By Ted Belman
Yesterday, Abbas reformulated his terms for entering direct negotiations, namely Israel must agree to the idea of a third party guarding the borders of a future Palestinian state before direct peace talks can start and Israel must also agree in principle to a fair land swap that would compensate the Palestinians for West Bank land absorbed by Jewish settlements in any peace deal.
He can say what he wants, but what are the parameters based on past agreements?
While many people argue that we know what the ultimate deal will look like, namely the creation of an independent, viable, contiguous, Palestinian state with the ’67 borders with minor swaps, a divided Jerusalem and a just solution to the refugee problem. The truth is quite the opposite.
The peace process began with UNSC Resolution 242 whose goal it was to achieve a “peaceful and accepted settlement.” Thus any settlement must be agreed upon and not imposed. The resolution required “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” Thus not all territories must be withdrawn from. In fact Israel has already withdrawn from more than 90% of such territories by withdrawing from Sinai and Gaza. Little noticed is that this requirement requires no withdrawal from territories occupied in the ’48 war of independence.
This resolution also provided that such a settlement must include “termination of all claims or states of belligerency” and the recognition that “every State in the area” has the “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” This is the basis for Israel demanding an end-of-conflict agreement.
At the Rabat Conference in 1974, Jordan and all Arab countries recognized the PLO as the “sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.” with respect to Judea and Samaria. (West Bank)
Egypt signed such a peace treaty with Israel in 1980. Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994..
Pursuant to the Oslo Accords, Israel must now reach on agreement with the Palestinian Authority which replaced the PLO as the negotiating party. The Oslo Accords did not predetermine the disposition of Jerusalem, borders, Israel settlements and refugees other than to label them as final status issues to be negotiated. The Oslo Accords envisioned a settlement pursuant to the parameters of Res 242.
In 2003, the Roadmap was accepted by the PA and by Israel albeit subject to 14 reservations. Chief among the changes to the peace parameters of Oslo was the insertion of the Saudi Plan later adopted as the Arab League Initiative. This plan was at odds with Resolution 242 in that it required the withdrawal from all occupied territories subject to minor swaps of land of equal value, the division of Jerusalem and a just settlement of the refugee problem pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 194 which provided
-
“that refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for property of those choosing not to return.”
This resolution, having being passed by the General Assembly, is not binding.
PM Sharon objected strenuously to the insertion of the Saudi Plan but Secretary Powell overcame his objections by ramming it down his throat arguing “the Roadmap is only a process”.
Sharon had one more bite at the apple when he was negotiating with Pres Bush for a letter of commitment and principles in conjunction with the proposed disengagement from Gaza. .
Dore Gold of the JCPA commented on the significance of this letter.
-
• President Bush’s April 14, 2004, letter to Prime Minister Sharon represents a significant shift in U.S. policy, as compared to the Clinton Parameters advanced by the former president after the failed Camp David Summit of July 2000 and in subsequent months.
• In his plan, Clinton provided conditional approval of settlement blocs, but insisted that there needed to be “territorial swaps” of land from pre-1967 Israel in exchange for any West Bank land Israel would retain. Bush does not insist on any land swaps involving Israeli territory.
• Clinton spoke of Palestinian refugees finding homes in other states including Israel, while Bush states that Palestinian refugees should be settled in a future Palestinian state “rather than Israel.”
• The Clinton Parameters dropped the idea of defensible borders and replaced them with “security guarantees” including a proposed “international presence” in the Jordan Valley. In contrast, Bush refers to “defensible borders” in the context of preserving and strengthening “Israel’s capability to deter and defend itself, by itself.”
• According to the Clinton Parameters, Israel’s security needs “need not and should not come at the expense of Palestinian sovereignty or interfere with Palestinian territorial integrity.” In contrast, Bush allows for Israel to continue to control airspace, territorial waters, and land passages in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank “pending agreements or other arrangements.”
• During the Clinton era, the signing of a peace treaty was supposed to produce security for Israelis. Under Bush, security must be achieved first, as a prerequisite for peace. Given the threats Israel still faces from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Yasser Arafat’s own Fatah Tanzim, the approach taken in the Bush letter represents a significant improvement for Israel and for the prospects of a lasting peace.
• The Clinton Parameters explicitly envisioned the re-division of sovereignty in Jerusalem according to a formula whereby “what is Arab should be Palestinian” and “what is Jewish should be Israeli.” Bush’s letter is silent on the issue of Jerusalem. While support for a unified Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty is missing, at least there is no attempt to return to the Clinton formulations.
Thus the Clinton Parameters were much in line with the Saudi Plan and the Bush letter flew in the face of both of these and resorted to Res 242 which provided the original parameters of Oslo.
In June of last year Secretary Clinton disavowed the Bush letter saying it “did not become part of the official position of the United States government.” Israel begged to differ.
When Obama was interviewed by Yonit Levi for Israel TV on July 7th, he said at 40 seconds of Part 2, “our view on settlements is consistent with all the previous administrations” and continued “that view was always voiced not in the spirit of trying to undermine Israel’s security but to strengthen it”. He made it clear he was talking about the freeze which he called the “moratorium.”
