By Ted Belman
First of all the Obama principles endorse the Saudi Plan which requires Israel to withdraw from 100% of the land. Thus Obama calls for negotiaions based on the ’67 lines with swaps just as SA did. Israel has already withdrawn from 90% of the land. That’s enough to satisfy Res 242.Secondly There is no mention in the Oslo Accords of a two state solution. That must be negotiated. The Likud rejected the two-state plan all along until Netanyahu gave his Bar Ilan speech. But a careful reading of that speech reveals he was only offering autonomy and certainly not up to the ’67 lines.
Now Cotler makes the point that Obama supports negotiations. He does so only after Netanyahu concedes on two crucial issues, namely two states and 100% withdrawal. In effect he is trying to gut negotiations down to details and not fundamental issues.
For those of us who believe the land belongs to us, Obama offers nothing and Cotler betrays us.
Barry Rubin entered the fray with An Obama peace plan? and makes some telling points but unfortunately doesn’t reject a two state solution based on ’67 lines.
The problem of Israel returning to the 1967 borders has been widely discussed. But, Obama’s defenders say the statement provides for “mutually agreed swaps,” so what’s wrong with that? Other than the problem that the Palestinian Authority would continue to reject any exchanges, as it did in 2000, international and US pressure would be on Israel to accept ever-smaller “swaps” to get an agreement until, “for the sake of achieving peace,” it would disappear altogether.
But that passage is not the big problem. This one is: “The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, nonmilitarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.”
AT least Rubin has no confidence in the peace process.
Obama, Netanyahu and the peace process
By IRWIN COTLER, JPOST
Netanyahu should call for direct negotiations with Abbas based on Obama’s eight principles as endorsed in the G8 communiqué.
The announcement by the Palestinian Authority that it has resolved to seek UN recognition of statehood – the alleged contretemps between US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu – and the reported demand by the UK, France and Germany for Obama to present a peace plan, organized around his principles, to the meeting of the Quartet on July 11 pose a challenge, but more of an opportunity, for Netanyahu.
Simply put, the prime minister should call for direct negotiations with PA President Mahmoud Abbas based on the Obama principles as set forth in his speeches of May 19 and 22 respectively, and as endorsed by the G8 communiqué.
Admittedly it might seem counterintuitive – if not questionable – to recommend that Netanyahu undertake this initiative. A majority of Israelis – and an increasing number of American Jews – regard Obama as naïve, if not insensitive, to the Israeli case and cause. Moreover, Israelis, as the polls demonstrate, largely supported Netanyahu in his public exchanges with Obama, and have become increasingly skeptical, if not distrustful, of Abbas, particularly regarding his reconciliation agreement with Hamas, his UN gambit and his unwillingness to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
But a careful reading of the Obama speeches reveals the following foundational principles, which actually align themselves with Netanyahu’s views and effectively frame the context and content of prospective negotiations.
First, “that the ultimate goal is two states for two peoples,” with Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people. This foundational principle makes express reference to the importance of the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and homeland.
Second, it is clear, as Obama put it, “that the recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace. No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to destroy it.”
Third, Obama reaffirmed the “unbreakable” bond between the US and Israel, the “ironclad” commitment to Israel’s security. In particular, he recognized that “every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat,” thus requiring that the proposed Palestinian state be demilitarized, and conditioning Israeli withdrawal from any post-1967 territory on the demonstrated effectiveness of security arrangements.
Fourth, the president made it clear that the reference to the 1967 borders – in both his State Department and AIPAC speeches – did not indicate that Israel should return to the 1967 lines. On the contrary, after saying that the “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps should be the basis of negotiation,” he added, “It means that the parties themselves, Israelis and Palestinians, will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967.”
This was the reason Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper felt it was important to reject the inclusion in the G8 communiqué of Obama’s alleged reference to the 1967 borders, because in fact, Obama had not made such a requirement; and more importantly, it was only one of a number of important principles and policies shared by the US, Israel, Canada and other members of the international community.
Fifth, Obama reaffirmed that “peace cannot be imposed on the parties to the conflict”; that “no vote at the United Nations will ever create an independent Palestinian state”; and that the US was opposed to the Palestinians bypassing negotiations with Israel and seeking a unilateral declaration of statehood in the pre-1967 lines at the UN. It should be noted that only the UN Security Council can confer such recognition – a General Assembly Resolution is only a recommendation – and the US has undertaken not to support such a resolution at either the General Assembly or the Security Council.
