Washington think tank: 'Critical aspects of the JCPOA may fall short of the standards outlined in [our] June 24 statement'
It takes time for academics to take a position on most issues. But this
joint statement on behalf of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy - the United States' top pro-Israel think tank - doesn't look good for mainstream Jewish support of Barack Hussein Obama's Iranian nuclear sellout.
Most of the names on the statement will sound familiar to anyone who reads academic material on Israel. Robert Satloff, Dennis Ross, James Jeffrey, Patrick Clawson, David Makovsky, Michael Eisenstadt, and Simon Henderson. Ross, as you might recall, was
in charge of the Iran portfolio during the first term of the Obama administration. They haven't made up their minds yet, but they raise some pretty serious issues.
The June 24 statement outlined five technical parameters for the
agreement as well as additional points on deterrence and a “resolute
regional strategy”:
-
Monitoring and verification. The agreement meets the
study group’s parameters for access to all known sites in Iran,
including 24/7 access to declared sites such as Natanz and Fordow.
However, we are concerned about whether it provides adequately “timely
access” when it comes to undeclared sites. The 24 days allotted to
potential delaying tactics by Iran before the issue is transferred for
UN Security Council action would probably not permit Iran to hide or
scrub sites where nuclear material is being used in illicit fashion. But
it may very well make it possible to hide other types of violations,
including potential violations of Iran’s commitments in terms of weapons
design work, design and manufacture of nonnuclear components used in
nuclear weapons, etc. We urge the administration to clarify its plans to
address these important issues to ensure the integrity of the JCPOA’s
monitoring and verification provisions.
-
Possible military dimensions. Because the precise
terms of the IAEA “roadmap” agreement with Iran on this issue are so
vague, and because the agreement on access to the Parchin military site
has yet to be made public, it is difficult to know whether it meets the
terms specified in the study group statement: that IAEA inspectors have
the ability "to take samples, to interview scientists and government
officials, to inspect sites, and to review and copy documents as
required for their investigation.” Further clarification is needed.
-
Advanced centrifuges. In the June 24 statement, the
study group called for measures that "preclude the rapid technical
upgrade and expansion of Iran's enrichment capacity after the initial
10-year period.” On this issue, the agreement appears to meet our
standard insofar as it stipulates a cap of 300 kilograms on the
stockpile of low-enriched uranium that Iran can have for 15 years. At
year 10, however, limits on centrifuges begin to be removed, and at year
15, all limits are terminated. While Iran is obligated to share with
the IAEA its long-term plan for research and development on centrifuges,
that plan is neither public nor binding. Without knowing the content of
the plan, it is difficult to judge whether this parameter has been
fully met. Given that an essential element of the JCPOA is that Iran has
promised “transparency” in exchange for retaining its nuclear
infrastructure, we believe it is essential that Iran’s long-term R&D
plan be made public soon to allow considered judgment of whether the
limitations outlined in the text reflect the intent of the JCPOA.
-
Sanctions relief. The JCPOA does condition the most
substantial sanctions relief on Iran’s fulfillment of its core
requirements, as called for in our statement. Moreover, U.S. officials
have committed publicly that nonnuclear sanctions will remain fully in
force. In addition, U.S. officials have also clarified for members of
the study group what was not spelled out clearly in the deal:
-
that institutions and individuals on whom nuclear-related sanctions
will be lifted can subsequently be sanctioned for terrorism or other
reasons, should they merit such designations;
-
that because the secondary nonnuclear sanctions remain in place,
the United States will still not allow use of the U.S. dollar in trade
with Iranian individuals and institutions in any way associated with
Iran’s support for terrorism, meaning that Iran cannot use dollars in
its oil trade; and
-
that the United States will continue to designate for nonnuclear
sanctions individuals and institutions, even those on whom nuclear
sanctions are being lifted, if their conduct so merits.
These are important statements. Equally important is to make sure that
other members of the P5+1, especially our European allies, understand
the scope of continuing U.S. sanctions, so that tensions with our allies
do not substitute for pressure on Iran. The administration should
publicly clarify U.S. policy on this issue and ensure that our allies
have a common understanding.
