Clinton - Netanyahu meeting: Epic fail? Part 2 (Why the 'Palestinians' will accept the deal)
November 14, 2010
The big topic of conversation on Sunday in Israel is the package of US 'incentives' to get Israel to agree to extend the 'settlement freeze' for three months. Jerusalem is off the table, which makes it very unlikely that the 'Palestinians' will agree to the package unless.... Well, there is one incentive that the US could give the 'Palestinians' to agree to the package being offered to Israel, and it dovetails perfectly with what's been offered to Israel. In fact, the 'Palestinians' will agree to this deal for reasons I'll explain at the end of this post.
Before I discuss the incentives, I want to say that as an Israeli I don't believe that there's any package that's acceptable, and as an American I'm embarrassed to see the American government groveling before a much smaller power in a bid to get that power to accept something - anything - to move ahead. As much as I couldn't stand him, Bush 41 had the right idea in 1990, when he gave both sides the White House phone number and told them to call when they were ready to make peace. The Obama administration has made the US look like a middling regional power by continuing to push under these circumstances. There is no 'fierce moral urgency' other than its own survival that ought to make a great power like the United States grovel in front of anyone. It doesn't bode well for American power and prestige in the future - regardless of whether Israel accepts the incentives.
But that's a parenthetical. Clinton offered Netanyahu a package of incentives for Israel to agree to an extension of the 'settlement freeze.' Here's what's been reported in Israel.
Here's the key to the American offer: The offer to support Israel in the UN is not open-ended. It's good for a year. (It also bears pointing out that the 'security agreement' with the US is also contingent upon Israel reaching a final status deal with the 'Palestinians'). As one cabinet minister asked on Sunday, why should we give a three-month settlement freeze for support that has always been automatic until now? Why let the US tell us that in a year they will stop supporting us in the UN? Well, it's worse than that.
Why would the 'Palestinians' accept this deal without a 'settlement freeze' in Jerusalem? Because the Obama administration is going to promise them that if they accept it and there's still no deal in a year or in August 2011, the Obama administration will not veto (at least!) a Security Council initiative to declare a 'Palestinian state.' And that's why this deal is so dangerous for Israel.
Could Obama let a 'Palestinian state' go through the Security Council without a deal like this? Of course he could. But he wouldn't be able to say that Israel agreed to it and Congress would then be outraged. It would also ensure that Obama is a one-term President. But if we agree to this deal, we are agreeing that if there's no deal with the 'Palestinians' in a year (and we all know there won't be), the Obama administration will allow a 'Palestinian state' to be created by the Security Council.
There is very little else that is more dangerous to Israel's existence right now than the prospect of a Chapter 7 (compulsory for all UN members) resolution creating a 'Palestinian state.' That's why Israel's government must say no!
Before I discuss the incentives, I want to say that as an Israeli I don't believe that there's any package that's acceptable, and as an American I'm embarrassed to see the American government groveling before a much smaller power in a bid to get that power to accept something - anything - to move ahead. As much as I couldn't stand him, Bush 41 had the right idea in 1990, when he gave both sides the White House phone number and told them to call when they were ready to make peace. The Obama administration has made the US look like a middling regional power by continuing to push under these circumstances. There is no 'fierce moral urgency' other than its own survival that ought to make a great power like the United States grovel in front of anyone. It doesn't bode well for American power and prestige in the future - regardless of whether Israel accepts the incentives.
But that's a parenthetical. Clinton offered Netanyahu a package of incentives for Israel to agree to an extension of the 'settlement freeze.' Here's what's been reported in Israel.
The US asked Israel to freeze all new settlement construction begun after September 26th for a 90-day period in exchange for support in the United Nations and 20 additional advanced fighter planes worth $3 billion, The Jerusalem Post has learned.Haaretz identifies the 'advanced fighters' as F-35's and adds:
The principles of this agreement designed to restart peace talks with the Palestinians, were relayed by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to his inner cabinet, a forum of seven ministers, on Saturday night and will be explained to the full cabinet on Sunday.
The US said that if the deal was accepted it would not request an additional settlement freeze. The request does not include east Jerusalem.
...
