Former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton and 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen finally agree on something: They agree that Abu Mazen is unable to implement a peace agreement with Israel even if he wants to.
Here's Bolton - watch from about 1:08 onwards. Let's go to the videotape.
Abbas’
words express a clear message that the Palestinians see the
negotiations as simply a tool to achieve Palestinian rights according to
the Palestinian viewpoint, and they are not seeking a way to compromise
with Israel on essential issues. This follows the Palestinian approach
regarding “a peace based on justice” as compared with the Israeli
approach of “a peace based on compromise.”
Abbas demands full sovereignty in all the territory conquered by
Israel from the Kingdom of Jordan and Egypt in the defensive war it
fought in 1967 (“the ’67 lands”), and especially in the area called
“eastern Jerusalem,” which includes the Old City, the Temple Mount, the
Jewish Quarter, the Western Wall, and other Jewish historical sites.
An Israeli withdrawal from eastern Jerusalem and all the Jewish holy
sites located there, in the eyes of Abbas, is an important prerequisite
for a political solution, and without this there is no Palestinian
leader who has the authority to sign a political agreement with Israel.
In the past Abbas presented similar prerequisites regarding other issues
under discussion in the negotiations including borders, sovereignty,
refugees, and the freeing of Palestinians serving prison sentences in
Israel for involvement in terror attacks.
Abbas is determined in his rejection of the request to recognize
Israel as a Jewish state, and his position is directly connected to the
Palestinian position toward the refugees, regarding which he has
distanced himself and all the Palestinian institutions from any
authority to reach any decisions involving what the Palestinians call
“the right of return.”
In his claim that “the right of return” is a “personal right” of
every refugee and his descendants for all generations, Abbas is
undermining a basic assumption of Israel and the U.S. regarding the
political negotiations, according to which he can represent the
Palestinian people on the issues at the heart of the conflict and take
historic decisions in their name.
This position conforms with the law approved by Abbas in 2008 in his
role as “chairman of the PLO Executive Committee” and “president of the
Palestinian National Authority.” The law, called “the Law of the Right
of Return of the Palestinian Refugees,”2 was approved by the Palestinian parliament and determines, among other things, that:
Para. 2 – The right of return of the
Palestinian refugees to their homes and their property and their receipt
of compensation for their suffering is a basic, holy right and is not
subject to buying and selling, and is not subject to personal judgment
[to make major changes], interpretation, or referendum.
Para. 3 – The right of return is a
natural right that is personal, collective, civilian, and political,
that is transferred from father to son and is not cancelled over time or
through the signing of any agreement, and it cannot be cancelled or
given up for any reason.
Para. 5 – It is forbidden to settle the
Palestinian refugees or remove them [from their current places] as an
alternative to the right of return.
Para. 6 – Anyone who acts in
contradiction to this law will be considered as one who has committed
serious criminal treason, and will be subject to every criminal and
civil punishment that this crime deserves.
The Palestinian strategy has been revealed in full. The current
political negotiations, or any future negotiations, cannot bring about a
signed, stable, and lasting political agreement that will bring an end
to the conflict and all claims. The first Palestinian objective in their
order of priorities is to receive full sovereignty on the territory of
1967 – while leaving the conflict wide open.
So why are we still 'negotiating'? Just to avoid blame? That sounds like an awfully dangerous risk to take.
Maariv, a Hebrew-only daily, reports that the Defense Ministry has told the United States that it cannot accept the American 'security plan' for Israel and the 'Palestinians.'
The US's security plan
involves a slow transition from IDF patrols over the region to
Palestinian Authority (PA) forces, with an international presence,
according to reports. IDF drones would also be deployed over the area,
as a means of gathering information about any terrorist activity that
could potentially develop there.
The Israeli government has insisted that the region is of crucial
importance to Israel's future, and has been critical of plans to hand
over the area to the PA. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has insisted
that in the event that Israel withdrew from Judea and Samaria, as per Kerry's plans, the Jordan Valley be kept under Israeli control.
