By Ted Belman
DEBKA has a very informative and disturbing post this morning on the negotiations. I will intersperse my comments.
-
Breaking new diplomatic ground, Kerry is pressing the Israeli prime minister and Palestinian leader to submit in writing their views and reservations on the US positions he put before them in private, one-on-one conversations. He proposes to embody their comments in a non-binding paper to be the framework for further negotiations.
First of all, why isn’t it binding especially when everyone is not forthcoming with concessions. Or perhaps the idea is that nothing is agreed until everything is agree. If there is no agreement after 9 months why continue the negotiations. On the other hand, Israel would buy more time. Or Bibi believes there is a chance for a deal if he concedes some more.
Kerry actually said they could accept it “with reservations”. We’ve heard that one before.
-
That paper has two-against-one support in the top Israeli threesome: Netanyahu accepts it as a basis for negotiations, but wants changes with reference to Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and less clarity on the extent of swaps for the settlement blocs remaining on the West Bank in a Palestinian state as well as Jerusalem. These issues should be left vague, in the prime minister’s view.
Obviously Bibi and Liberman have accepted the idea that borders will be based on ’67 lines plus swaps. This restriction should be adamantly refused. Instead Bibi is accepting the notion of swaps which means he accepts the 67 lines as a starting point. I am against the ’67 lines as a starting point, but would entertain swaps as Liberman suggests. Swaps should also include populated Arab areas adjacent to the green line such as Qalquilya and Tulkkarn.
-
Lieberman, who morphed in recent months into Washington’s most ardent fan in the Israeli cabinet, urges full acceptance of the Kerry paper.
Ya’alon is the holdout. He advocates its rejection – ruling out in particular the security plan composed by US Gen. John Allen.
Kerry and his team have marked the defense minister, rather than Bennett, as the mainspring of Israeli resistance to his effort.
The critics of the handling of his mission are to be found in Washington as well as Jerusalem. Some circles, as high as the White House level, believe Kerry erred in places and left gaps that may be hard to bridge.
Perhaps Liberman is supportive because negotiations won’t succeed and there is no downside to his new persona. Yaalon, on the other hand, is appealing to the right and competing with Bennett. How could Lieberman call Kerry “a true friend of Israel’s” when he knows that Kerry wrote a letter in support of activists who intended to break the Gaza blockade?
Bennett is the main guy making land an issue and rejecting the ’67 lines.
-
His State Department team is faulted, for instance, for over-reliance on Mahmoud Abbas as the single negotiator for the Palestinians. Instead of building a broad popular foundation, they will be placing any future accord on an extremely narrow and flimsy base.
All three parties, Kerry, Israel and Abbas, are seen as missing a rare opportunity for addressing the Hamas rulers of the Gaza Strip at their lowest moment in a decade. Instead, Abbas has focused on the Palestinian refugee question. His latest demand is for each individual Palestinian refugee to be given the option of choosing where he wants to live after the conclusion of a peace accord with Israel. That was in fact the only core issue addressed last week.
That’s probably why Israel is talking to Dahlan hoping to see if he would be more forthcoming with concessions.
-
It would seem that it is up to three individuals to determine the outcome of the sensitive, brittle peace process which John Kerry set in motion nearly a year ago. But that would be an over-simplification. Netanyahu must win the approval of his government and people (he has promised a national referendum for this purpose); Abbas does not speak for the Palestinian majority; and the Secretary of State will have to take the deal back to Washington for President Obama’s approval, which is far from being in his pocket.
Bottom line for me is we possess the land. If the Arabs want all of it or too much of it, they will get none of it. I would give up 2/3 if we get to keep 1/3. For me the Sherman Plan will be too difficult to achieve and the Glick/Hotovely Plan is also fraught with uncertainly, namely we don’t know whether the Arab population in Israel after annexation will be problematic. My plan is in effect Bennett’s Plan with some variations.
Israel might be forced to yield land and security, but that will never lead to peace. Quite the contrary. All Moslems are commanded by their god and their prophet to make war on the Jews and to either subjugate them or kill them. That is why Moslems will never recognize Israel’s right to exist. No “negotiations” can ever change those Islamic religious commands.
Ted Belman Said:
Although I am for full annexation and transfer I doubt that Israel will go near that except in an all out war. Therefore, I tend to agree with this approach to annex all or most of C. as the Pals would not agree to it it would probably have to be done unilaterally, after the talks failure and the precipant cause claimed can be A) pals breach of Oslo if they make any unilateral moves, B)failure of talks and need for new paradigm. One principle I never hear claimed in negotiations is that even if the Jews narrative of historical and legal rights is not acceptable there is no reasonable basis to assume that the vacant land of area C belongs to the Pals rather than the Israelis. If one is negotiating the land as 2 equal disputing parties then the least is 50/50 split of the disputed land. If the land under dispute is A,B,C and east Jerusalem then A & B alone is probably 50%. If the disputed land is considered C only(on basis that pals occupy A & B and Israel occupies Jerusalem) then a split of C is the most Pals could expect.
The annexation of c and withdrawal from A & B makes C the only occupied territory left and this annexation would be justified without any Jewish legal historical claim on the basis of self determination for the area of C where there are more Jews than arabs. Under no yardstick do I see any valid basis for giving the pals area C. In annexing C areas A & B can still be surrounded and controlled and no arab immigration can occur.
This would satisfy those who do not want to rule the arabs and those who do not want to be burdenened by the arabs but do not want to transfer them.
@ Ted Belman:
It won’t take more than one on Gen Gurian to bring the economy to a halt. And then they’ll use up all our water with their influx of millions of displaced “Palestinians” and pollute our aquifers. We’ll be confirming to the world that we are occupiers in any and all of our lands and loose what shred of legitimacy we have left.