Sixth, Obama reaffirmed his steadfast opposition to any attempt to delegitimize the State of Israel, stating that “Israel’s existence must not be a subject for debate” and “efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy will only be met by the unshakable opposition of the United States.”
Seventh, he stressed the dangers posed by a nuclear, genocide-inciting, terrorist-supporting and rights-violating Iran: “When I walked among the Hall of Names at Yad Vashem, I was reminded of the existential fear of Israelis when a modern dictator seeks nuclear weapons and threatens to wipe Israel off the map – the face of the earth,” and the importance of combating the terrorism of its proxies, like Hezbollah, “who exercise political assassination and seek to impose their will through rockets and car bombs.”
Finally, even on matters Obama has been criticized for relegating to the final status talks – Jerusalem and the Palestinian right of return – he did in fact express himself.
While stating that Jerusalem was a matter to be negotiated between the parties and to be left to final-status talks, Obama recognized the historical relationship between the Jewish people and the Old City of Jerusalem, and said, “When I touched my hand against the Western Wall and placed my prayer between its ancient stones, I thought of all the centuries that the children of Israel had longed to return to their ancient homeland.”
In addition, his reference to the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland of the Jewish people effectively precluded any Palestinian return to it.
Although an express reference to that effect would have been desirable, the clear inference is that the Palestinian refugee question must be solved in Palestine, just as the question of the Jewish refugees from Arab countries was resolved in Israel.
IF NETANYAHU calls for direct talks based on Obama’s principles, it will effectively say to Abbas, “We agree and have agreed to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state for the Palestinian people. Are you prepared to recognize a Jewish state for the Jewish people?” As Netanyahu said in his speech to Congress, Abbas should stand before his people and utter the six words that could change history: “I will accept a Jewish state.”
Netanyahu has already affirmed his acceptance of Palestinian statehood before the Israeli people, and that is what Abbas should now do in recognizing a Jewish State before the Palestinian people.
The writer is a Canadian member of Parliament and a former minister of justice and attorney-general.
Like wow! Bibi has granted us his permission to build in Jerusalem.
The Jewish people are humbled and ever so grateful to our Fearless Leader.
/sarc
I would far rather trust someone who gives straight answers and who, if you disagree you can oppose, than someone evasive who is planning to sneak up behind you with a hammer.
Bibi HAS stood up to Obama, while not sticking a finger in his eye which could jeopardize any number of defense arrangements. And he was smart enough to develop a counterweight with Congress. And I see there’s more building approved for Har Homa.
As far as his game plan, he can’t tell you without telling the Palestinians.
Its not a matter of being smart or honest or being in possession of all the facts. It’s about being goal-oriented to the right goal. If his goal is “peace” or even a “peace agreement” Then we are doomed. If on the other hand his goal is to keep most of Judea and Samaria, then we have a fighting chance.
We have yet to learn what Bibi’s goal is. But we do have Wye to go by.
I remember when the US and the USSR were getting ready to negotiate something very big like disarmament or something, there was a big debate in the US as to who to appoint as the chief negotiator. The discussion centred around Nye and people were discussing his track record as a negotiator. If the negotiator is trying to reach a settlement then he was not the man for the job. Only if the negotiator was determined to get a certain result even at the expense of blowing a deal, that’s the man you want. Like Arafat or Abbas or even Readan at Reckovec ( srry about the spelling). No compromise there. That’s what Israel needs.
I disagree. Don’t think he is either smart or honest and what makes you believe he is in possession of ALL the facts?
This isn’t our main complaint or most pressing political problem. So far like in other countries our politicians haven’t resorted to throwing punches and furniture. Except for one deserving PM we are quite tame as democracies go.
I disagree with you; we are not yet an open dictatorship and are supposed to be a participatory democracy where the citizens have a right to participate and to criticize the bums that act as our representatives. We Jews here tend to openly speak our minds whether asked or not, listened to or not. Everybody here thinks they could do a better job the the sitting PM and in most cases they are right based empirically.
In Israel the decisions of our PM can mean life and death to many if not most of us. We all have a very keen vested interest in what they do and how they do it. it’s seldom benign or mundane here.
When repeated attempts at civil discourse fail, targeted filters seem appropriate. Others who don’t care for my posts are invited to do the same.
So what?
I don’t require your permission. Be careful I might huff and puff and bloviate: Anything standing in my way will be blown to hades. I take no prisoners, I shoot them first.
Unlike you I never state anything here that I can’t defend. The accuracy of anything I opine is up to others to refute. Questioning the accuracy of my statements without refutation is the same a conceding my accuracy.
