Israel Matzav

NY Times calls for 'imposed solution'

In an editorial that says that 'all share the blame' for the Middle East impasse - and then conveniently forgets Barack Hussein Obama's role in the impasse - the New York Times concludes that the United States 'and its partners' must impose a 'solution.'

The best way, likely the only way, to head off this debacle is with the start of serious negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. The two sides haven’t even been in the same room together since September 2010.

One might add that there have not been serious negotiations since Abu Bluff walked out on them after asking Israel to destroy Hamas at the beginning of Operation Cast Lead in December 2008. But reminding us that it was the 'Palestinians' who stopped the negotiations - and who have continuously refused to resume them - just isn't part of the Times' agenda.

All share blame for the stalemate.

All except for Obama. It was Obama who came into office and promptly decided to be more 'Palestinian' than the 'Palestinians' by insisting on a 'full settlement freeze' as a precondition to 'negotiations.' He sent Abu Mazen up a tree from which the 'Palestinian leader' could not climb down. And then he took the ladder away by refusing to admit his massive mistake.

But no, says the Times. All share the blame except Obama. And in the pecking order the Times chooses. Notice who comes first.

Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has used any excuse he can find (regional turmoil, the weakness of his coalition government) to avoid negotiations. He has blustered and balked at President Obama’s prodding.

Let's look at what Israel's Prime Minister has done since he took office in March 2009. He accepted the 'two-state solution,' the first time any Likud Prime Minister had ever openly done so. He imposed a ten-month 'settlement freeze' in Judea and Samaria. That 'settlement freeze' has continued de facto beyond that ten-month deadline and has included 'east' Jerusalem. Netanyahu has continuously repeated the mantra that he will meet with Abu Bluff anytime and anywhere without preconditions - but Abu Bluff won't meet unless he is first assured of the outcome. And now, despite the fact that most Israelis are opposed, Netanyahu is apparently on the verge of accepting a negotiating framework in which the default position would be going back to the '1967 lines' 1949 armistice lines (and yes, they really are indefensible despite the fact that the Times poo poos it - look at a topographical map). But that's still not enough for the New York Times. Netanyahu is number one on their list of those to blame for the Impasse.

Republican leaders in Washington — who seem mainly interested in embarrassing Mr. Obama — have encouraged his resistance.

That's a cheap shot motivated by the elections. How have Republican leaders encouraged Netanyahu? Did they feed him dinner when Obama would not? Was it only Republican leaders who applauded Netanyahu in Congress? Steny Hoyer didn't applaud? Chuck Schumer didn't applaud? Howard Berman didn't applaud? Of course, they did, and rightfully so. Netanyahu is the leader of America's premiere ally, who has managed to keep both his country's economy and democracy afloat in a region that otherwise has neither. Isn't that worth applauding?

Arab leaders haven’t given the Israelis any incentive to compromise.

No, they haven't. But then the Obama administration hasn't exactly succeeded at getting them to give Israel any incentives to 'compromise' either. And the very existence of a 'Palestinian state,' which has been turned down by the Arabs time and time again in favor of destroying Israel, would be a compromise in and of itself.

The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, seemed to give up on diplomacy when Mr. Obama could not deliver a promised settlement freeze.

Actually, Abu Mazen has not given up on diplomacy. He just thinks of it a little differently than we do. We in the West think of diplomacy as being the art of compromise. The 'Palestinians' think of diplomacy as getting what they want with guarantees of it before they ever sit down at a table.

We see no sign that he has thought even one step beyond the U.N. vote.

That is true, but why hasn't the Obama administration (which the Times is once again seeking to shield from all blame) not pointing that out?

With the September deadline approaching, the Obama administration is back in the business of incremental diplomacy. The White House is working with Israel and the Quartet (the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations) on a statement setting out parameters for negotiations. The core element: a Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps and guarantees for Israel’s security.

In May, President Obama endorsed that idea, which is widely accepted as the basis of any deal. At the time, Mr. Netanyahu scored points with hard-liners in Israel — and Republican lawmakers played the same game here — denouncing those boundaries as “indefensible.” Now the Israeli leader seems willing to accept them. It’s a start but not enough.

A start? Not enough? It's giving away the entire game before we sit down at the table. Netanyahu is playing a game of high stakes poker, but the Times doesn't mention the quid pro quo he has demanded: He has demanded that the 'Palestinians' recognize Israel as a Jewish state, essentially giving up the claim that they can flood whatever is left of Israel after a 'settlement' with 'refugees.' Netanyahu is betting that the 'Palestinians' won't agree to that. So far, it appears that he is right. Will Obama force him to drop that demand too? (I'm not even dealing with the Times' cynical portrayal of Netanyahu's dispute with Obama in May).

To have any chance of inducing the Palestinians to drop their statehood bid — and finally move the peace process forward — the United States and its partners should put a map and a deal on the table, with a timeline for concluding negotiations and a formal U.N. statehood vote. The Security Council and the Arab League need to throw their full weight behind it.

If what the Times is suggesting is the Clinton parameters (or some modified version of them), the 'Palestinians' have already rejected them. Just ask Bill Clinton.

But there's another issue here. Once again, we're talking about deadlines. I've done dozens of business deals and the only time that a deadline works is if after the deadline, the deal goes away and is off the table. Forever. I've been involved in deals where we went around in circles in November and December, but come the end of December, where the deal becomes impracticable if not done in the current calendar year, people really come to the table. And either they make the deal or they walk away and live with the consequences.

Going all the way back to Oslo 18 years ago, there were always deadlines, but they were always artificial. The deadline's passing had no consequences. The only way to make a deadline work is that if the deadline passes and there is no deal, the parties get up and walk away and the status quo remains as is - with no pressure from anyone to change it. The problem is that the 'deadlines' aren't real. The 'Palestinians' are always given the right to come back and demand more. And so they compromise on nothing.

But don't expect a real deadline to happen. It doesn't fit the Times' or Obama's agenda. What could go wrong?

Labels: imposed solution, New York Times, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, unilateral declaration of statehood

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:24 AM