That Netanyahu agreed
to release 104 Palestinian Arab prisoners was widely broadcast publicly --
starting with a letter to the Israeli public by the prime minister
himself. Heartache and fury, but no secret here.
However, release of the
prisoners was only one of the three major demands of Mahmoud Abbas -- the others
being agreement to begin negotiations on the basis of the '67 lines, and
freezing of building beyond the '67 line, i.e., in eastern Jerusalem and Judea
and Samaria. And we have pretty solid information that building will be
slowed, if not terminated all together. Actually, already has been
slowed.
But what about
beginning negotiations based on the '67 line? This is a question -- of
more than a little significance -- that has consumed me and many others.
Although definitive answers are next to impossible to come
by.
Yesterday I spoke with
several persons connected with relevant government agencies and drew a "no
comment" about the basis for negotiations. Someone from the Foreign
Ministry told me candidly, "We've put a fog out over everything."
Indeed. He "explained" that "this increases the chances of success."
I didn't tell him that I thought what this really does is increase the
government's ability to prevent the electorate from finding
out something that it doesn't want us to know. As well as stimulate
the rumor mill.
So there is enormous
anxiety and unease. A terrible thing when trust in the government has been
destroyed, but that's where we are.
~~~~~~~~~~
There are PA
sources insisting that Kerry "promised" them that negotiations would use
the '67 line as its starting point. And there are people here so
mistrustful of our own government that they are prepared to believe them.
I am not. That is, the Palestinian Arabs say many things that are not
true and just because
Netanyahu has proven himself untrustworthy does not mean that every negative
thing they say about him is necessarily true.
~~~~~~~~~~
Based on what I do
know, and factoring in my own (possibly faulty) intuition, this is what I
believe is going on:
Kerry -- who would do
us a favor if he took a slow boat to China and didn't come back -- is playing
both ends against the middle. He has, I am certain, made assurances to the
PA about how he will make his very best effort to see to it that when
negotiations begin it will be on the basis of the '67 line. I have
information from a solid source on this. The PA then parlayed these
assurances into "he promised."
From the Israeli side,
Kerry has secured deliberate ambiguity. Netanyahu is not saying that he
knows what assurances Kerry has made to the PA and that he is on board with
this. My bet is that he's not on board with this. But he's allowing it to
be said without direct and vociferous refutation -- thereby giving the
impression that he is. And apparently thus appeasing both Kerry and the
PA.
~~~~~~~~~~
An article from
Haaretz out just hours ago seems to confirm what I have
been seeing: It says that, according to a senior Israeli official,
yesterday the US gave Israel and the PA letters "which outlined the US position
vis-a-vis the peace talks, their conduct and their goals," in order to
facilitate the talks. While the article states that the contents of the
letters are classified, it seems fairly clear that there was good information
acquired. It says that the letters "likely" address the issues of
borders and refugees.
But this is not
startling. We know the US position on the '67 lines. What it apparently
does not say is that "the parties have agreed, and this is to
confirm that negotiations will be based on the '67 lines." In pushing the
US position on this, Kerry would be honoring what I understood to be his promise
to the PA. And there is no reason for us to assume, based on this
information, that Netanyahu did agree to those lines.
What struck me was one
sentence: "the letter to Israel apparently included an American declaration
stating Israel is a Jewish state..."
The letter to Israel?
There were different letters to the two parties? He gave each party what
it needed to hear in order to be reassured, while leaving out at least some of
what was said to the other party?
Extreme duplicity, if
so. And, I suspect, very much part of Kerry's MO.
~~~~~~~~~~
But it gets much
worse:
In today's news there
were two items that I must mention.
Kerry, in announcing
the resumption of talks, said that in the coming days and weeks the Israeli
government will take a number of steps to improve conditions on
the ground...for Palestinians.
This is likely to mean
something horrendous such as taking down checkpoints, which puts Jewish life at
risk. And please note that the statement was made definitively. It
didn't say, "We hope Israel will consider..."
In the same article,
there is talk about the PA refraining from its unilateral campaign at the UN
and from pursuing Israel at the International Criminal Court, and, it
was explained that "this had not been explicitly stated."
(Emphasis added)
A senior White House
official who was quoted said there were "no guarantees of
anything," but that "so long as this process is moving forward, I think
the risks of that sort of thing are reduced, if not entirely
eliminated."
~~~~~~~~~~
Well, my friends, I
tell you frankly that rage rose up in my throat like bile when I read that. And
you will forgive me, one and all, if I step just slightly beyond my normal
professionalism to observe that Obama, Kerry and company are kissing a certain
part of Abbas's anatomy.
The question is, why?
