This dialogue and the language Bibi uses in talking of negotiations, and the freeze and other concessions Bibi has agreed to, have convinced me that he is ready to start negotiations on Palestinian terms and to make an Olmert-like offer. Ted Belman
More than two years ago, the Times of Israel reports here for the first time, top PLO official Yasser Abed Rabbo held a series of meetings with the PM’s peace envoy, Yitzhak Molcho, and ultimately met at length with Netanyahu himself, to discuss new negotiations. The prime minister seemed ready to restart talks on the basis of pre-1967 lines, but then discontinued the contacts
RAMALLAH — Israel and the Palestinian Authority tried to conduct backchannel negotiations, or at least initiate them, in late 2010 and early 2011 in a series of secret meetings between the prime minister’s envoy, attorney Yitzhak Molcho, and the head of PLO Executive Committee, Yasser Abed Rabbo. Abed Rabbo revealed these contacts in an interview with this correspondent here last week.
According to Abed Rabbo, during the conversations, which culminated in a meeting between him and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at Molcho’s house in central Israel, Netanyahu seemed ready to renew negotiations within the framework of two states based on the June 4, 1967, lines. But the prime minister subsequently backed away from the contacts and the channel was discontinued.
Abed Rabbo said he and Netanyahu met for two-and-a-half hours in mid-February 2011, and mentioned — but did not negotiate over — various final status issues, including borders, Jerusalem and refugees. There had been no further contact since that meeting, Abed Rabbo said.
“The meeting with the prime minister occurred in mid-February, I think on the 15th,” Abed Rabbo recounted, beginning a detailed account of the contacts. “It was held in Molcho’s house in Caesarea. There were only four people present: Bibi, me, Molcho, and his wife. However, there were a series of meetings beforehand — I’d say 10 — between me and an envoy for the prime minister. The meetings were held in Jerusalem, again in Molcho’s house there.
We discussed all the issues. But I sat and demanded in those meetings that Israel present its map for a two-state solution concept, and publicly declare its willingness to speak about the 1967 lines as the framework for the meetings. Molcho was not prepared to present a map and the meetings were truly exhausting, a lot of chatter without agreements. They were kept secret until now, actually. The only ones who knew about them on the Palestinian side were Abu Mazen (the chairman of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas) and Salam Fayyad (the Palestinian prime minister). (Saeb) Erekat (the head of the Palestinian negotiating team) was not in the know.
“Instead of a map,” Abed Rabbo went on, “Molcho was willing to include a military official in the meetings, a map expert who would present Israel’s security demands to me. Molcho emphasized in the meetings the importance of the Jordan Valley, settlement blocs, and early-warning stations on West Bank mountains. I ruled this option out. He claimed that he wanted to show me these considerations on a map, but I told him that Israel’s security concerns are not a starting point — it’s a non-starter and under the pretense of ‘security,’ you can claim anything. I made it clear that, first of all, we need to agree to speak about 1967 lines, and then start debating security issues, or even both in parallel.
“These meetings were not documented. At a certain point I said to Molcho that if they agree to the 1967 framework, we can talk about limited land swaps and security arrangements. From our standpoint, it was possible to discuss borders and security issues, but it cannot be that ‘security considerations’ would determine the borders. In the background, the Arab Spring began to gain momentum, and we also spoke about it quite a bit. In one of the last meetings, Molcho said to me, ‘I can’t give you an answer on the approach you presented (first recognition of the framework, then discussions of security considerations). My understanding and my job end here. I will propose to the prime minister that you meet, and if you manage to reach an understanding, then that is something else entirely. Only the prime minister can take it from here.’
“And the meeting with Bibi did indeed take place. It stretched on for about two and a half hours. He began speaking, and unfortunately, from the outset I feared he was trying to bullshit me. This was classic Netanyahu. He spoke about 3,000 years of Jewish history, about his father and what he saw with his own eyes. When he finished his preface, I turned to him and said, ‘Let me tell you something — we don’t trust you and we don’t believe you. This is the general feeling among Palestinians and this is my feeling also.’
‘Netanyahu spoke about how vital the Jordan Valley was for Israeli security, and noted the possibility that Iranian tanks could cross the Jordan’
“I said to him that speaking about 3,000 years of Jewish history will not get us anywhere. I care about what is now and what was 60 years ago. My memories and my family, they’re from Jaffa, where I was born. ‘Do you want us to start to speak about that?’ I asked, ‘Let’s leave it and move forward.’