-
Consequences of violations. The agreement includes a
creative mechanism to provide for the reimposition of UN sanctions in
the event of Iranian noncompliance, as called for in the study group's
June 24 statement. But this relates to significant violations of the
agreement. The snapback function may work for significant violations,
but there is concern whether it will work for lesser violations and
whether the United States and its partners will risk the whole agreement
in order to impose penalties for lesser violations, particularly given
Iran’s statement in the agreement that it reserves the right to “cease
performing its commitments . . . in whole or in part” in response to
reimposition of any sanctions.
And then there's part that includes Israel:
In addition to these technical issues within the text, the JCPOA does
not address two other essential elements of the June 24 statement:
To strengthen deterrence of Iran, it is also important for Israel to
have its own independent deterrent capacity. To that end, we urge the
Obama administration to commit to providing technology to Israel that
would secure this objective over time, starting with proposing to
transfer to Israel the Massive Ordinance Penetrator and the requisite
aircraft, which will ensure that Israel has the ability at a later date
to deter Iran from reaching a nuclear weapon.
-
A call for the United States to affirm that it is U.S. policy to use
all means necessary to prevent Iran from producing sufficient fissile
material (highly enriched uranium) for a nuclear weapon – or otherwise
acquiring or building one – both during the agreement and after it
expires. This is a vital initiative because Iran will remain a nuclear
threshold state (and will clearly have retained the option of becoming a
nuclear weapon state) as restrictions on stockpiles of uranium and
centrifuge production lapse gradually after 10 years and, along with the
ban on reprocessing, end after 15 years, and the question is raised
about what would deter Iran from then developing a nuclear weapon. One
powerful element of deterrence would be for the United States to go on
record now that it is committed to using all means necessary, including
military force, to prevent this. While some senior administration
officials have made positive statements in this direction, such as the
statement made in recent Congressional testimony by energy Secretary
Moniz to the effect that development of HEU by Iran at any point in the
future would be a red line that the United States should not allow, we
urge the president now to formalize this as a declaration of a U.S.
policy and Congress should formally endorse it.
To strengthen deterrence of Iran, it is also important for Israel to
have its own independent deterrent capacity. To that end, we urge the
Obama administration to commit to providing technology to Israel that
would secure this objective over time, starting with proposing to
transfer to Israel the Massive Ordinance Penetrator and the requisite
aircraft, which will ensure that Israel has the ability at a later date
to deter Iran from reaching a nuclear weapon.
-
Separate from the agreement, the study group called on the president
to articulate a “resolute regional strategy” to counter Iranian negative
behavior throughout the Middle East. We believe the articulation and
implementation of this enhanced effort to counter Iranian negative
behavior—and to support allies and partners—in the region is both
important and urgent, given the substantial financial benefits Iran will
receive early in the implementation of this agreement and the
likelihood that considerable sums will be directed toward Iran’s
destabilizing regional activities. Working with our allies, we urge the
administration to build on the president’s GCC Summit and discussions of
Secretaries Carter and Kerry and adopt a number of tangible steps as
soon as possible.
I have to wonder about the usefulness of "a declaration of US policy" endorsed by Congress that says that the US will take military action against Iran to stop it from developing a nuclear weapon. We've
been down that road before.
All in all, however, the academics display a healthy skepticism over the Obama administration's nuclear sellout to Iran. Whether that translates into opposition remains to be seen, but the administration's touting the report as backing its position seems clearly premature.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, David Makovsky, Dennis Ross, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iranian nuclear threat, Robert Satloff
Most land tenders announced during 'peace talks' were approved by Abu Mazen
David Makovsky, a member of Martin Indyk's 'negotiating' team, told an audience at the Begin-Sadat Center two weeks ago that most of the contentious land tenders announced during the 'peace talks' were actually
approved in advance by '
moderate' '
Palestinian' President
Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen . This is from the first link.
During the nine months of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that ended
in failure in 2014, 62 percent of Israel’s publicly announced tenders
for housing beyond the Green Line were earmarked for the 1.9% of West
Bank land that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas had once
consented would remain in Israel’s hands.
David Makovsky, who
was a member of US Secretary of State John Kerry’s negotiating team
during this period, pointed out this little-known fact during a speech
Tuesday at a conference on US-Israel relations that took place at Bar-
Ilan University’s Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.
Makovsky,
a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that
Israel was more “geographically cautious” with settlement announcements
during the negotiating period than many realize.
“It would have
been helpful if that could have been made public,” Makovsky said,
explaining that for political reasons that was not a possibility.
