Ah that I were a mind
reader. But, alas, I am not. So I garner as much information as I
can, and rely on my analysis and my intuition. Sometimes that's not
enough.
Last time I wrote, I alluded
to a statement by Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz (Likud), who
had criticized Peres' eagerness for that "two state solution"
and his fawning over Abbas. Peres doesn't speak for the government,
he said, and, "every declaration of this sort, certainly on the eve
of negotiations, does not help Israel's
stance."
I caught that "on the eve of
negotiations," and pointed it out with some unease, but with no certainty
about what he was saying.
~~~~~~~~~~
Yesterday, Steinitz had
something else to say. "The government’s position is very clear, and I
support it: We do support two states for two peoples..." he told
Times of Israel."
Oh, I see.
He even added that, “We are ready
to make painful concessions on two conditions: that there will be peace and
security." That's in spite of the fact, which he conceded, that there are
many members of the coalition who are solidly opposed to a "two state
solution."
~~~~~~~~~~
There are those who will see this
as a caving of the Netanyahu government -- a sign of some dangerous things to
come. And perhaps they are right.
But I am seeing it differently,
and far more tentatively.
First -- and this is purely my own
speculation -- I can see Netanyahu having told Steinitz that, after saying
that Peres didn't speak for the government, he would have to make a
statement that was on behalf of the government. After all,
Peres was in there, tight with Kerry, and embracing Abbas -- which made the
US and the international community more broadly very happy. It
wouldn't pay to be too negative and let the world think that Israel was not on
board.
So, Steinitz made his statement,
which made headlines.
~~~~~~~~~~
Is Steinitz really ready to see us
make "painful concessions" for the right deal? Does this genuinely
represent what Netanyahu wants to see? That's what I don't
know.
But I would like to share
Steinitz's full statement, which sheds more than a little light on his
position:
"Genuine peace would entail a
'real recognition' of Israel as a Jewish state and the end of all claims and
incitement against Israel...Israel’s security requirements include a 'total
demilitarization' of a future Palestinian state. Jerusalem would have the right
to supervise and control that arrangement in order to be able to prevent arms
smuggling or 'any other negative security developments in the West
Bank.'"
Well...
I don't know how we define "real"
recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, as versus "fake" recognition, but it's
moot, for Abbas won't recognize Israel as the Jewish state in any terms.
End of claims is standard as a
criterion for the peace agreement. But the end of all
incitement? I believe this is a new stipulation. We're talking about
a PA that still teaches its students about jihad and honors terrorists (who, not
incidentally, would love to see Israel leave Judea and Samaria so that they
might operate more freely).
As to "total demilitarization"
(which is not possible, really) we all know that the PLO is not going to go
for this. And then with the further stipulation (which I believe
is also new) that the Israeli government supervise and control the
arrangements to prevent "negative security developments." In
Steinitz's dreams, maybe. Nowhere else. Were Israel to "supervise
and control," the PLO would not have a sovereign state.
So, he says he's
for a state for the Palestinian Arabs -- he's "on board." But then insists
upon parameters that he knows full well would NEVER be accepted.
This might be called game-playing,
and in a way it is. But I think it's more. I think he's saying that
in an ideal world he would be for two states, and he doesn't want to appear
negative in this regard. But because he doesn't trust these guys as far as he
can throw them, the stipulations he outlines are essential for Israel's
security.
My gut tells me that this is
probably Netanyahu's real position.
It's a far cry from Peres'
nauseating "you are our partner and we are yours. You share our hopes and
efforts for peace."
~~~~~~~~~~
I must comment here on a statement
made by head of the Israeli negotiating team Tzipi Livni -- who met with
Kerry in Amman earlier this week.
She wants the international
community and the Europeans in particular, to pressure Abbas to come to the
table.
"It's the only way to have
negotiations," she declared at a conference sponsored by The Israel
Project. "[Abbas] needs to
know that the Europeans, and the world, they want him to sit in the negotiating
room."
Is Livni so obtuse that she
doesn't realize that if Abbas must be forced to "sit in the negotiating room" it
means he doesn't want to be there, and thus, will never constructively and
sincerely negotiate "peace"?
It certainly appears
that "negotiations" have become an end in themselves.
~~~~~~~~~~
Rumors about a proposal for
negotiations to be advanced by Kerry abound. And I will pass over much of
what is being said because it is without verification or
documentation. The PLO's Saeb Erekat declared recently that Kerry was
about to announce a "plan." Maybe. But that's Erekat talking and not a
spokesperson for the US State Department.
David Ignatius of the
Washington Post says that Kerry is "seeking agreement on basic
parameters - the borders for a Palestinian state and an understanding about
Israel's security requirements - that would allow negotiations to begin in
earnest."
This is unmitigated nonsense --
simply a sample of what passes for analytic writing but is nothing of the
sort. An agreement on borders BEFORE negotiations have begun?