“Netanyahu literally jumped up. ‘You were born in Jaffa?’ he asked. And he looked at me and said, “I promise you that after all this is over, I’ll allow you to return to live in Jaffa.’
“I smiled. I told him I’m not asking for a house for myself in Jaffa but for a homeland — a homeland for my people. And Bibi became serious again. He spoke about how vital the Jordan Valley was for Israeli security, and noted the possibility that Iranian tanks could cross the Jordan. I told him that I have a solution for this. I am always cynical — even my wife gets upset with me when I’m too cynical — but I couldn’t help but respond in this manner. ‘You know that the Jordan Valley and the river aren’t barriers to Iranian armored columns, and the only thing that can protect us from an Iranian invasion is the Jordanian mountains east of the river. That’s the only line of defense. So let’s conquer Jordan together and we’ll build a defensive line there.’
‘I told Netanyahu that Arafat already told president Bill Clinton at Camp David that his ultimate preference was to solve the refugee problem in Lebanon. Netanyahu didn’t rule anything out. He mostly listened. He asked me about the idea of a joint committee to manage issues related to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem — as Olmert had suggested’
“He said to me, ‘I’m not joking.’ And I explained that this won’t get us anywhere. In the meeting he didn’t mention the ‘Israel as the Jewish national state’ issue. I said to him that I was in the secret talks with [prime minister Ehud] Olmert and he showed us the map. ‘We were ready for land swaps of 1.9 percent and Olmert demanded 6.4%. That’s what we arrived at. We can start the conversations from here.’ I told Bibi that in the final meeting with Olmert in his office in Jerusalem, he said to us explicitly, ‘I’ll leave the negotiations file to my successor.’ And he told us that the one who would inherit it would be Bibi. He explained that he likes Tzipi Livni and she’s very nice but she won’t succeed in becoming prime minister. ‘I’ll leave it for Bibi,’ Olmert said.
“Bibi jumped up again and said, “I never saw any file.’ I said that we have something in common: ‘Our files also went missing.’ He laughed. I spoke to him about Jerusalem and about the refugees. I told him that Arafat already told [president] Bill Clinton at Camp David that his ultimate preference was to solve the refugee problem in Lebanon. Netanyahu didn’t rule anything out. He mostly listened. He asked me about the idea of a joint committee to manage issues related to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem — as Olmert had suggested — and I laughed and said that I see it looks like they did leave him a file, and he laughed. I told him it’s a good idea to discuss it. In the end I said to him, ‘If you want to start something serious, if you agree to the 1967 borders as a basis, including Jerusalem, then we can talk about the other things.’
‘Netanyahu said to me, “Give me two days and I’ll get back to you.” We said goodbye. He asked me to send his regards to Abu Mazen. And from that point on, I didn’t hear from him’
“He asked if we were ready to start negotiations immediately. I said yes. He asked who would be in the Palestinian delegation for the negotiations, and I told him that if he agrees to the principle I presented him, I would need a five-minute telephone call and I would return to him with the names.
“He turned to Molcho and said to him, ‘You lead the Israeli delegation, along with two others — you know who.’ He asked me if these were all our demands and I said yes. He agreed that we needed a convenient place to speak, a secluded place where talks would be conducted that could last between two weeks and two months. He asked me to prepare the Palestinian delegation and I asked him if he agreed with what I had proposed. He said to me, ‘Give me two days and I’ll get back to you.’ We said goodbye. He asked me to send his regards to Abu Mazen. And from that point on, I didn’t hear from Bibi or Molcho. A year later, I relayed him a message through a third party that I’ve been sitting waiting by the phone for a year, but Netanyahu did not respond.”
The channel between Abed Rabbo and Netanyahu has not been revealed until now. Direct conversations between Abbas and the prime minister in September 2010 preceded it, but ended without any results after Israel refused to extend the freeze on settlement building. Another round of conversations between Molcho, former Netanyahu aide Yoaz Hendel, and Saeb Erekat began in January 2012 and lasted for 20 days, this time in Amman. This too did not create a breakthrough that would lead to the renewal of direct negotiations between the two leaders.
In another week, US Secretary of State John Kerry is supposed to land in Israel, as part of his efforts to renew the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
The Prime Minister’s Office refused to comment on the contents of this report.