Should Israel accept the offer, the US in turn has pledged in the next year to veto any efforts by the UN Security Council to impose on Israel a non-negotiated solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, as the Palestinians have requested.
It would further veto any resolutions that deny Israel the right to self-defense or seek to de-legitimize Israel. The US would also oppose such efforts in other UN bodies and forums.
The U.S. will not ask Israel to extend the new moratorium when it expires.On Sunday, Prime Minister Netanyahu told the cabinet that the US freeze proposal was 'not final.'
Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian negotiator, said the Americans had not officially informed the Palestinians about the details of the proposal, "but they know we have a major problem in not including east Jerusalem".
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will put the U.S. plan before Palestinian decision-makers and call for an immediate session of Arab League officials before announcing an official decision, Erekat said.
In return for an Israeli freeze, the U.S. government would deliver 20 F-35 fighter jets to Israel, a deal worth $3 billion. Moreover, if an Israeli-Palestinian agreement is achieved, the U.S. would sign a comprehensive security agreement with Israel. The U.S. and Israel are to discuss the nature of the new security arrangements in the next few weeks.
"This proposal was raised during my talks with US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. It is still not final; it is still being formulated by Israeli and the American teams."There's been lots of speculation over who will vote in favor and who against in the cabinet. Read the whole thing.
Speaking at the beginning of the weekly cabinet meeting, Netanyahu said "if and when it is complete, I will bring this proposal to the appropriate Government forum, which in this case is the Cabinet."
"In any case, I insist that any proposal meet the State of Israel's security needs, both in the immediate term and vis-à-vis the threats that we will face in the coming decade," Netanyahu explained.
Here's the key to the American offer: The offer to support Israel in the UN is not open-ended. It's good for a year. (It also bears pointing out that the 'security agreement' with the US is also contingent upon Israel reaching a final status deal with the 'Palestinians'). As one cabinet minister asked on Sunday, why should we give a three-month settlement freeze for support that has always been automatic until now? Why let the US tell us that in a year they will stop supporting us in the UN? Well, it's worse than that.
Why would the 'Palestinians' accept this deal without a 'settlement freeze' in Jerusalem? Because the Obama administration is going to promise them that if they accept it and there's still no deal in a year or in August 2011, the Obama administration will not veto (at least!) a Security Council initiative to declare a 'Palestinian state.' And that's why this deal is so dangerous for Israel.
Could Obama let a 'Palestinian state' go through the Security Council without a deal like this? Of course he could. But he wouldn't be able to say that Israel agreed to it and Congress would then be outraged. It would also ensure that Obama is a one-term President. But if we agree to this deal, we are agreeing that if there's no deal with the 'Palestinians' in a year (and we all know there won't be), the Obama administration will allow a 'Palestinian state' to be created by the Security Council.
There is very little else that is more dangerous to Israel's existence right now than the prospect of a Chapter 7 (compulsory for all UN members) resolution creating a 'Palestinian state.' That's why Israel's government must say no!
Clinton - Netanyahu meeting: Epic fail? Part 1
November 14, 2010
I don't know how many of you have sat in seven-hour meetings, but I have sat in several of them. The length of the meeting does not always dictate success or failure. And Thursday's meeting between Prime Minister Netanyahu and Secretary of State Clinton is looking more and more like a failure.
Josh Rogin reports that the reason the meeting ran so long is that they weren't discussing a 'settlement freeze.' According to Rogin, they were talking about final borders.
Josh Rogin reports that the reason the meeting ran so long is that they weren't discussing a 'settlement freeze.' According to Rogin, they were talking about final borders.
"If there in fact is progress in the next several months, I'm confident people will look back at this meeting between Secretary Clinton and Prime Minister Netanyahu as the foundation of the progress. It was that important," former Congressman Robert Wexler, now the president of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace, told The Cable.Not necessarily. I've been in seven-hour meetings that ended with the parties blowing up the deal. Have a look at this picture of Clinton and Netanyahu, which was likely taken after the meeting (based on how disheveled they look).
Wexler said that President Obama had long been asking both the Israelis and the Palestinians for clarity on the territories they envisioned being part of their future states. The recent meeting, he said, could be an important step in that direction -- at least in clarifying Israel's position.