The US's plan is based on the 1967 "Allon Plan," which received wide
acclaim at the time. The plan insists that the Jordan Valley is the key
to Israel's security, even in the event of a withdrawal to 1949
Armistice Lines; however, analysts have noted that the rest of Judea and Samaria is actually more crucial to Israel's security than the Jordan Valley itself.
Despite this, the Israeli government has insisted that its only "red
line" would be maintaining its presence in the Valley. On Sunday, a
Ministerial Cabinet approved a bill to annex the Valley on that premise.
Read the last clause of the second sentence of the third paragraph again:
however, analysts have noted that the rest of Judea and Samaria is actually more crucial to Israel's security than the Jordan Valley itself.
If that's true - and one look at a topographical map makes it very obvious why that's true - why is Israel obsessing with the Jordan Valley. In my view, it's a gamble to kill the deal altogether. If Israel were insisting on the high ground of the Samarian mountains (which is what really is critical from a security perspective), then you could in theory reach a compromise on the borders.
But if we insist on the Jordan Valley - and on what would be a logistical nightmare of transiting people between Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley through the 'Palestinian state' on a regular basis - I believe that insistence is grounded in the hope (at least at the Defense Ministry - I believe that Netanyahu genuinely wants a deal) that it will cause the 'negotiations' to bog down and collapse.
Right now, that potential collapse of the 'negotiations' may be our best hope.
Obama to IDF Generals: Stop being so concerned about Israel's security and sign the damned deal already
The Obama administration is pressuring the IDF's generals to stop being so concerned about Israel's security and sign the damned deal already.
The administration is seeking a complete or partial IDF withdrawal
from the Jordan Valley, where the border between Israel and Jordan lies
at the eastern edge of Judea and Samaria, also called the West Bank. The
Palestinian Authority has long sought control of the valley. However,
Israel and Jordan are opposed to an IDF withdrawal, which they fear
would enable the transit of terrorists and arms through Jordan into the
West Bank.
After a prominent retired Israeli general spoke out against
IDF withdrawal from the Jordan Valley, Israeli media reported that the
Obama administration’s head envoy to the Israeli-Palestinian
negotiations, Martin Indyk,
convened a meeting of Israeli security officials. He pressured them to
drop their objections to the plan and make media appearances in support
of it to help sell a skeptical Israeli public on the benefits of a
reduction in security.
Let's go to the videotape.
Did you all catch that "not ten years, but 50 years"? If you didn't, go back and watch again.
We will consider the strategic wisdom of his plans for defending
Israel from threats east of the Jordan River presently. But first we
need to ask whether a threat from across the border would really be the
only significant threat that Israel would face after surrendering Judea,
Samaria and much of Jerusalem to the PLO.
The answer to this question is obvious to every Israeli who has been
awake for the past 20 years, since Israel started down the “land for
peace” road with the PLO.
The greatest threat Israel will face in an era of “peace” with the
Palestinians will not come from east of the Jordan. It will come from
west of the Jordan – from the Jew-free Palestinian state.
The Palestinians don’t give us peace for land. They give us war for
land. Whether they support the PLO, Hamas or anything in between, the
Palestinians have used every centimeter of land that Israel has given
them as launching bases for terrorist and political attacks against
Israel.
There is no peace camp in Palestinian society. There are only
terrorist organizations that compete for power and turf. And to the
extent there are moderates in Palestinian society, they are empowered
when Israel is in control, and weakened when Israel transfers power to
the PLO.
Report: Kerry security plan accepts most Israeli positions
A report on Army Radio claims that US Secretary of State John FN Kerry's 'security plan' accepts most Israeli positions.
Accroding to the Army Radio report, the US is prepared to give Israel
full control of the Jordan border, as well as the ability to spy and
collect intelligence in the West Bank.
Kerry also proposed that a
massive fence be built along the length of the Jordan Valley, similar to
the current West Bank separation barrier, placing the proposed
Palestinian state between the two fences, Army Radio reported.
