer knows this for he writes:

It is not enough for the Arabs to promise recognition, security and peace for Israel at the conclusion of the peace process; Arabs should be asked to start processes of reconciliation in parallel with peace negotiations.

but he ignores this in the policy-action analysis he offers even though he adds

Until now, our diplomats have been working with discrete tactical approaches—a settlements freeze, proximity talks, direct talks—but without terms of reference, and the administration has backed away early when the tactics have not worked.

Close but not enough.

He's left out Israel.

^

Israel's Ideas for Peace

Via IMRA from Al Quds Al Arabi (UK)

Israel's points include:

1. A Possibility of withdrawal from Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem
2. Refusal to permit return of Arab refugees in accordance with Resolution 194
3. Not all of the Jewish communities will be evacuated
4. A security presence along the Palestinian border with Jordan by Israel will be maintained
5. Palestinian state may not establish any alliances with nations hostile to Israel
6. There is a need to keep important IDF army sites in place in Judea and Samaria.
7. Removal of threat to the security of Israel
8. Gradual implementation of the agreement and its application on the ground.

^

Obama The 'Extreme' Optimist

Here is how the White House Blog viewed yesterday's meeting between President Obvama and Prime Minister Netanyahu:

“An Extremely Constructive Discussion”

And quotes Obama saying:

...We just completed a prolonged and extremely useful conversation touching on a wide range of issues...We agreed that there is a moment of opportunity that can be seized as a consequence of the Arab Spring, but also acknowledge that there’s significant perils as well, and that it’s going to be important for the United States and Israel to consult closely as we see developments unfold. [in other words, oops, sorry there Bibi, I seem to have got my semantics garbled yesterday]

And he continued, stressing an understatement:

...I reiterated and we discussed in depth the principles that I laid out yesterday -- the belief that our ultimate goal has to be a secure Israeli state, a Jewish state, living side by side in peace and security with a contiguous, functioning and effective Palestinian state.

Obviously there are some differences between us in the precise formulations and language, [differences or contradictions to decades-long American foreign policy?] and that’s going to happen between friends [actually, it needen't happen because between friends, you first iron out any difference before going public and then finding out there are other friends of Israel that force you to backtrack]. But what we are in complete accord about is that a true peace can only occur if the ultimate resolution allows Israel to defend itself against threats, and that Israel’s security will remain paramount in U.S. evaluations of any prospective peace deal.

...I also pointed out, as I said in the speech yesterday, that it is very difficult for Israel to be expected to negotiate in a serious way with a party that refuses to acknowledge its right to exist. And so for that reason I think the Palestinians are going to have to answer some very difficult questions about this agreement that’s been made between Fatah and Hamas [and if they are your friends, Mr. President, why didn;t you ask them first instead of hitting on Israel?]. Hamas has been and is an organization that has resorted to terror; that has refused to acknowledge Israel’s rights to exist. It is not a partner for a significant, realistic peace process...

...the extraordinarily close relationship between the United States and Israel is sound and will continue, and that together, hopefully we are going to be able to work to usher in a new period of peace and prosperity...

Netanyahu responded and said, in part:-

...We share your hope and your vision for the spread of democracy in the Middle East. I appreciate the fact that you reaffirmed once again now and in our conversation, and in actual deed, the commitment to Israel's security. We value your efforts to advance the peace process.

...I think for there to be peace, the Palestinians will have to accept some basic realities. The first is that while Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines, because these lines are indefensible, because they don't take into account certain changes that have taken place on the ground, demographic changes that have taken place over the last 44 years. [that's a reference to the prrsence of Jews in the 150 communities established in Judea and Samaria, some in places in which Jews resided until being ethnically cleansed by Arabs during the Mandate years and the war they initiated in 1947] Remember that before 1967, Israel was all of 9 miles wide -- half the width of the Washington Beltway. And these were not the boundaries of peace; they were the boundaries of repeated wars, because the attack on Israel was so attractive from them.

So we can't go back to those indefensible lines, and we're going to have to have a long-term military presence along the Jordan.

The second is -- echoes something the president just said, and that is that Israel cannot negotiate with a Palestinian government that is backed by Hamas...Israel obviously cannot be asked to negotiate with a government that is backed by the Palestinian version of al-Qaida.

...a third reality is that the Palestinian refugee problem will have to be resolved in the context of a Palestinian state but certainly not in the borders of Israel. The Arab attack in 1948 on Israel resulted in two refugee problems, Palestinian refugee problem and Jewish refugees, roughly the same number, who were expelled from Arab lands. Now tiny Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees, but the vast Arab world refused to absorb the Palestinian refugees.

Now, 63 years later, the Palestinians come to us and they say to Israel: accept the grandchildren, really, and the great-grandchildren of these refugees, thereby wiping out Israel's future as a Jewish state. So that's not going to happen...it's time to tell the Palestinians forthrightly, it's not going to happen...

And we even had some mutual respect:-

Mr. President, you are the -- you are the leader of a great people, the American people. And I am the leader of a much smaller people. The --

President Obama: A great people.

But Netanyahu takes it further:

It's a great people too. It's the ancient nation of Israel. And you know, we've been around for almost 4,000 years. We have experienced struggle and suffering like no other people. We've gone through expulsions and pogroms and massacres and the murder of millions.

But I can say that even at the dearth of -- even at the nadir of the valley of death, we never lost hope and we never lost our dream of reestablishing a sovereign state in our ancient homeland, the land of Israel. And now it falls on my shoulders as the prime minister of Israel at a time of extraordinary instability and uncertainty in the Middle East to work with you to fashion a peace that will ensure Israel's security and will not jeopardize its survival...we don't have a lot of margin for error and because, Mr. President, history will not give the Jewish people another chance...

I can't wait for the AIPAC speeches.

________________

Barry Rubin on the speech - how Obama's speech was intended to be friendly toward Israel but has created the worst crisis in the modern history of U.S.-Israel relations.

JE Dyer

Yoram Ettinger on Obama and reality.

William Daroff had a funny re-tweet: RT @latimestot Leno: Obama wants Israel to go back to pre-1967 borders. Now Native Americans are demanding Obama go back to pre-1492 borders

Jerry Auerbach thinks it is time for Netanyahu, in his address to Congress, to decisively reject the seductive but menacing mantra of "land for peace."

Washington Post editorial: Mr. Obama’s decision to confront him with a formal U.S. embrace of the idea, with only a few hours’ warning, ensured a blowup. Israeli bad feeling was exacerbated by Mr. Obama’s failure to repeat past U.S. positions — in particular, an explicit stance against the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel. Obama should have learned from his past diplomatic failures — including his attempt to force a freeze on Jewish settlements in the West Bank — that initiating a conflict with Israel will thwart rather than advance peace negotiations.


^