Why is it that we get pushed and leaned on without end. Not enough to agree to
release a thousand murderers who should not be let go, we have to agree to
"improve conditions" for the Palestinian Arabs in a variety of additional
ways.
And yet the US, which
is promoting a $4 billion economic plan for the PA, and takes the PA's part with
regard to the '67 lines, doesn't say to Abbas, "Listen here. You want all
of this, you agree to stay away from unilateral actions and procedures against
Israel." "Listen here. Shape up or we'll let you hang out to
dry."
Just that simple
elementary demand. It's as if Abbas can call the shots, and the US is
afraid of him. As if he holds the key to the salvation of the world, if
only he will sit at the table with Israel.
Maybe what he
holds is the key to some sense of diplomatic victory for a failed Obama
administration -- and so is to be courted in unconscionable
ways.
Morally
repugnant. Unbearable. Obscene.
~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, and let me not
forget this: Yesterday Abbas said that no Israeli could remain in a
Palestinian state: "In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a
single Israeli -- civilian or soldier -- on our lands."
He was declaring ethnic
cleansing up front -- a judenrein state. Yet, I picked up not a word from
Kerry about this being a regrettable statement as negotiations
begin.
Abbas also said this,
reflecting the arrogance he surely feels (emphasis added):
"We've already made all the necessary
concessions.
"East
Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Palestine ... if there were and must be
some kind of small exchange (of land) equal in size and value, we are ready to
discuss this -- no more, no less."
~~~~~~~~~~
So, by playing
reprehensible games, Kerry has pushed the two sides to the table. He has
announced that the parties will meet in about two weeks, somewhere in this
region, and that meetings will be sustained over a period of nine months, with a
goal of achieving a final resolution. All issues are said to be on the
table.
But he has done nothing
to genuinely bring those sides one iota closer on the issues, and one must
wonder what his end game is.
I have not encountered
a single analyst/commentator who sees these talks as viable and offering a
possibility for resolution.
Tzipi Livni -- whom I
consider a quintessentially incompetent diplomat -- seems beside herself with
the pleasure of having gotten this far, and talks about "hope." Ugh.
Hope for what?
People sometimes say
that it can't hurt to try, even if chances are slim. But I beg to
differ. If we make concessions we shouldn't be making and weaken our
position and our deterrence, it hurts.
~~~~~~~~~~
In closing, I want
to backtrack to take a closer look at a statement made by Interior Minister
Gideon Sa'ar in defense of voting to release the Palestinian Arab
prisoners. I find it alarming:
He said the vote to
release the prisoners was made to prevent a serious diplomatic crisis with the
US and other Western allies:
"A nay vote
means...Negotiations won't begin and Israel will be blamed, even by its best
friends, for failing to renew the negotiations."
This is terrible
thinking that suggests that we buy into the US notion that pressure should be
put on us, and Abbas should be given what he wants (he said he wouldn't come to
the table unless the prisoners were released).
It further suggests
that we are so fearful of anger from our allies that we subvert our own best
interests to avoid this. In my opinion, this is yet another sign of galut
mentality. And I have no doubt but that this is a reflection of what
Netanyahu thought.
~~~~~~~~~~
But there was a way
around this, the way a sovereign state with courageous leaders might have
handled the matter.
The Cabinet should have
voted it down, and Netanyahu should have called a major press conference
declaring Israeli intentions to pursue peace, but explaining that it is not
possible to release the prisoners because 1) Israel is a nation of law and the
release would subvert justice, and 2) because the government's first obligation
is to protect the safety of its citizens and freeing terrorists puts them at
risk.
It is much to be
regretted, our prime minister might have said, that Mahmoud Abbas placed this
stumbling block before us, demanding what is not reasonable and refusing to
relinquish that demand for the sake of peace.
Netanyahu and his
government could have and should have said no.
~~~~~~~~~~
Sa'ar said something
else, as well:
That "the alternative to
releasing prisoners was negotiations based on the 1967 borders or a construction
freeze in the settlements, so the prisoner option was the least of all
evils."
I've heard this elsewhere, too. And it suggests that we had to "give" something that Abbas demanded. Disturbing not only from the point of view of Israeli strength as a nation, but with regard to what was discussed above: the US assumption that Israel has an obligation to "give" to get the ball rolling, even though the PA is not into "giving."
~~~~~~~~~~
I've heard this elsewhere, too. And it suggests that we had to "give" something that Abbas demanded. Disturbing not only from the point of view of Israeli strength as a nation, but with regard to what was discussed above: the US assumption that Israel has an obligation to "give" to get the ball rolling, even though the PA is not into "giving."
~~~~~~~~~~
©
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