"I am hopeful that yesterday's meeting was the beginning of clarity in terms of Israel's visions about her own borders -- where does Israel want Israel's borders to be," said Wexler. "Because ultimately, we can't help our close friend until they share with us their own vision."
The meeting was the highest level interaction between the U.S. and Israeli governments since the last round of direct talks in September. Wexler said that while the two leaders didn't sit down with a map and draw lines around particular neighborhoods, the administration's switch to a focus on borders as a means of getting at the settlements problem was clear. "It's the only rational, sane way to proceed," he said. "Talking about borders and territories will by definition minimize the impact of the settlement issue."
Wexler said that by virtue of the fact that the meeting was seven hours, it's reasonable to assume that significant progress was made. "I think we're very close to creating that magic formula that satisfies both the Israelis and the Palestinians to come back to the table."
Do they look happy? They look awfully tense to me. Netanyahu looks a little smug and Clinton looks like she needs a drink.Let me add now that if the discussion was about borders, no one in Israel has reported it. Do Bob Wexler and Josh Rogin know something that no one in Israel does?
The 'Palestinians' would be happy to discuss borders, reports Rogin.
"The conventional wisdom is that if we deal with the issue of the borders then we will be able, by default, to deal with the issue of settlements -- and if you can define the borders of the two states and agree on these borders, then each party can build in its own territory without being contested by the other party," Areikat told The Cable. "This is what everybody is aiming at.... Now whether the Americans are going to succeed in convincing the Israelis to do it, we have to wait and see."And Rogin claims that the US has offered Israel a package of incentives to reach agreement on borders.
Of course, the two sides disagree over the order of events even when discussing the border issue.
"The Palestinian position is that we need to agree on the borders, then we will discuss in parallel the security arrangements. The Israelis are saying no, we need to define first what the security arrangements are to project what the final borders will be," Areikat explained.
In what appears to be a recognition of the Israeli position, Clinton and her team apparently spent a good deal of their time with the Netanyahu team spelling out a long list of additional security guarantees the Obama administration is offering to Israel.Well, yes, incentives have been offered, but they're being reported here as being in exchange for another three months of 'settlement freeze,' now not including Jerusalem, and aside from an impressive dollar number for fighter jets that has left people here in shock, no one I've heard has been very impressed by the incentives. But I'll come back to them.
I'm going to bring this post to a close before it gets really out of hand in terms of length. But before I do, I want to bring you the 'Palestinian' reaction to Netanyahu's meeting with Clinton. They are not pleased.
A PA official said that the US consul general briefed Abbas on the results of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s talks in the US last week.Similar comments from Abu Mazen and Fayyad are also noted.
The official claimed that the Americans failed again in convincing Netanyahu to agree to a full cessation of settlement construction in return for the resumption of the peace talks.
Chief PA negotiator Saeb Erekat announced over the weekend that the Palestinians may ask the US to recognize a Palestinian state on the 1967 lines if the Americans fail to pressure Israel to stop the construction in one month.
“If the US can’t oblige Israel to stop the settlements during this month, we will ask the US to recognize a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, including East Jerusalem,” Erekat said.
He pointed out that 107 countries have recognized the Palestinian state and that the Palestinians have official embassies in dozens of countries. “Unfortunately, the US still hasn’t recognized us,” he said. “Also, there are 21 EU states that haven’t recognized us although we have representative offices there.”
Erekat said it was “unjust” to hold both Israel and the Palestinians responsible for the suspension of the peace talks. “The Israeli government is responsible for the collapse of the negotiations because of its practices and construction in the settlements, especially during Netanyahu’s visit to Washington,” he said. “Why aren’t they holding the Israeli government responsible as they promised to do when they said that they would hold the party responsible for the collapse of the talks responsible?”
Netanyahu is actually trying to sell the American incentives to the cabinet, but it's doubtful whether he can do that, and it's even more doubtful that the 'Palestinians' will accept what Clinton required of Netanyahu as sufficient even if Netanyahu succeeds in selling it to the cabinet. Maybe....
More to follow.
Posts