This geographic caution was not stated publicly but was the policy.
Announcements
of settlement plans during this period were a huge bone of contention,
with former US Mideast envoy Martin Indyk, who headed the team
Makovsky was a member of, placing much of the blame for the breakdown
of the talks on Israel’s settlement policies. He said during a speech
last year that “rampant settlement activity – especially in the midst
of negotiations – doesn’t just undermine Palestinian trust in the
purpose of the negotiations, it can undermine Israel’s Jewish future.”
In
2008 Abbas reportedly turned down an offer by thenprime minister Ehud
Olmert for Israel to annex 6.3% of the West Bank to incorporate the
major settlement blocs into Israel in exchange for 5.8% of land within
Israel and the corridor from the West Bank to Gaza. Abbas reportedly
countered with a proposal for a 1.9% land swap, apparently the area
where most of the housing tenders were announced during the 2013- 2014
negotiations.
Isn't it amazing that the Israeli government chose not to deflect John Kerry's pressure by pointing this out at the time?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, David Makovsky, John Kerry, Martin Indyk, Middle East peace process
Biden - 'Hey Israel! Sorry we screwed up!'
I've known David Makovsky for nearly 40 years, since he was a student at a Jerusalem yeshiva sending dispatches to Jewish media. I can't recall him ever getting something so wrong.
On Thursday night, US Vice President Joe Biden addressed the Washington Institute, where Makovsky is one of the scholars. In essence, Biden said, '
Sorry Israel, we screwed up. Iran is now a nuclear power and there's nothing you can do about it.'
"Let's get something straight so we don't
kid each other," Biden said. "They already have paved a path to a bomb's
worth of material. Iran could get there now if they walked away in two
to three months without a deal."
...
Critics have noted that this is an
apparent backing down from Obama's stated position that he would not
allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, but Biden said that policy still
stands.
"President Obama, decided for the first time — people forget this —
to make it an explicit, declared policy of the United States of America,
no such policy existed before President Obama uttered it — that all
instruments of American power to prevent — not contain, not contain — to
prevent a nuclear-armed Iran would be used to prevent that from
happening," Biden said.
Let's face reality: Iran has become a borderline nuclear power on Obama's watch, and despite Obama's pronouncements, there is nothing Obama will do other than talk to stop them. I think it's going to take a bit more than that.
What could go wrong? Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, David Makovsky, Iranian nuclear threat, Joe Biden
'Unnamed US officials' blame Israel for talks' collapse, green light new intifada
Shavua tov, a good week once again. I have a few minutes before my two hours of sleep before I start my day with a trip to the airport.
An appalling piece in YNet based on interviews by Nahum Barnea with two anonymous officials - most likely Martin Indyk and David Makovsky (
Makovsky did the maps referenced in the interview using Google Earth in 2011) places the blame for the collapse of the 'peace talks' on the 'settlements' and gives a
green light to a new 'Palestinian' intifadeh.
The American version of
why the current round of negotiations between Israel and the
Palestinians failed is fundamentally different to the one presented by
Israeli officials. The list of those to blame for this failure is also
very different. From the US perspective, the issue of the settlements
was largely to blame.
...
The Israeli government made no response to the American plan, and avoided drawing its own border outline.
The criticism against the Israeli government is presented in terms of
wounds inflicted by a friend who could still be trusted: Israel is very
dear to them, but the wounds are deep.
...
"There are a lot of
reasons for the peace effort's failure, but people in Israel shouldn't
ignore the bitter truth - the primary sabotage came from the
settlements. The Palestinians don't believe that Israel really intends
to let them found a state when, at the same time, it is building
settlements on the territory meant for that state. We're talking about
the announcement of 14,000 housing units, no less. Only now, after talks
blew up, did we learn that this is also about expropriating land on a
large scale. That does not reconcile with the agreement.
"At this point, it's very hard to see how the negotiations could be
renewed, let alone lead to an agreement. Towards the end, Abbas demanded
a three-month freeze on settlement construction. His working assumption
was that if an accord is reached, Israel could build along the new
border as it pleases. But the Israelis said no."
...
"There was a massive
effort on our part to pull the wagon out of the deep quicksand it was
stuck in. But the reality here hit us hard. Neither side had a sense of
urgency. Kerry was the only one who felt a sense of urgency, and that
was not enough."
