By Ted Belman ——Bio and Archives--April 13, 2010
American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
“Today’s announcement [partial temporary freeze] by the government of Israel helps move forward toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.”In order to reach agreement on these terms, the administration had to allow for considerable diplomatic ambiguity. So much so, that there was no agreement at all. The Arabs still resist recognizing Israel as a Jewish state and accepting an end of conflict agreement. Even within the confines of these terms of reference, the difference between the parties’ positions is enormous. How can borders based on the ‘67 lines, even with mutually agreed swaps, be reconciled with “borders that…meet Israeli security requirements.” Besides, Israel is entitled to “secure” borders by virtue of UNSC Resolution 242. Such borders were always understood to mean “defensible” borders. Look for a great deal of pressure on Bibi to capitulate. Netanyahu has demanded that final status issues be negotiated without preconditions. When speaking to the UNGA last September, Obama said, “… the time has come to re-launch negotiations without preconditions that address the permanent status issues” What Netanyahu meant was that he rejected starting with previous Israeli offers and Obama evidently agreed. Yet in the position presented in the Ignatius article, Obama intends to start with what the parties almost agreed to. Furthermore the most generous offers Israel made in the past were made by left of center governments headed by Labor or Kadimah. The Netanyahu government is right of center and will not match those offers, let alone better them. Throughout the entire peace process Israel was assured that all final status issues would be negotiated between the parties. That gave Israel an out if she didn’t like where negotiations were headed. It also enabled her to agree to parameters she was not comfortable with. No more. Obama, for his part will not suggest that the Arabs compromise much because it would undermine his Muslim outreach and the Arabs would never do so. Therefore his plan will favor the Palestinians by a country mile. It will align with the Saudi Plan. Finally, there is the small matter of Gaza. The land for peace formula which was articulated by UNSC Res 242, was always intended to mean peace with Jordan, Egypt and Syria. Jordan transferred her rights to the Palestinians but they are divided between the West Bank and Gaza. There is no chance that Hamas who controls Gaza would go along, to say nothing of Syria and Iran. So, where’s the peace? Although Obama wants a regional approach i.e. from 30,000 feet, these players won’t play. If Obama does in fact announce his Plan, he will be ending the peace process. The Oslo Interim Accords provided "Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent-status agreement.” When Fayyad announced that he intended to unilaterally declare a state, Netanyahu said that if he did, Israel would be free to annex Judea and Samaria. The same logic would apply if Obama announced a Plan. Were Obama to announce such a plan he would be plunging his administration into a battle royale with the American people just when the fall elections are underway. Even the Democratic candidates will be against it. Announcing such a plan is one thing, enforcing it is another. No doubt the EU, the Arab League and the UN will sing its praises. The EU and the Arab League are already on record of threatening an imposed solution. Thus expect a UN Charter Chapter VI resolution to be passed by the UN imposing such a Plan. Next would come a Chapter VII resolution providing for sanctions and/or military intervention. Congress and Senate will not authorize either. Without their cooperation, there can be no effective enforcement. Of course if the UN limited itself to the Chapter VI resolution, it could expel Israel from the UN for not complying. The attempt to link Iran with a deal on this conflict will not succeed because Iran must be solved this year regardless of progress on solving this dispute. Pie in the sky, if you ask me. *Ted Belman is the editor of Israpundit. He recently made aliya from Canada and is now living in Jerusalem.
View Comments
Ted Belman is a retired lawyer and Editor of Israpundit.org. He made aliyah from Canada in 2009 and now lives in Jerusalem.