Palestinian Territories

Secretary of State Kerry has dedicated enormous amounts of time to getting the Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table.  The last serious negotiations took place toward the end of the Bush administration, and failed when the PLO rejected a remarkable offer from then-prime minister Ehud Olmert. An attempt to get negotiations started was made by the Obama administration on September 1st, 2010, but after a round of talks in Washington things broke down very quickly. The problem has in my view been the imposition of preconditions by the Palestinian side, including a demand for a total construction freeze in settlements and in Jerusalem. Here the Obama administration deserves mention as well, for its adoption of the demand for a total freeze put PLO chairman and PA president Mahmoud Abbas in a corner: he could not demand less than the Americans, at that point led by George Mitchell and Hillary Clinton, were demanding. Because neither the Israelis or Palestinians want to get blamed by Mr. Kerry or the United States for blocking talks, Kerry may well "succeed:" that is, he may get talks started. This may not happen at the top level of Abbas and Netanyahu, but serious talks can be held a level or two down. I put quotation marks around "succeed" because the goal, after all, is not getting them to the table; it is getting an agreement. Some good is done by getting a negotiation started, of course: it may calm the situation in the West Bank for a while--if, and only if, it is accompanied by moves that make life easier there. Here the Kerry efforts on the economic side are a very good adjunct to his diplomatic activities. If talks continue for several months we may get through the UN General Assembly this Fall without a huge Palestinian diplomatic effort against Israel at the UN and other international bodies--especially in UN agencies whose admission of "Palestine" to membership would trigger a freeze on American payments (as has happened in UNESCO). On the down side, a collapse of talks could create additional tensions. Presumably both sides, and Secretary Kerry, know this and would seek to avoid a sudden collapse if talks do begin. But what has been and remains mysterious to me is why Mr. Kerry thinks progress will be made on final status issues if and when he manages to get talks started. What’s new here that would lead to optimism? All that is new in the region--from tensions between Hamas and Fatah that make concessions tougher for Abbas to troubles inside Likud that pressure Netanyahu against concessions, to the situations in Lebanon and Jordan, the amazing levels of violence in Syria, and the current instability on Egypt--suggests that making peace will be harder, not easier, than in the past when attempts after all failed. There is a viewpoint that the two sides are "an inch apart" and just a bit of serious negotiating will bridge the gap, but that has always seemed nonsense to me (and I discuss this in detail in my recent book, Tested By Zion: The Bush Administration and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict). An inch apart on the many Israeli security demands, such as control of the Palestinian air space and electro-magnetic spectrum and of the Jordan Valley? An inch apart on Jerusalem itself, which great numbers of Israelis do not wish to see divided ever again but which most Palestinians demand at least significant parts of as their capital? An inch apart on the "refugee" issue--when Palestinian leaders have never told their own people that there will be no "right of return" and that Palestinian "refugees" will never go to Israel? To the extent that "everyone knows what an agreement would look like," both Israeli and Palestinian leaders and populations have for decades rejected those terms. One can be an optimist about whether Kerry will be able to get talks started and a pessimist about whether those talks will go anywhere. And that’s my view.    

Secretary of State Kerry is about to visit Jerusalem again, seeking to get negotiations between Israel and the PLO restarted. News reports make it clear that the Palestinians are seeking various concessions as the price of returning to the negotiating table, including some prisoner releases (of prisoners convicted of violent crimes) and a partial freeze of construction in the settlements. The United States appears to be pushing in the same direction, asking Israel to take these steps so that talks can begin. Meanwhile, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz published a story quoting a "senior cabinet minister from Netanyahu’s Likud party" about Prime Minister Netanyahu’s intentions. According to this source, Netanyahu would be willing to withdraw from most of the West Bank and evacuate numerous settlements as part of an agreement with the Palestinians, as long as his security demands were satisfied...."Netanyahu understands that for a peace agreement, it will be necessary to withdraw from more than 90 percent of the West Bank...." The minister said the issue of security arrangements is Netanyahu’s main concern, and this will be his main demand in the negotiations. If his security demands are met, he is prepared to make significant territorial concessions, the minister added...Netanyahu wants the future Palestinian state to be demilitarized, and he also wants the Israel Defense Forces to be able to maintain a long-term presence along the Jordan River, even if Israel cedes sovereignty there.... The Likud minister’s statements echo those made last week by the heads of Netanyahu’s two biggest coalition partners, Economy Minister Naftali Bennett (Habayit Hayehudi) and Finance Minister Yair Lapid (Yesh Atid). In separate interviews with the Washington Post, both said Netanyahu seriously wants to advance the peace process. Most settler leaders think this as well. The story also notes that The senior minister said