...
Were you surprised when you discovered that the Israelis don't really care what happens in the negotiations?
"Yes, we were surprised. It surprised us all along the way. When
(Moshe) Ya'alon, your defense minister, said that the only thing Kerry
wants is to win a Nobel Prize, the insult was great. We were doing this
for you and for the Palestinians. Of course, there were also American
interests at play.
...
It almost sounds like you wish for an intifada.
"Quite the opposite, it would be a tragedy. The Jewish people
are supposed to be smart; it is true that they're also considered a
stubborn nation. You're supposed to know how to read the map: In the
21st century, the world will not keep tolerating the Israeli occupation.
The occupation threatens Israel's status in the world and threatens
Israel as a Jewish state."
The world is
being self-righteous. It closes its eyes to China's takeover of Tibet,
it stutters at what Russia's doing to Ukraine.
"Israel is not China. It was founded by a UN resolution. Its
prosperity depends on the way it is viewed by the international
community."
...
"Abbas reached the
conclusion that there was nothing for him in such an agreement. He's 79
years old. He has reached the last chapter of his life. He's tired. He
was willing to give the process one final chance, but found, according
to him, that he has no partner on the Israeli side. His legacy won't
include a peace agreement with Israel.
"In February, Abbas arrived at a Paris hotel for a meeting with
Kerry. He had a lingering serious cold. 'I'm under a lot of pressure,'
he complained. 'I'm sick of this.' He rejected all of Kerry's ideas. A
month later, in March, he was invited to the White House. Obama
presented the American-formulated principles verbally - not in writing.
Abbas refused.
"The claim on your side that Abbas was avoiding making decisions is not true. He wasn't running away, he was just stuck."
...
What concessions?
"He agreed to a demilitarized state; he agreed to the border
outline so 80 percent of settlers would continue living in Israeli
territory; he agreed for Israel to keep security sensitive areas (mostly
in the Jordan Valley - NB) for five years, and then the United States
would take over. He accepted the fact that in the Israeli perception,
the Palestinians would never be trustworthy.
"He also agreed that the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would
remain under Israeli sovereignty, and agreed that the return of
Palestinians to Israel would depend on Israeli willingness. 'Israel
won't be flooded with refugees,' he promised.
"He told us: 'Tell me if there's another Arab leader that would have
agreed to what I agreed to. I won't make any more concessions until
Israel agrees to the three following terms:
- Outlining the borders would be the first topic under discussion. It would be agreed upon within three months.
- A timeframe would be set for the evacuation of Israelis from
sovereign Palestinian territories (Israel had agreed to complete the
evacuation of Sinai within three years).
- Israel will agree to have East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.
The Israelis would not agree to any of the three demands."
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, David Makovsky, John Kerry, Martin Indyk, Middle East peace process, Tzipi Livni, Uri Ariel
David Makovsky joins the 'peace train'
David Makovsky has joined Martin Indyk's Middle East 'peace train' as a strategist and '
senior adviser.'
“Drawing upon decades of experience working and writing on
Israeli-Palestinian issues, Makovsky will serve as a strategist for the
U.S. efforts and will be dealing with the wide range of issues
associated with the negotiations,” the State Department official said in
a statement. “We believe this expertise will greatly contribute to the
ongoing efforts to achieve peace.”
Indyk has been expanding his team
as the U.S. prepares to step up its role in trying to facilitate an
Israeli-Palestinian final status peace agreement. Israeli media
reported Monday that US Secretary of State John Kerry will travel again
to Israel late next week.
Makovsky, a former journalist, has most recently served as a fellow
at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, where he directed the
project on the Middle East peace process. He has also taught as an
adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced
International Studies (SAIS).
Update: “While we are saddened to lose
David, we are proud that he will play this critical role in U.S.
policymaking,” Robert Satloff, executive director at the Washington
Institute, said in a press statement later Monday. “We are confident
that David will enrich the U.S. government’s diplomatic efforts to
promote Middle East peace with the same creativity and wisdom that have
made him a pivotal member of the Institute research team and a trusted
resource to decisionmakers in Washington and throughout the region.”
I've written about David Makovsky many times on this blog (we go back 35 years). You can get some idea about his thinking
here.