Why can’t we just blow the smoke away and tell the unvarnished truth. This our land. 78% of it was give to the Arabs by Churchill in exchange for oil rights. Those Arabs in our borders can stay as alien residents and look to that 78% of our land that was stolen from us for their political rights. What could be fairer?
End of a long, sordid and tragic story.
New Wave Poll: Kerry 61.0%:threatening Israel 20.9% concerned for Israel
Dr. Aaron Lerner – IMRA 7 February 2014
The survey of 500 Jewish Israeli Hebrew speaking adults was conducted by New
Wave for Yisrael Hayom 5 February 2014 and published on 7 February.
Statistical error +/- 4.4 percentage points.
In your opinion the recent remarks by Secretary of State John Kerry are:
Intended threaten Israel 61.0% Concern for Israel 20.9% Don’t know 18.1%
yamit82 Said:
No. I summarized my position in the post.
The only reason I say with variations is because I don’t know the details of his plan. But the principle I agree with is to draw a new border around the heavily populated Arab areas and annexing the rest. The same rules that apply to Area A now would continue to apply so that the Arabs would not be able to smuggle arms of refugees or terrorists in.
If 50,000 Jews remain in the area left for the Arabs I would do a population exchange with the Arabs inside the annexed areas.
I would then offer the Arabs in the part we annex, compensation to leave to anywhere but Area A or Gaza.
We can handle the rockets from Gaza, we will be able to handle the rockets from area A.
On my plan, if the Arabs emigrate then we can always repeat for Area A before annexing it too.
This my alternative to Hotevely and Sherman. Let us decide between the three of them based on the chances of success. Everyone agrees that none of them are problem free.
US: Liberman remarks reflect belief by many Israelis that 2-state solution is right (JP Staff)
The United States welcomed late Friday remarks made by Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman in defense of US Secretary of State John Kerry and his efforts for peace in the region.
On Friday, Liberman referred to Kerry as a “true friend of Israel,” following criticism from some Israeli officials over the top US diplomats regional diplomacy.
“We certainly welcomed his remarks and his sentiment and the importance of the peace process, and it’s a reflection of, of course, the belief of many people in Israel that a two-state solution is the right outcome at the end of this process,” US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in response to Liberman’s statements.
70% of Israelis don’t trust US on security, says poll
Seventy percent of Israeli Jews do not believe the US can be relied upon to maintain key Israeli interests and security requirements in the American- brokered agreement being drafted with the Palestinians, a Geocartography Institute poll taken this week found.
When the pollsters asked respondents whether they trusted the US under President Barack Obama to maintain Israel’s interests in a deal, 23% said definitely no, 25% said no, 22% said not completely, 17% said yes, 8% said definitely yes and 5% had no opinion.
Asked whether they agreed with recent criticism of US Secretary of State John Kerry by top Israeli officials, 67% said yes and only 32% said no.
But among the respondents who answered affirmatively, 13% said Israeli officials should be careful not to criticize the US publicly.
Sixty-seven percent said they agreed with the concerns about a potential boycott of Israel that Kerry raised. Only 17% said they were not concerned at all about such a boycott.
Geocartography Institute director Avi Degani, who took the poll, said middle-class Israelis were most concerned about a boycott.
The poll of 500 respondents representing a sample of the adult Jewish Israeli population has a 4.2% point margin of error.
How much West Bank land is Israel willing to relinquish to the Palestinians? (SPIT!!!) By HERB KEINON
Candidly speaking: Friends of Israel must speak up now
By ISI LEIBLER
Just say NO!!!! Isi,… Just NO!!!! 😉
Re: Lieberman: His Russian Base has evaporated, they do not need a political Patron any longer and have mostly assimilated where their political views resemble most mainstream Israelis. Bennett stole the political right position from under him and the Likud does not want him back at this time. BB does but only if it strengthens BB. With Liebermans low political standing he can’t add much to BB except a few mandates which may be better than nothing. Lieberman will support BB because he has to and it puts him in the good graces of Washington that blackballed him in his 1st 5 years as FM.
With Lieberman’s positions he will be rejected by nearly 100% of the ideological Likud Sephardi voters and those who support the settlements.
As of now he has no political future no less achieving ambitions of succeeding BB in or out of the Likud. Likud and right wing hopes now seem to be drifting towards Ya’alon and he is making the right noises.
If Ya’alon does not jump on BB’s and Lieberman’s diplomatic bandwagon, BB can’t agree to any deal or format agreement. He can’t fire him either for political reasons at home and in his own party.
I wonder he cut a deal to get off from being both indicted and convicted in his recent trials?
TED: There is a Hebrew saying that “he has learned nothing and forgot nothing” It would seem to fit your position stated above.
Liberman: I’m willing to be Evicted – for Peace Liberman:
Foreign Minister said that there is ‘a huge and substantial difference’ between his views and Bennett’s
Liberman: I want a Palestinian deal, but not at any price
Foreign minister bashed by Jewish Home as ‘left of Livni,’ but insists, ‘I’m being realistic and pragmatic, as I am on every issue’
Bayit Yehudi attacks Liberman for ‘veering to left of Livni’
“Liberman is afraid of Bennett after seeing drop in poll numbers among right-wing voters,” a Bayit Yehudi source told Army Radio.
Foreign Minister said that there is ‘a huge and substantial difference’ between his views and Bennett’s
Seems Ted philosophically is closer to Liberman than to Bennett? Am I correct?
There is a Hebrew saying that he has learned nothing and forgot nothing” It would seem to fit your position stated above.