Netanyhu can’t be trusted to protect Israel. He supports a two state solution which means he will give away more Jewish in Yehuda and Shomron and will divide Jerusalem. His promises mean nothing since he speaks with a forked tongue. He is truly the heir of Shimon Peres.
What then if the king of Jordan falls (killed or escapes)? He will not live for ever!
Some still wish to concede J & S or part of it?
@ CuriousAmerican:
The peace process must put even die-hard atheists to shame. Nothing short of a miracle explains that every time Israel is ready to cede Judea and Jerusalem, the Palestinians preclude the Jewish defeat.
Cleansing the land G-d gave us is a major commandment. It is arguably the major political commandment. Jews must drive away the inhabitants of the land. There can be no coexistence. Amalekites, Canaanites, or Palestinians would never be loyal citizens of a Jewish state.
Every nation that ever sought statehood exterminated or expelled the aborigines first. No country at war, or whose identity is threatened, offers equal rights to all. In 1939, the British banned land sales to Jews who legally resided in Palestine; why cannot Israeli Jews ban land sales to Arabs or ban Arabs outright?
Jewish values are not humanism, intellectual openness, caring for others, or democracy. Actually, none of those ideals are Jewish. Jewishness is not ethnicity—everyone can become a Jew. Jewishness equals Judaism. Power is a Jewish value. Israeli youth are proud of their army experience, proud to be strong. The typical humble Jew of the exile is not a real Jew. When Israel offered us an opportunity to be strong, we became strong and proud of it.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Actually the JP figure is very low, replacement homes in Israel proper will cost much more to replace. Sudden increase demand will also raise the real estate prices across the board. America and the EU control the Printing presses they already have such huge deficits what’s a few hundred billion more or less spread out over a number of years? Even the Gulf states and the Saudis might chip in?
CuriousAmerican Said:
Better Jewish Blood than Jewish money. Arab blood I don’t care about: “For I have satiated the weary soul, and every pining soul have I replenished.”
CuriousAmerican Said:
they already have 2 states on an overwhelming portion of the former palestine mandate territory: jordan and gaza. That is more than deserved as the entire territory was for jewish settlement originally with the arabs getting the syrian and iraqi mandates. I guess there is no end to the process of swindling the jews. I have a strong suspicion that the problem will be resolved in war.
CuriousAmerican Said:
It’s time all the players who cause and maintain the problem, and swindle, pay their money and their blood. Methods must be sought to allow this to take place. You know who they are.
For now, why doesn’t Israel just say to the world – deal with Iran — we cannot deal with the Palis while we have this greater existential threat.
Yamit, this is all sheepdip speculation from you. You do not want them to have a state at all.
According to Jpost, it would cost 250 Billion NIS to remove even the small settler outposts. That is $70 Billion US.
For that amount of money, you could give 700,000 young Arabs in the contested areas, $100,000 each. If you also gave them immigration papers for South America. They would leave. The population in the contested areas would be halved. Then you could safely annex the area.
That would be the better approach.
I have crunched the numbers.
Cut a deal with South America to take in Arabs with money.
You are going to pay in money or Jewish blood. I know you do not care about Arab blood.
@ yamit82: further to my last post to you: it strikes me that if things were to proceed to a jordan pal confed and an overall agreement it would happen over a period of time with an interim scenario of small changes on the ground and include the option of abandoning the process along the way if there are problems. I see refugee return, formal gaza west bank link exiting the picture with the Egypt/gaza link and the Jordan/pal link. a jordan pal confed would allow more territory to Israel from area c by leaving area c to negotiation and no longer having a need for a “viable” pal state border. This is dangerous if it allows any jordanina sovereignty over west bank land. However, if the pals again get jordanian citizenship and are allowed to emigrate to jordan it could have advantages for a future annexation.
yamit82 Said:
Perhaps the mooted Jordan Pal confed is a way to accomplish the demilitarization without the pals losing face over having no army, Israel remaining in Jordan valley with possibility of Jordan becoming responsible as Egypt is responsible for Gaza/Egypt border. My understanding is that a confed would resolve many security issues within the existing Jordan Israel treaty with Jordan negotiating with Israel instead of pals. Right now Jordan has certain authority over temple mount without owning the land or having sovereignty. perhaps some arrangement in a confed is being considered. I think that the GCC and Jordan want to simmer down the pals and exit the use of the anti Israel card because Iran and arab springs are ore threatening to them and the anti Israel card has been used against the GCC by Iran.
I know you think I am nuts on these ideas but events seem to be corroborating it.