Like most of Washington's foreign policy establishment, David's way too eager to get a deal - any deal - done for my tastes. But he's a lot more sympathetic to Israel's positions than Indyk or Kerry are.
Labels: David Makovsky, John Kerry, Martin Indyk, Middle East peace process
Liveblog from #tomorrow12 The Tomorrow's Borders of Israel
This is a liveblog of the 'Tomorrow's borders' panel. The list of panelists and their bios are
here.
Nir Hefetz opens with story of Israel postponing the 'settlement freeze' due to a demand that it include Jerusalem before it was even voted upon. Implies that George Mitchell leaked it to Yediot's Shimon Shiffer to try to pressure the government.
Dan Rothem gives demographic statistics and slips in double counting of 'east' Jerusalem Aravs without most people noticing. He also uses Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) figures for Judea and Samaria as if they were reliable. He uses 2012 numbers for overall, but 2010 numbers for 'east' Jerusalem claiming 285,000 Arabs.
Naftali Bennett gets up to speak. Bennett says conflict can't be solved but we can learn to live with it (which is what I have argued on this blog many times). He has up the JCPA topographical map:
Bennett comes to 1.8 million 'Palestinians' in Judea and Samaria, while Rothem had put up a number of 4.3 million. That's what the argument over demography is about.
Bennett gives his plan. NO expulsions - not for Israelis and not for 'Palestinians.' Says most Arabs just want to live. Focus on what we can solve. Don't waste time in Oslo and Annapolis. Shooting for perfection will just bring disaster.
Caroline Glick is next. Says she agrees with Bennett and that we should accept the fact that Judea and Samaria belong to Israel. Says 'Palestinians' don't want peace and that we have fulfilled our obligations under UN resolutions. The only legally binding document under international law is the British Mandate and that said that Judea and Samaria belong to Israel.
Three models: 'Palestinian' sovereignty, i.e. Gaza. Shared sovereignty like Judea and Samaria but 'Palestinians' are using that to erode our legitimacy. Sole Israeli sovereignty like in Jerusalem. Sole Israeli sovereignty does much better job of guaranteeing citizens rights.
Why no Israeli Arab terrorism? The reason is because Israel has sovereignty in Galilee and Negev.
Caroline posts demographic study from 1997-2009 and says she will give Arabs citizenship. Says that Rothem's data has been proven incorrect since 2004. It relied on 1997 PCBS census that overstated by more than 1.8 million. Birth rates converging. Massive aliya potential in Europe. 'Palestinians' have net emigration since 1994. From a demographic perspective, the future belongs to the Jews. We are only western democracy with fertility rate above replacement rate (US at 2.1 is around replacement rate).
Ilan Paz next - battery running out. Paz urges accepting Rothem's statistics. Says PCBS reliable. Then goes on to talk about security fence. Argues that Jerusalem is not united and therefore we should give up Arab neighborhoods and we can solve the problem of the holy basin. Of course, Paz ignores the fact that surveys have found that the 'Palestinian' Arabs in Jerusalem
don't want to live in a 'Palestinian state.'
Makovsky is next. He reads what Netanyahu said a couple of weeks ago, and says that Netanyahu says we need peace to avoid a binational state and that we don't want 'Palestinians' to be part of our state. He says no one wants to annex the 'Palestinians.' Israel does not want a binational state.
Makovsky developed a
map of a proposed peace agreement.
He claims there is hope for peace, and that the gaps are narrower than people realize.
Now in moderator's Q&A. Makovsky says that based on his conversations with Abu Bluff, they understand that Israel is going to maintain a presence in the Jordan Valley for some time to come even if there is an agreement. I find it hard to believe Abu Bluff will accept that.
I did not get to ask the questions I wanted to ask in the Q&A. I wanted to point out that the statistics presented by Rothem and Paz double counted the 'east' Jerusalem Arabs, and whether it matters how small the gaps are when we all have seen that the 'Palestinians' have not made a single concession at least since 1993.
Labels: Caroline Glick, David Makovsky, Naftali Bennett, President's Conference
So much shilling, so little to show for it
Jennifer Rubin writes that no supporter of Israel should cry over the departure of
Dennis Ross as President Obama's special assistant on the Middle East.
One wondered at times how Ross justified his tenure. (“Well, Obama would have been worse without me”?) His principal function at times appeared to be no more than assuring the American Jewish community that Obama had Israel’s best interests at heart.