that Netanyahu very much wants to resume talks with the Palestinians, but the premier isn’t convinced that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is equally eager. "He’s not certain there’s a partner," the minister said. I wonder what Secretary Kerry thinks. After all, the Palestinians should be jumping at the chance for serious negotiations, not creating obstacles for their resumption--yet PLO and Palestinian Authority head Abbas does not appear anxious for talks to start. He seems to be satisfied with the status quo, and concerned above all with Palestinian internal politics--right now, with appointing a new prime minister. After former prime minister Fayyad was forced out, the next appointee resigned after only 18 days in office and the power struggle continues. But it is also striking that as has almost always been the case in the so-called "peace process," all the concessions are being sought on the Israeli side. The United States has not, for example, demanded an end to Palestinian glorification of terrorism or incitement against Israel in official media as the price for starting new negotiations. Abbas continues to repeat the lie that Israel is endangering or seeking to destroy the al-Aqsa mosque; Palestinian official media continue to celebrate prisoners whose committed vicious acts of violence and terror; terrorists who prepared the bombing of civilian sites are honored by PA officials. Yet it is Israel’s commitment to peace that is doubted and from whom concessions are sought, as if the Palestinians are doing Israel and the United States a great favor by entering into negotiations that are the only route to their stated goal of an independent state. Secretary Kerry has said he seeks progress by September. Progress is more likely if he tells the PA and PLO officials that they must do more than complain and criticize and condemn Israel. He should tell them that he will judge their own commitment by their conduct this summer, and that "incitement"-- the catch-all phrase that is used in diplomatic circles to include anti-Semitic attacks, lies about Israeli behavior, and glorification of violence and terror--must cease. That is the least the Palestinians can do, yet they do not appear willing to do it--and we do not appear willing to insist on it.

The Palestinian prime minister, not long in office, has resigned. Why? A power struggle between him and the president, everyone says. The date is September, 2003. Or, the date is today. What has changed is that the guy resigning in 2003 was Mahmoud Abbas, after losing a struggle with Yasser Arafat. Today, Abbas is the president whose refusal to share power has caused Rami Hamdallah, in office as prime minister for only 18 days, to walk away. Of course, it may be patched up: Abbas as of now has not accepted the resignation and perhaps the two men or intermediaries can negotiate a deal. But the episode is an interesting one, and not solely because Abbas has changed from being the guy forced to resign into the guy forcing the resignation by hoarding power. For the United States, it ought to mean holding off for the moment on cash transfers to the Palestinian Authority: we don’t know whom the PM is going to be, so how can we be sure it will be someone we wish to trust with our foreign aid funds? It also suggests that the difficulties facing Secretary of State Kerry’s peace efforts are mounting rather than diminishing: additional disarray in Palestinian internal politics can only make compromise harder for Palestinian officials. Kerry is scheduled to be back in Jerusalem soon, as part of his current travels. The Palestinian political crisis provides a good reason to delay that visit.

Lady Catherine Ashton, the EU’s top foreign policy official, has received a remarkable letter from the "European Eminent Persons Group on the Middle East Peace Process." This self-selected collectivity might more accurately be called the "Formerly Eminent Persons Group," inasmuch as the first word describing each one of its members is "Former," but I suppose that these Formerly Eminent Persons do indeed also represent the views of Currently Eminent European Persons. The letter and its list of signatories are copied below. The letter is important in one way: it shows that European official and elite thinking continue to blame Israel for everything related to the so-called Peace Process. To take one example, the letter states that We have watched with increasing disappointment over the past five years the failure of the parties to start any kind of productive discussion, and of the international community under American and/or European leadership to promote such discussion.  We have also noted with frustration and deep concern the deteriorating standards of humanitarian and human rights care of the population in the Occupied Territories. The failure of the parties? Five years? Five years ago, in the spring of 2008, the parties were negotiating, apparently seriously, as part of what was then called "the Annapolis process." That failed when Mahmoud Abbas refused an extremely generous offer from Israeli Prime Minister Olmert. The Formerly Eminent Persons appear to have forgotten this, or far more likely to be seeking to avoid that truth. Equally inaccurate is their line about the "failure of the parties," a phrase which refuses to acknowledge that only the Palestinians have refused to negotiate in the last four years, not "the parties." In any event, the Formerly Eminent Persons soon arrive at their key insight, which is "that the Peace Process as conceived in the Oslo Agreements has nothing more to offer." What does this mean, actually? Turns out, rather unsurprisingly, that it means we must all get tougher now with Israel. We must all insist that Israel’s borders are the 1967 lines and everything beyond that is illegal and illegitimate. Everything-- including, therefore, such things as Israel’s