We all judge others mostly based on their opinions in general and especially when they offer opinions on themselves. Can you separate anothers opinions from what you think of them personally? That’s what I think.
I will if I choose to do so, in your case I do so choose. It’s not an attack against you it’s stating what I believe and it’s my right to do so. This is a political give and take forum. I have been pilloried here more times than I can count but I’m comfortable in my own skin and can take it as well as give it. This seems to be a problem for you.
It’s not arrogance it is confidence in the veracity and truth of my convictions and opinions based as much as possible on what I believe I can substantiate and then defend. I love it when I am shown to be wrong.
I thought I had in comment # 7 and it was not bloviating. My comment was short and to the point.
You have a right to your opinions and a right to state them but When all ideas and or opinions are equal , no ideas are then “significantly” better than others. You know this isn’t so.
Sorry on this political forum, those whom one states they like agree with and TRUST goes to the heart of who is the one who trusts.
Tell anyone on this forum that you like support or Trust Barak Husseim Obama and I guarantee the reaction of others will make my meek comments seem quite rational and tame. In any case you waved the RED CAPE in mentioning those names, they are neither liked nor respected I think by most of us on Israpundit..
BTW, if anyone here bloviates it’s you. Want to take a poll of Israpudits readers?
Yamit, I do not agree with you. Like any free man, you have the right to bloviate all you want, but that neither makes it accurate nor requires refutation. Opinions are like busses: if you don’t agree with one there’ll be another along any minute.
Perhaps you should stop judging others and just say what you think. Saying you don’t trust a particular politician, for example, is fine without arrogating to yourself the awarding of scores to others here, or speaking in absolutes. That kind of arrogance discredits your views; far better to present what you think about the message, not the messenger. Each person’s opinions are valid as that person’s opinions; instead of trying to discredit the person, address the substance or ignore it. That you don’t like something or agree with something means you don’t like something or agree with something. Leave it at that without having to “win” in front of some imaginary judge.
In any case, your response seems to me to be irrational –>because<– I indicated who I would trust. You don't have to agree, but all the scoring in the world is irrelevant to whom I trust.
Snake alert
David Sternlight says:
July 6, 2011 at 4:18 am
Based on direct personal experience there are two Israeli politicians in recent history that I trust: Rabin and Netanyahu. Both have given me straight answers to straight questions.
I do not trust Peres. I found him to be evasive and slippery.
One out of three correct is not bad for baseball batting averages but in political leaders it’s suicidal. I would invoke din rodef and din moser for the lot of them. Call it: Pikuach nefesh. The collective trumps an individual.
Based on direct personal experience there are two Israeli politicians in recent history that I trust: Rabin and Netanyahu. Both have given me straight answers to straight questions.
I do not trust Peres. I found him to be evasive and slippery.
1. My experience is that Netanyahu is both smart and honest. He, unlike some here, is in possession of all the facts.
2. Israeli politics is among the most vicious that I have observed, with all sorts of name calling and character assassination.
3. Some Israeli politicians, like some of our own, are crooks. That is for the legal system, not those with a large opinion and little responsibility.
Either some of the anti-Netanyahu comments are based on secret memoranda only leaked to the chosen few, or else these critics have not been paying attention:
1. His public disagreement with Obama was surely not a preamble to a surrender.
2. His appearance before Congress only made Israel’s case much more stronger.
3. The cobbling together of European opposition to Israkilla to Gaza is an accomplishment without parallel, and
4. Netanyahu’s popularity with the Israeli public is on the rise, thus negating some of the above opinions about Likud’s need (or risk) to build coalitions with parties to the Left.
Therefore, Netanyahu’s stewardship of israel has been on balance a success.
May it go from strength to strength.
If that’s his explanation for Ross’s telling Pres. Bill Clinton that Pollard should probably be released but advising him, nonetheless, to hold him as a bargaining chip for an opportune moment [or words to that effect, as I recall, in Ross’s book, The Missing Peace] — then, with all due respect, I’d have to suggest that your Rabbi could do with spending a little time in federal prison to appreciate what he condones.
It’s clear that, at the very least, Ross has lost sight of why he went into the diplo service in the first place. Pollard’s condition has continued to deteriorate for another dozen years (or more) since those words were written. How much more of the man’s existence has to be shredded before Ross’s precious ‘posture’ will be satisfied?
Sumgai says
” ‘Nyah, nyah’, he explained.”
Please, let’s move on.
I didn’t. I just forgot his name.