Understand that "borders" encompasses, in addition to the question of retention
of communities past the Green line, the issue of Jerusalem: united, or eastern
Jerusalem as the Arab capital. What Kerry wants, of course, but will not
get, is Israeli agreement to use the '67 line, with adjustments, as the basis
for negotiations.
~~~~~~~~~~
According to Ignatius, Kerry is
also "reanimating" the Arab League "Peace Initiative," Heaven help us. If
Kerry thinks Netanyahu is going to go for this, he's got his head in the
stratosphere. (Never mind: even if Kerry doesn't think Netanyahu will go
for this, he has his head in the stratosphere.)
This is Ignatius's logic:
"The bottom line for Israel is that rather than just a two-state solution, it
would get a 22-state solution (the Arab League members) and even a 57-state
solution (if you add in the additional Muslim countries in the Organization of
Islamic Cooperation)."
Wow! All Israel would have to do for this is return to the dangerous and unjust pre-'67 lines and allow "refugees" to return. In other words, commit suicide. And I'm aghast that he imagines the OIC would also go along with this deal.
~~~~~~~~~~
But take a look at what Guy Bechor says about this (emphasis added):
"Who does the Arab League represent? Only the regimes of the Sunni countries, or what's left of them. The Shiite countries - Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon - no longer cooperate with this League. So Israel makes peace with the Sunnis; but what about the others? We must keep in mind that the territory the IDF will withdraw from will be seized immediately by armed Salafis from all across the Arab world – as was the case in Sinai and Syria. Who will come to Israel's aid when it is attacked? The fighters of the 'peace-loving' Arab League?
"Moreover, according to the League's regulations, any amendment to the Arab initiative requires a vote among the heads of the Arab states, or, at the very least, their foreign ministers. But this will never happen, as no Arab leader will ever vote in favor of any such change. This initiative has always been nothing more than a diplomatic whim, and the Arab street will never accept it. Indeed, the Arab media hardly reported on this 'amendment' to the initiative, because it is virtual.
Note: I've been saying there has been no amendment, even though I keep seeing commentators, including Ignatius, who talk as if there has been. Bechor sets it straight.
See his entire informative piece:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4383848,00.html
Credit: idc
~~~~~~~~~~
I highly recommend this article, "More Peace, Less Process," by Ben Cohen (emphasis added):
"U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has already visited the Middle East four times since President Barack Obama named him to the post back in February. Perhaps anticipating the large number of yawns that such a statistic is likely to produce, Kerry directly addressed, during his latest jaunt, the growing number of peace process skeptics on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide.
"'There have been bitter years of disappointment. It is our hope that by being methodical, careful, patient, but detailed and tenacious, we can lay out a path ahead that can conceivably surprise people...'
"However much Kerry would like us to believe that there are routes to peace that haven’t yet been explored, there is a dreary sense of deja vu about his words. Every day, it seems, an American politician declares that time is running out...
"...it’s now 2013, and there is no State of Palestine, only a Palestinian Authority (PA) that shuns direct negotiations in favor of a unilateralist strategy...Moreover, the Palestinians are openly distrustful of U.S. efforts. 'I’m hesitant to say we are seeing a miraculous transformation in American policy and its blind strategic alliance with Israel,' said the PLO’s Hanan Ashrawi upon Kerry’s arrival, conveniently regurgitating the widespread myth in the Arab world that American Middle East policy is determined solely by Israeli imperatives.
"Nor has Palestinian rhetoric changed for the better. The eliminationist desires of the Palestinian leadership—and I’m not talking here about Hamas, but about our ostensible peace partner, the PA—remain as ingrained as ever...
"The traditional approach of American and western negotiators has been to play down this kind of rhetoric as ideological baggage that will disappear once meaningful progress has been made. Time and again, this patronizing, even racist, manner, which treats Arab politicians as tantrum-prone children who say things they don’t really mean, has been proved wrong by events. And yet, the template for peace negotiations has barely been modified during the last 20 years.
Wow! All Israel would have to do for this is return to the dangerous and unjust pre-'67 lines and allow "refugees" to return. In other words, commit suicide. And I'm aghast that he imagines the OIC would also go along with this deal.
~~~~~~~~~~
But take a look at what Guy Bechor says about this (emphasis added):
"Who does the Arab League represent? Only the regimes of the Sunni countries, or what's left of them. The Shiite countries - Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon - no longer cooperate with this League. So Israel makes peace with the Sunnis; but what about the others? We must keep in mind that the territory the IDF will withdraw from will be seized immediately by armed Salafis from all across the Arab world – as was the case in Sinai and Syria. Who will come to Israel's aid when it is attacked? The fighters of the 'peace-loving' Arab League?
"Moreover, according to the League's regulations, any amendment to the Arab initiative requires a vote among the heads of the Arab states, or, at the very least, their foreign ministers. But this will never happen, as no Arab leader will ever vote in favor of any such change. This initiative has always been nothing more than a diplomatic whim, and the Arab street will never accept it. Indeed, the Arab media hardly reported on this 'amendment' to the initiative, because it is virtual.