control of the Western Wall and the Jewish sector of the Old City of Jerusalem, from which Israelis had been kept away when Jordan controlled the Old City. The Formerly Eminent Persons wish above all to erase the letter to Prime Minister Sharon from President Bush in 2004, where he called the major settlement blocks "new realities on the ground" that all efforts at negotiation had acknowledged Israel would keep. There is more in the letter that is wrong, such as the notion that human rights conditions in the West Bank are deteriorating due to the Israeli occupation. One can make a good argument that they are deteriorating, in Gaza due to Hamas and in the West Bank due to the growing pressure from the PA against journalists. The letter does not appear to consider the possibility that any problem in Palestinian areas might possibly be the fault of Palestinians. The letter’s greatest sins are those that are quite familiar in letters from Europe, whether from Formerly Eminent Persons or from Currently Eminent Persons: the sin of blaming everything on Israel and blaming nothing on the Palestinians, demanding nothing of the Palestinians, and treating the Palestinians like objects rather than people. Nowhere does the letter mention the issue of anti-Semitic broadcasting and hate speech in Palestinian official media, nor the matter of the glorification of terrorism and terrorists by the PA, and the impact such conduct has on prospects for peace. The letter takes a shot at President Obama, saying that all he said and did during his trip to Israel "gave no indication of action to break the deep stagnation." Just talk from the Americans, you see; we are all, including Mr. Obama, seen as coddling Israel (and we do not even have Formerly Eminent Persons writing letters). This letter is a useful reminder of European attitudes, at least at the level of the Eminent: Blame Israel, treat the Palestinians as children, wring your hands over the terrible way the Americans conduct diplomacy. The Israelis will treat this letter with the derision it deserves, and the Palestinians will understand that because this kind of thing reduces European influence with Israel, the EU just can’t deliver much. Indeed it cannot, and the bias, poor reasoning, and refusal to face facts in this letter all suggest that that won’t be changing any time soon. ----------------------------------------------------- THE MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS Dear High Representative We, the under-signed members of the European Eminent Persons Group on the Middle East Peace Process, are writing to you to express our strong concern about the dying chances of a settlement based on two separate, sovereign and peaceful states of Israel and Palestine. The Eminent Persons Group is composed of a number of former Presidents, Prime Ministers, Ministers and senior officials of EU Member States who have decided to concert their efforts to encourage a lasting settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. We have watched with increasing disappointment over the past five years the failure of the parties to start any kind of productive discussion, and of the international community under American and/or European leadership to promote such discussion.  We have also noted with frustration and deep concern the deteriorating standards of humanitarian and human rights care of the population in the Occupied Territories.  The security and long-term stability of Israel, an essential objective in any process, cannot be assured in such conditions, any more than the legitimate rights and interests of the Palestinian people. President Obama made some of these points during his March 2013 visit to the region, particularly in his address to the people of Israel, but he gave no indication of action to break the deep stagnation, nor any sign that he sought something other than the re-start of talks between West Bank and Israeli leaders under the Oslo Process, which lost its momentum long ago. We are therefore appealing to you, and through you to the members of the Council of Ministers, to recognise that the Peace Process as conceived in the Oslo Agreements has nothing more to offer. Yet the present political stalemate, while the situation deteriorates  on the ground, is unsustainable, given the disturbed politics of the region and the bitterness generated by the harsh conditions of life under the Occupation. The concern of the European Union at this deterioration, clearly expressed in a series of statements, not least the European Council Conclusions of 14 May 2012, has not been matched by any action likely to improve the situation. The aspirations of Palestinians and Israelis and the interests of the European Union, prominently referred to in those Conclusions and in other relevant EU documents, cannot be met by the current stagnation. It is time to give a stark warning that the Occupation is actually being entrenched by the present Western policy. The Palestinian Authority cannot survive without leaning on Israeli security assistance and Western funding and, since the PA offers little hope of progress towards self-determination for the Palestinian people, it is fast losing respect and support from its domestic constituency. The steady increase in the extent and population of Israeli settlements, including in East Jerusalem, and the entrenchment of Israeli control over the OT in defiance of international law, indicate a permanent trend towards a complete dislocation of Palestinian territorial rights. We have reached the conclusion that there must be a new approach. Letting the situation lie unaddressed is highly dangerous when such an explosive issue sits in such a turbulent environment. A realistic but active policy, set in the context of current regional events, needs to be composed of the following elements: - a sharper focus on the essential need for a two-state solution, as