Former deputy national security advisor for President George W. Bush, Elliott Abrams, told me: “Dennis Ross was a reassuring presence for lots of American Jewish leaders who were very uneasy about Obama Middle East policy. No matter what the President said or did, they would always say well, but Dennis is there, Dennis says it’s OK, Dennis this and Dennis that. He was a facade behind which the political and diplomatic distance between the United States and Israel grew.” Going forward there will be no Dennis, of course. Abrams continued,“Now that facade will be removed, or perhaps it is more accurate to say that Ross tired of that role and tired of defending a president whose feelings about Israel were as cold as Ross’s are warm. This is going to hurt the White House in the Jewish community, because they have no substitute for Ross and no one with his credibility with most Jewish organizations.”
And yet, dispite those warm feelings, Ross served a president that bullied and badgered the Jewish state and insulted its democratically elected prime minister. And yet Ross was there when Obama let Iran’s Green Movement come and go. And yet Ross was there when settlements became the end-all-and-be-all of the “peace process.” In his defense, some would say, none of this was his idea; Obama was running the show. Quite possibly, but then what was Ross’s contribution?
The shame of it is that this was an experienced Middle East hand who knew better. He co-wrote a book debunking linkage between the “peace process” and confronting Iran. He was at Camp David with President Clinton when it was apparent that the Palestinians’ rejectionism, not any settlement activity, was the barrier to peace. In seeking one more round in the White House, a capstone to his long career, Ross was taking a gamble that his last chapter of public service would be a success and that he might be the one to finally unlock the secret of peace in the Middle East.
Instead he was part of the most inept Middle East team ever assembled. He served a president whose disdain for Israel could not be concealed. Not exactly what he had in mind, I bet.
One has to who, if anyone, will replace Ross in the White House. Dan Shapiro is too young and still cutting his teeth as ambassador to Israel. David Makovsky, Ross' co-author, has never held positions in government - his career is journalism and academia. Bring back Dan Kurtzer? Sounds a little tired.
On the other hand, Obama may be figuring that nothing dramatic is going to happen for the next year because of the elections anyway, and after next year, if God forbid he is reelected, he won't have to mollify the Jewish community anymore. He will have a second term as a lame duck.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Dan Kurtzer, David Makovsky, Dennis Ross
What would Abu Bluff do for peace?
In an article that bears the obtuse title (yes, I know, op-ed writers don't always get to title the article)
What would Netanyahu do for peace? David Makovsky urges Prime Minister Netanyahu to show up with a
vision for renewed talks when he comes to Washington later this week.
Israel’s reaction to the Hamas-Fatah pact has been to hunker down, hoping that the unity government will collapse under the weight of the parties’ differences. Yet paralysis carries its own risks. The U.S. partners in “the Quartet” — the European Union, Russia and the United Nations, which joined Washington in 2006 to lay out steps by which Hamas must reform should it want to become a legitimate interlocutor in the peace process — have cautiously welcomed the new government with hopes, as opposed to demands, that Hamas will evolve, though some have championed the fact that cabinet ministers in the new body are affiliated with neither Hamas nor Fatah. A majority of countries is likely to recognize a Palestinian state at the U.N. General Assembly this September.
This should be of serious concern to Netanyahu, who needs to overcome suspicions about his desire for a breakthrough. Rather than slide to September, Netanyahu should take the opportunity of his May 24 address to a joint session of Congress to lay out a compelling political vision toward renewed peace talks. He could state that if — and only if — Abbas cuts ties with Hamas, Israeli and Palestinian leaders could cross historic thresholds meaningful to both sides.
Polls show that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians want a two-state solution but remain uncertain of whether the other side is willing to make the necessary concessions. Both Netanyahu and Abbas need to address the other side’s gut fears. And the only chance of one side crossing a threshold is if the other side takes a comparable step.
In theory, the United States should have engineered and synchronized this crossing of thresholds. It has, however, been preoccupied with the Arab Spring and has not focused on this issue, perhaps precipitating former senator George Mitchell’s departure as envoy. The new Palestinian configuration further hamstrings our position. A speech by President Obama this Thursday, focusing on the Mideast writ large, with a possible mention of U.S. principles to end the conflict, is far less preferable than substantive leadership by Netanyahu and Abbas; it would be perceived in the region as exhortation without follow-through.