Note: I've been saying there has been no amendment, even though I keep seeing commentators, including Ignatius, who talk as if there has been. Bechor sets it straight.
See his entire informative piece:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4383848,00.html
Credit: idc
~~~~~~~~~~
I highly recommend this article, "More Peace, Less Process," by Ben Cohen (emphasis added):
"U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has already visited the Middle East four times since President Barack Obama named him to the post back in February. Perhaps anticipating the large number of yawns that such a statistic is likely to produce, Kerry directly addressed, during his latest jaunt, the growing number of peace process skeptics on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide.
"'There have been bitter years of disappointment. It is our hope that by being methodical, careful, patient, but detailed and tenacious, we can lay out a path ahead that can conceivably surprise people...'
"However much Kerry would like us to believe that there are routes to peace that haven’t yet been explored, there is a dreary sense of deja vu about his words. Every day, it seems, an American politician declares that time is running out...
"...it’s now 2013, and there is no State of Palestine, only a Palestinian Authority (PA) that shuns direct negotiations in favor of a unilateralist strategy...Moreover, the Palestinians are openly distrustful of U.S. efforts. 'I’m hesitant to say we are seeing a miraculous transformation in American policy and its blind strategic alliance with Israel,' said the PLO’s Hanan Ashrawi upon Kerry’s arrival, conveniently regurgitating the widespread myth in the Arab world that American Middle East policy is determined solely by Israeli imperatives.
"Nor has Palestinian rhetoric changed for the better. The eliminationist desires of the Palestinian leadership—and I’m not talking here about Hamas, but about our ostensible peace partner, the PA—remain as ingrained as ever...
"The traditional approach of American and western negotiators has been to play down this kind of rhetoric as ideological baggage that will disappear once meaningful progress has been made. Time and again, this patronizing, even racist, manner, which treats Arab politicians as tantrum-prone children who say things they don’t really mean, has been proved wrong by events. And yet, the template for peace negotiations has barely been modified during the last 20 years.
"Which is why negotiators at the
State Department would be wise to consult an important new paper published by
two Israeli academics, Joel Fishman and Kobi Michael, in the academic journal,
the Jewish Political Studies Review. Introducing the notion of a 'positive
peace,' Fishman and Michael warn against efforts to create a Palestinian
state without worrying about its governance and internal political
culture...
"Positive peace, the authors
assert, is not just the about the absence of war, nor about elevating the right
of national self-determination above all other considerations. 'The real
problem,' they write, 'is that, long ago, the would-be peacemakers, in their
haste and fear of failure, did not frame the problem correctly. They failed to
ask the right question. In order to avoid disagreement, they concentrated on
process and postponed the substantive issues of content...'
"In the Israeli-Palestinian
context, a positive peace entails a complete overhaul of the zero-sum attitude
toward Israel that has become institutionalized in Palestinian politics.
For decades, the Palestinians have regarded negotiations as simply one
of several avenues in pursuing their war on Israel’s
existence...
"Fishman and Michael cite the
pioneering Israeli scholar Yehoshafat Harkabi’s observation that in Arab
discourse, the idea of peace with justice is equivalent to the vision of a
Middle East without Israel. And in marked contrast to American worries
that time is running out, they point out that as far as the Palestinians are
concerned, we’ve got all the time in the world...
"Though they don’t say it
explicitly, there is a strong sense in the paper that negotiations that
are not preceded by meaningful, internal political reform in the Palestinian
entity will share the miserable fate of the Oslo Agreement. And if
that’s correct, then the 'path that could conceivably surprise people,'
as John Kerry put it, begins not with discussions about settlements, water
rights or the size of the Palestinian security forces, but with what the
Palestinians themselves believe about the world around them—and whether they are
capable of change."
Credit:
stljewishlight
~~~~~~~~~~
You might also like to see a piece
-- "Memo to Kerry: It's not the economy, stupid" -- by David Horovitz, which
explains the fallacies behind Kerry's $4 billion initiative, which is supposed
to come from private business persons but is exceedingly unlikely to
appear.
~~~~~~~~~~
In my last posting, I wrote,
"the Russians expected that Israel would refrain from further attacks inside
Israel on armaments bound for Hezbollah.." I believe for almost all of my
readers it was clear that I meant attacks inside of Syria, but I do appreciate
it when an eagle-eyed reader picks up the error. And so I note it
here.
The Syrian situation is
deteriorating further and I hope I'll get to that next posting.
~~~~~~~~~~
©
Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner,
functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be
reproduced only
with
proper attribution.
If
it is reproduced and emphasis is added, the fact that it has been added must be
noted.
This material
is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to
receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and
include your name in the text of the
message.
No comments:
Post a Comment