the most likely outcome to offer lasting peace and security for the parties and their neighbourhood and the only one recognised by UN resolutions as just and equitable; - an explicit recognition that the current status of the Palestinian Territories is one of occupation, with responsibility for their condition falling under international law on the occupying state; - an insistence that Israeli settlements beyond the 1967 lines are illegal, must cease being expanded and will not be recognised as one of the starting points in any new negotiations; - a stipulation that any representative political organisation with a valid claim to participate in negotiations must renounce the use of violence outside established UN norms; - the renewal of efforts to establish a unified Palestinian representation of both the West Bank and Gaza, without which a comprehensive peace cannot be successfully negotiated and the absence of which serves as an excuse for inaction; - the encouragement of reform of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, including representation of all the main Palestinian parties committed to non-violence and reflecting the expressed wishes of the resident Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza; - a vigorous international drive for the implementation of much improved humanitarian and human rights conditions in both the West Bank and Gaza, monitored by the United Nations, whatever the state of peace negotiations might be at any time; - a reconsideration of the funding arrangements for Palestine, in order to avoid the Palestinian Authority’s present dependence on sources of funding which serve to freeze rather than promote the peace process; - a clear and concerted effort to counter the erasing of the 1967 lines as the basis for a two-state outline.  This should include a clear distinction in EU dealings with Israel between what is legitimate – within the 1967 lines – and what violates international law in the Occupied Territories; - a clearer willingness within the EU to play a political and not just a funding role and to resume a more strategic dialogue with the Palestinians. For all the good sense of EU statements on this issue over the years, the EU’s inactivity in the face of an increasingly dangerous stagnation is both unprincipled and unwise.  European leaders cannot wait for ever for action from the United States when the evidence accumulates of American failure to recognise and promote the equal status of Israelis and Palestinians in the search for a settlement, as accepted in United Nations resolutions. Later generations will see it as unforgivable that we Europeans not only allowed the situation to develop to this point of acute tension, but took no action now to remedy the continuing destruction of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. We regard it as essential for EU interests that the Council of Ministers and you take rapid action to correct this unacceptable state of affairs. We are sending copies of this letter to Members of the Council of Ministers and to the US Secretary of State. Members of the EEPG send you their respectful greetings. Signed Guiliano Amato, Former Prime Minister of Italy Frans Andriessen, Former Vice-President of the European Commission Laurens Jan Brinkhorst, Former Vice-Prime Minister of the Netherlands John Bruton, Former Prime Minister of Ireland Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Former European Commissioner and Former Foreign Minister of Austria Teresa Patricio Gouveia, Former Foreign Minister of Portugal Jeremy Greenstock, Former UK Ambassador to the UN and Co-Chair of the EEPG Lena Hjelm-Wallén, Former Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden Wolfgang Ischinger, Former State Secretary of the German Foreign Ministry and Co-Chair of the EEPG Lionel Jospin, Former Prime Minister of France Miguel Moratinos, Former Foreign Minister of Spain Ruprecht Polenz, Former Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the German Bundestag Pierre Schori, Former Deputy Foreign Minister of Sweden Javier Solana, Former High Representative and Former NATO Secretary-General Peter Sutherland, Former EU Commissioner and Director General of the WTO Andreas van Agt, Former Prime Minister of the Netherlands Hans van den Broek, Former Netherlands Foreign Minister and Former EU Commissioner for External Relations Hubert Védrine, Former Foreign Minister of France and Co-Chair of the EEPG Vaira Vike-Freiberga, Former President of Latvia

Reuters reports that "Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad offered his resignation to President Mahmoud Abbas on Wednesday following a rift between the two men over government policy...." Fayyad has offered to resign before, but there is reason to think that President Abbas will accept the offer this time. There is no love lost between Abbas’s Fatah Party and Salam Fayyad, and what aid donors appreciate most--the fight against corruption, the effort to build efficient and effective government institutions, the desire to insulate Palestinian security forces from Fatah politics--are just the things about Fayyad that Fatah pols appreciate least. Nor is there a replacement available who has Fayyad’s stature and integrity. This will affect aid donors, who will wonder just what will become of their money if Fayyad is not there to watch over the PA budget. It will also affect the attitude of Israelis toward the PA, for Fayyad has personified a business-like approach to building real Palestinian independence that does not threaten Israeli security. If Fayyad is, now, pushed out of the prime minister post, there will be many recriminations about who and what lost the opportunity for progress that his years in the post provided. Some will even be justified, and that is a subject I will revisit here if Fayyad goes. His departure would be a major event in Israeli-Palestinian relations.