The American working document, meant to serve as a bridgehead for a second season of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, is one of the most palatable Israel has seen.
Its content does not, of course, meet everything the Israeli government wanted, but it does make an effort within the range of American policy since the Six-Day War.
Its advantage is that it binds only the U.S., not Israel. Its disadvantage is that it is not binding for the Palestinians, either. Jerusalem’s eyes are on Washington, not Ramallah. But political turmoil in the region is unfolding.
The Americans are divided on whether Jonathan Pollard’s release serves the right purpose. They put the word “game-changer” beside his name — a turning point in the negotiations — and in the White House they reasoned that it was not worth giving him up in exchange for a short-term renewal of talks. But U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry convinced U.S. President Barack Obama, and now there is a chance we might see him in Israel, reading the Passover Haggadah.
Claims by the right wing of the coalition that Pollard is not a fair trade for the release of terrorist murderers deserve consideration, but the truth is that even without him, the government would face the dilemma of whether or not to accept the terms for continuing talks. Having the blame for the negotiations’ failure put on Israel would be a fatal blow in the international arena and would lead to international organizations recognizing the Palestinian Authority, wholesale, as if it were a sovereign state.
Adding Pollard’s release to the equation soothes a deep Israeli pain. However, the need to make a decision would exist without him as well.
Breaking through the Oslo barrier
The crux of the decision that lies before the government — which may be discussed as early as Wednesday, all while Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas threatens to destroy the bridge Kerry has built — is clear: With Pollard or without him, is Israel prepared to accept some kind of limitation on construction in Judea and Samaria; to stop the tenders and the public construction, but continue with private contractors at all the building sites, not only in the settlement blocs?
With or without this type of agreement, the issue of the fourth stage of the prisoner release remains. The release would include murderers who are Israeli Arabs. It’s a shame. Among bad options, it would have been better to break though “the Oslo barrier” — that is to say, to release murderers who served time after the Oslo Accords and only those who are not Israeli. There is a negative significance to the fact that the Palestinian Authority is turning into the legitimate representative of Israeli citizens.
At the end of the day, the intense pressure that reigned Tuesday night was an accumulation of tactics in brinkmanship. Abbas is doing this to improve his terms, but he knows he won’t get former Fatah Secretary-General Marwan Barghouti, even if he threatens a unilateral approach to the U.N.
It’s the same with Israeli politics. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained to Likud ministers what the scope of the possible agreement was. He will have a majority in the government. Habayit Hayehudi ministers will oppose. So will some Likud ministers, but will they remain in the coalition afterwards? Despite the partial settlement freeze? And despite the release of terrorists? They are also playing with brinkmanship.
Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon made a mistake and committed to resign if the release goes through, and he may be forced to stand by his words. The others, Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz, Deputy Foreign Minister Ze’ev Elkin, Deputy Minister Ofir Akunis and Deputy Transportation Minister Tzipi Hotovely, will find a reason to stay. Habayit Hayehudi will follow in their footsteps, but with one or two rebels along the way.
Dan Margalit usually talks nonsense. This gives me a chance to respond to some of his “points”in this and in other articles.
1. Israel should assume that anything which “binds the United States” will be used to induce Israel to give up something tangible and probably irreversible but will be disavowed and/or reneged on by the United States.
2. Whatever the Palestinians threaten to do they will eventually do. Whatever the Palestinians agree not to do they will eventually do. For example, Israel should prepare and document cases to bring Hamas and the Palestinian Authority before the ICC if there is recognition of the PA. Israel should immediately decentralize the housing construction and (as in United States) allow any settlement to determine its own standards and requirements and then allow them to issue building permits. The central government could then and should then claim that it has no no legal ability to control local construction . Currently, Israel’s constant announcement of “planned” construction units only runs Israel into international condemnation and results in no actual
additional construction.
3 Israel should announce acceptance of the Levy report as a governing legal document and also announces that it is not a directive for specific government policies since having the right to settlement(Levy report) does not preclude (and probably enhances) the ability of the Israeli government to bargain.
4. Israel should take unilateral actions such as annexing certain areas that by any agreement would remain part of Israel. Arab residents of those specific areas should be offered residency and a path to citizenship. That path would include the pledge of allegiance to the state of Israel and the requirement for military and/or public service
As impalatable as this may be, the deal could include Israeli-Arabs only if they renounce their citizenship. This would prevent them from returning to their home within Israeli borders, thus deny the hint of PA authority over Israelis and remove noxious elements from our society. With Pollard released, the nagging conundrum which has plagued us since the evil times of the Inquisition (ransoming a fellow Jew) will be postponed.I believe the line must be drawn at relinquishing any land.
the phoenix Said:
I dont think it is meant to be worth anything. the goal is to have them sitting down and negotiating for a period of time. the last period was 9 mos and was originally the schedule projected for Iran after dealing with Syria but that was killed by Benghazi revelations and the possibility that the US and saudi aided jihadis propagated the chem attacks. Now they want to extend it until after the elections. I believe that when abbas and BB agreed to sit down they both agreed on what they would have to do for each other to be able to sit for the period. It is the US and the GCC that want the Israel pal issue resolved or kept quiet so that the bigger issues can be dealt with more overtly.
Correct Direction of Israeli response:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/179176#.UzwSbld46So
@ Bear Klein:
This would take a byob party to a whole new level….
🙁
Abbas put his cards into international pressure on Israel. Basically he has figured Kerry will not get him what he wants. So to the UN affiliated agencies they applied today (2nd of April) and are asking his people to riot (e.g. non violent protest Palestinian style molotov cocktails and rocks are permitted).
Now Bibi is hoping that the Americans will blame Abbas for the talks demise. The PA is worried as they are saying Kerry we want your help in order not to make the US an enemy of them.
Bibi and company need to now pounce and create facts on the ground.
Step 1 build in E1!
English translation: it ain’t worth shit!!