Keep in mind that there are two separate but inter-connected issues here, namely where Israel can build in the interim and what lands she is expected to cede in the final agreement. Bush’s letter clearly referred to the parameters for final settlement but such parameters have implications for where he permitted Israel to build in the interim. Israel and the bush administration had agreed that Israel could build within the construction line of the settlements in Judea and Samaria and could build unabated in the settlement blocks. Obama is flat out wrong to say that his view on settlements is consistent with that of Bush.. It isn’t. By demanding the freeze, Obama was against Israel building anywhere east of the green line.
JPOST reported on July 5th,
-
“according to [an Israeli] proposal, Obama would publicly hint at acceptance of then-US president George W. Bush’s 2004 letter to then prime minister Ariel Sharon, and Netanyahu would say that while settlement construction would continue inside the large settlement blocks, it would not be restarted outside of those areas.
‘
The Washington Times reported the next day, on the significance of the Bush letter and reported that Dan Shapiro, the White House National Security Council’s senior director for the Middle East and North Africa, “declined to say whether the 2004 letter reflected the Obama administration’s understanding of the parameters or borders of a final settlement to the conflict.”
So this proposal is still out there. Pres Obama must accept the terms of the Bush letter for there to be any progress. Even then, there will be great debate on what blocs to be included. Negotiations will include whether Israel will cede Arab east Jerusalem, (where the Palestinians live) to the PA and whether it will allow a token return of refugees, both in line with Clinton. To my mind if Israel gets to retain more land and settlements it will be more flexible on accepting a token number of refugees. Thus all the issues are inter-related.
In the interview above referred to Obama was asked if he was still demanding a freeze and he replied that he now only sought direct negotiations. Make of that what you will.
Still to be debated are whether Israel will get defensible borders and whether Bush will be followed in placing Israel security needs above Palestinian sovereignty.
The fact that the PA doesn’t speak for Palestinians living in Gaza, is ignored. The fact that Hamas is dedicated to Israel’s destruction is also ignored. The fact that the PA continues to incite contrary to the Roadmap is also ignored.
Bottom line though is that all issues are to be negotiated and agreed upon. This requirement is in both Res 242 and The Roadmap. Failing agreement, which is likely, will Obama or the UN attempt to impose a plan, even though it is illegal to do so?
Maariv has published yet another compelling argument against the Oslo Accords.
According to the newspaper’s investigation, Rabin’s government purchased the vote of Bedouin MK as-Sana from the RAAM Arab party. The Bedouin was given 27 acres of state land, and the government undertook to build 70 homes for his family, which it gave to them practically free.
The peace is more dangerous than war. It’s not an issue what concessions we can offer for peace. Jews might argue endlessly whether the sacrifices of Jerusalem and Judea are worth peace with a bunch of Palestinian Arabs, or whether—as Lieberman imagines and Livni hopes—such peace can involve transfer of Israeli Arabs to Palestine. The major presumption behind the peace efforts is that peace is good. What if that is a fallacy? What if the Jews relinquish their land in exchange for something highly negative? Counterintuitive as that may sound, it is true nonetheless.
Two puppets
Abbas so far refuses direct negotiations with Israel – fake negotiations, to be sure. But he is ready for direct talks should the Arab league approve them. A puppet, you would say? Think about Netanyahu who approves his every move with the Americans.
Easy. Complete surrender of the Muslim and Arab enemy.
But for starters, we have to demand that.
An Indian emails\
Both are a fiction. There is no distinct city of “East Jerusalem”. And “Arab east Jerusalem” is as I wrote above, racist and bows to the Arab narrative. Would you refer to “Negroid South Chicago”?
email
Charles, I was trying to distinguish between East Jerusalem (all lands east of the Armistiace line) and Arab east Jerusalem where the Arabs live.
Matt Hausman writes
Cogent analysis. Unfortunately, most of the experts and pundits like to sweep it all under the rug — especially when it calls into question the so-called negotiability of a solution that’s already been predetermined. The very idea that a solution can be pre-ordained and still be negotiable is oxymoronic. But the pretense is maintained because that’s the only way to continue to push a two-state solution, particularly when one side rejects the legitimacy of the other and cleaves to a history that never existed.
I believe the sooner everybody admits the two-state concept is dead the better. Being that the long-range plan even for the supposedly moderate PA is Israel’s destruction, the two-state solution was never alive long enough to die as far as the Arabs are concerned, but was instead stillborn.
Bad link above:
Arab east Jerusalem
Please don’t use the term “Arab east Jerusalem“. It’s vile (racist), ahistorical, ignores the ethnic cleansing of the Jews from Jerusalem by the Arab Legion, and adopts the supremacist rhetoric of the enemy — precisely what they have been engineering over the last six decades.
Why not capitalize (e)ast as well.
The Clinton position is irrelevant since it was rejected by Arafat. The Arab position is relevant but not controlling since Israel controls the land. The Quartet position is hardly relevant since they cannot force a solution. What’s missing is the Israeli position. This is partly because no two Jews can ever agree on anything. If I were in charge my position would be that Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and the Golan are permanently part of Israel and therefore Israelis have the right to settle and build anywhere in these regions. The Jordan River and the central uplands are natural barriers that must remain integral parts of Israel. Arabs living in these regions may be offerred citizenship under carefully controlled conditions or they may be offerred compensation and told to leave. No additional Arabs should be permitted to enter Israel. The concept of pay-back for land is misplaced. The Jews were deported from these lands in 1948, they have a right to return. At the end of the day, starting a war of anhilation and losing it has consequences.