So it is up to both parties to act. Netanyahu should spell out to Congress the major threshold he will cross, but only if Abbas is willing to respond publicly in kind. Since Palestinians’ major fear is that Israel will hold on to the West Bank, Netanyahu needs to clearly state that this will not be the case. Although Palestinians realize that Israel will not return to the pre-1967 borders and that enforced security arrangements are vital for any agreement, they want assurance that the 1967 line will be the baseline for calculations in configuring the final border. Thus, whatever land Israel keeps from within the West Bank — which is likely to be adjacent to the old pre-1967 boundary, where a significant majority of the settlers live — will yield an equivalent amount from within Israel proper. Such a deal is in line with Israeli offers to every other Arab state on its borders; a statement to this effect will go far in assuring Palestinians that Netanyahu is serious about peace.
Netanyahu set out a detailed vision of peace in his Bar Ilan speech in June 2009. We have never heard a vision of peace - detailed or otherwise - from Abu Mazen or any other 'Palestinian' leader.
Netanyahu has repeatedly called for negotiations without preconditions and that's how civilized people sit down to talk. There is no rhyme or reason for Israel to give assurances about the outcome of negotiations by making concessions before coming to the table, particularly when the 'Palestinians' have never given any such assurances. There is certainly no reason Israel should commit in advance to turn over the entire 'West Bank' or to give equivalent land to anything it retains from 'Israel proper.' The fact that Israel made the mistake of turning over every last grain of Sinai to Egypt and gave some land along the Dead Sea to Jordan does not mean that it is required to follow the same model in every peace agreement. The areas demanded by the 'Palestinians' are far more sensitive to Israel's security than the Sinai or the Dead Sea area.
The real question Makovsky ought to be asking is what Abu Mazen would do for peace. Sadly, the answer appears to be
nothing, which may be why Makovsky doesn't even ask the question.
Oh, and George Mitchell quit because there have been no negotiations since September, and not because of anything that happened in the last week. I'm sure that decision was long in the making.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Binyamin Netanyahu, David Makovsky, joint session of Congress
A map to nowhere
David Makovsky has published a
34-page pdf with maps and calculations that are designed to show what a 'two-state solution' could theoretically look like on a map. I found the 7.5 meg daunting, and decided not to spend a lot of time on it. It merited a small article buried inside the Jerusalem Post on Sunday.
But the
New York Times took it very seriously (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum), and so, something needs to be said about it.
To some seasoned observers, the significance of the maps is less what they show than where they come from.
The Washington Institute was founded in 1985 by scholars affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the influential pro-Israel lobbying group. While the institute has earned a reputation for solid scholarship, and has wholeheartedly supported the peace process, it has remained a staunch supporter of Israel.
Still, this latest effort to prod Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Abbas back into negotiations resonates with a broader frustration at the impasse among many American Jews.
“There is an increasing trend toward an ‘oy vey’ angst over how to save the two-state solution from the settlement juggernaut and by extension how to save Israeli democracy,” said Daniel Levy, a senior research fellow and co-director of the Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation.
“The specifics of his proposed one-to-one border swaps are interesting,” Mr. Levy continued, “but the subtext reads: ‘Yikes! We need a border and an end to the settlement phenomenon now.’ ”
Mr. Levy, an unabashed liberal, said he was particularly struck by Mr. Makovsky’s so-called maximalist map, which shows that Israel could absorb 80 percent of its settler population by swapping land with the Palestinians equivalent to less than 5 percent of the West Bank.
That is less than a previous Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, proposed to Mr. Abbas in 2008, when the two discussed land swaps. Mr. Olmert wanted a swap equivalent to 6.3 percent of the territory Israel seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war; Mr. Abbas wanted to transfer only 1.9 percent. Mr. Netanyahu has not taken a position on the swaps. To some right-wing Israelis, any such maps are taboo.
They're taboo for a very good reason: The 'Palestinians' have already turned down far better deals. The 'Palestinians' still insist that Israel concede everything on borders and 'settlements' before the 'Palestinians' will even deign to come to the table. But borders and 'settlements' are the only area in which Israel has anything to concede (unless you count Jerusalem separately). Israel would be left with security, 'refugees,' Jerusalem and water (among others) with absolutely no bargaining power. The concentration on borders gives the illusion of hope. But there is no hope, and there will not be any hope until the 'Palestinians' are willing to accept a compromise and to stop teaching their children to murder Jews. No map is going to cause those things to happen.