(hamas/Qatar/Egypt cease-fire; Egypt destroying hamas tunnels;Qatar request of Israel to invest in gaza;faux pal state followed by confed talk recalling state preceding confed;Abdullah and qatar “state” visits to PA following “state”; GCC sunni war against Iran(Syria, lebanon,hezbullah); Turkey/Kurd cease fire; New GCC peace offer announced; etc etc etc)
this is an interesting pal proposal clothed in a joke.
In addition to my last post: It appears that the GCC jihad has favored Israel in terms of reducing the extent of blowback from any Iran venture. If this is intentional, which I believe it is, then the question becomes: what is Israel’s payment for this scenario? Possible answer: Israel will be militarily involved in the grand Iran plan and/or Israel will make concessions in Pal talks. It is possible that Israels concessions may be meant to give support to the GCC supporting a grand peace deal which Israel deems acceptable.
this must be repudiated. An adult can say that a deal is not possible. Jews want a deal so much that they will give away everything. the arabs are smarter, they have nothing and they ask for everything.
I feel it is important to state that all former paradigms are in question and that time is needed and facts on the ground demonstrated as a pre condition for any talks. The raising of pal children to kill jews must prevent any talks. The celebration of those who bombed Jewish children must prevent negotiations. It is obvious that it is absurd to embark on negotiations with those who prevent your worship and want to murder your children. The simple fact of preventing Jewish worship should make any negotiations absurd. Engaging in these behaviors cannot be trusted in any agreement,. They have negotiated in bad faith and their entire culture of slaughter cannot be a foundation for negotiations.
Funny, this was exactly my thoughts about them.
The desire for a deal is clouding minds. In such situations one should back away and reevaluate. Perhaps a real deal is impossible at this time. Perhaps if they are not willing to live with the status quo for a while it must then be acknowledged that there will be another war. Israel should plan for a final solution predicated on war and make sure that it realizes all its interests as a result of such a war. It is more logical under the current scenario to predict war rather than “peace”.
This gives hope.
This does not.
It is obvious that the US is extorting something from BB be it Iran or personal blackmail. I will say that they are extracting negotiation concessions based on an Iran agenda where the US “handles” the issue or supports Israels handling. I think the US approach is to destabilize Iran internally and extract cosmetic concessions if the destabilization fails. Ithink the saudi/Qatari/Jihad in Syria is part of this plan. I think the real issue will be how much will the GCC make the Pals give up in order to make the grand Iran plan work.
Yamit,
I don’t believe the Arabs would accept demilitarization as anything other than an interim confidence building measure. And limiting their military capability would be as useful in securing a peace agreement as the Treaty Of Versailles was with Germany. Either Israel accepts an armed Arab state or Israel forgets about a peace agreement. Jews cannot have it both ways with the Arabs.
And now you know why I am against the creation of an Arab state out of principle. The bell of national sovereignty cannot be unrung later. Its best to prevent it in the first place.
“The ‘Jewish state.’ What is a ‘Jewish state?’ We call it, the ‘State of Israel’. You can call yourselves whatever you want. But I will not accept it. And I say this on a live broadcast… It’s not my job to define it, to provide a definition for the state and what it contains. You can call yourselves the Zionist Republic, the Hebrew, the National, the Socialist [Republic] call it whatever you like. I don’t care.”
— Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas
Israel has always regarded the creation of a Palestinian state as a threat to its security. This remains true today, but most Israelis believe the best chance for coexistence with the Palestinians is to negotiate an agreement whereby a demilitarized state is created in the Gaza Strip and most of the West Bank.
Given the damage and terror caused by the rockets Palestinians are firing from Gaza, it should not be surprising that Israelis worry about the possibility of a Palestinian military force with missiles, artillery, tanks, warships or fighter planes. Long before the two-state solution became popular, discussions about the creation of a Palestinian state envisioned that it would be demilitarized to minimize the risk of an Israeli withdrawal.
Jordan is equally concerned that a Palestinian army that could turn in its direction.
Following the Annapolis conference, Palestinian officials denounced the idea that their future state should have any limits placed on it. “The Palestinian Authority rejects talk about a demilitarized Palestinian state,”
While the focus of the negotiations, and media coverage of them, has been on the familiar issues of settlements, refugees and Jerusalem, it is the issue of whether the Palestinian state will be permitted to create an army that could threaten its neighbors that may yet turn into the major obstacle to an agreement.
Yitzhak Rabin