Labels: Barack Obama, David Makovsky, maps
US letter of assurances ready, EU in disarray on Mideast
Although no one in Israel has seen it yet, the letter of assurances from the United States to Israel regarding the 90-day 'settlement freeze' extension has been prepared.
Here are some details of what is in it.
The crux of the deal centers on the US providing Israel with advanced fighter jets in return for a three-month West Bank settlement freeze that both the US administration and the government in Jerusalem hope will get Palestinians back to the negotiating table, he said.
Makovsky pointed out that while the Obama administration is making the offer, it’s Congress that must eventually sign off on sending fighter jets to Israel. Although Congress is typically supportive of Israeli aid and military acquisitions, incoming Republicans who will be taking over the US House have been talking about the need to save money and perhaps cut foreign aid.
In this climate, Makovsky said that Netanyahu is looking for some sort of “fallback understanding” so that he can present the security cabinet with an iron-clad arrangement for the planes in order to get the ministers’ backing for the freeze.
He also referred to a “verbal affirmation” from Netanyahu to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the there would be “meaningful progress” on border issues during the 90-day freeze. He said that Israeli officials have concerns about a solitary focus on territory, or even on territory and security, over those 90 days, since Israel sees its best “chips” as being land. Officials are worried that if they give ground on this issue it will leave them in a weaker position when it comes to dealing with the even more sensitive issues of Jerusalem and refugees, so they are looking to find a formula they feel comfortable with.
Makovsky said that while the text didn’t contain any references to a long-term Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley – a key point Palestinians objected to – Israel would raise it in the future.
In addition, Shas ministers are trying to “ramp up” East Jerusalem building, Makovsky noted. While the agreement between the US and Israel would keep the same terms of the previous moratorium – which exempted East Jerusalem – Shas is looking for explicit permission for building which the US has long opposed and is unlikely to look on favorably.
My guess is that if this report is accurate, Shas will declare victory and abstain. Unfortunately, I don't see them voting against this deal.
Meanwhile the Europeans continue to talk out of both sides of their collective mouths on the Middle East.
[Italian Foreign Minister Franco] Frattini, meanwhile, related to recent Palestinian threats to get the world to recognize a Palestinians state inside the June 4, 1967, lines, thereby imposing a solution on the parties, by saying that “so far” there is an understanding among the EU states that “we should support negotiations and negotiators, not replace the negotiations and negotiators.
“What is very important is to let the negotiators sit around the table and get an agreement including on the borders, not to decide from Brussels or elsewhere what should the Palestinian state be,” Frattini said. “We do want a Palestinian state as soon as possible, but there is no consensus and there are no proposals in Europe to have a decision on behalf of the two negotiators.”
As Frattini was meeting with top Israeli officials, in Brussels foreign ministers and other senior representatives of EU countries were discussing the Middle East at the monthly Foreign Affairs Council.
Following the meeting, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton issued a statement saying that the ministers exchanged views and “voiced their concern at the current lack of progress and the ongoing settlement activities, particularly in east Jerusalem. The High Representative [Ashton] pointed to the Council’s December 2009 conclusions and recalled that settlements are illegal under international law, are an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two-state solution impossible.”
According to the statement, the “ministers also expressed their ongoing concern at the situation in Gaza, calling for the Gaza crossings to be opened and, in particular, for exports to be allowed out of Gaza.”
One Israeli diplomatic official said that what was so striking was that the statement was completely out of sync with the message that Frattini brought to Israel, one reason why the EU’s influence here is so limited.
Regarding the EU statement, the official said that “as long as this is their world view, they will continue to remain locked in their own fantasy work, without any possibility of influencing the real one.”
It is also mind boggling, the official said, that the statements routinely issued from the EU “make no acknowledgment of Israeli positions. They hold on to their slogans for dear life, and no reality makes them change it.”
My own view is that Ashton - in addition to being a pompous ass - is an anti-Semite. I haven't done a head count to see how many other European Foreign Ministers are like her, but she is not the only one.
Labels: Catherine Ashton, David Makovsky, Franco Frattini, Hillary Clinton, settlement freeze extension