According
to the report, the US security proposal also allows for Israeli drones
to fly over the West Bank, collecting intelligence and spying on
terrorist activities. Jordan border patrols will initially be carried
out by IDF soldiers only, for the first few years, and will eventually
be made cooperative with Palestinian security forces and Jordanian
forces.
While Israel reportedly sees the proposals as a basis for negotiations, both Abbas and the Arab League have effectively rejected the US plan, stating that here could be not one Israeli soldier in the territory of a future Palestinian state.
Israeli withdrawals in the plan appear to include large parts of
Judea and Samaria, as the new report mentions Kerry's intentions to
build a massive border fence in the area.
Regarding the security threat, of what is feared by many to become a
terror state in Judea and Samaria, Kerry's plan would have the IDF
deploy drones over the area to monitor terrorist activities and gather
information.
Apparently the presence of drones in Judea and Samaria is the
"creative security solutions" Yedid spoke of, when he noted that Israeli
security sources added such "solutions" to meet US demands when
submitting the plan to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
Kerry's staff rented 50 rooms at a luxurious Jerusalem hotel for
January, in order to "attack" Netanyahu and demand that he accept the US
plan, reported Yedioth Aharonoth on Friday.
The plan, which Arutz Sheva analyst Mark Langfan has called a "death-trap" for Israel, would let the country for
10 years partially retain the 15 kilometer (9 mile) wide strip of the
Jordan Valley as a security zone. In fact, the plan doesn't even meet
the minimum "defensible"
Israeli borders as determined by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff (USJCoS)
in 1967, even according to military realities of that time.
The Israeli daily's report noted that over a month ago, Kerry's
security staff head, General John Allen, spoke before the IDF and
Defense Ministry about security arrangements. After the Israelis added
notes to Allen's work, it was presented to Netanyahu two weeks ago.
According to the report, Netanyahu did not rule out the plan, and
said he was ready to accept parts of it, but only if Israel's serious
concerns about security are accommodated into the plan. In this way, it
is thought that Netanyahu tried to shift US pressure onto Defense
Minister Moshe Ya'alon, perhaps expecting Ya'alon to be able to shelve
the plan.
Deputy Minister MK Ofir Akunis (Likud) strongly rejected the idea of uprooting communities in the Jordan Valley.
"We need to say: it will never happen! In the Valley, at a distance
of 70 kilometers (43.5 miles) from the Mediterranean Sea, the pioneers
settled in our generation. In difficult conditions, distanced from large
urban centers, they are developing complete wilderness. There is no
demographic problem, because the 'Palestinians' didn't settle there,"
said Akunis.
"When the Jewish nation returned to its homeland, after the exile in
Egypt (over 3,000 years ago as recorded in the Bible), it entered
through the Jordan Valley. We must not agree to concessions, withdrawals
or expulsions: not in the Valley and not in any other place in our
country," emphasized the MK.
US security plan included IDF troops in Jordan Valley
The US security plan for the Jordan Valley that was rejected by the 'Palestinians' included an IDF presence along Highway 90, 5 kilometers west of the Jordanian border (see map above) for ten years.
According to the TV report, the plan — formulated by retired US general
John Allen and presented to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during a recent visit by
US Secretary of State John Kerry — ensured a more significant Israeli
military presence in the Jordan Valley than previously reported. Earlier
reports suggested that Allen’s plan stationed IDF troops on the
Jordanian border, but Channel 10 cited “sources knowledgeable with the
negotiations” as saying it entailed an IDF presence along Route 90, the
major north-south artery five kilometers west of the frontier.
Last week, the Palestinians said they rejected
any proposal that didn’t stipulate the removal of all IDF soldiers from
a future Palestinian state.
A senior Palestinian official was quoted as
saying that after Kerry pitched the proposal, the meeting between the
secretary of state and Abbas turned to “worse than bad.”
The presence of Israeli soldiers in the Jordan
valley in a final agreement is a point of contention between Netanyahu
and his chief negotiator, Justice Minister Tzipi Livni.
According to a September report in the Israeli
daily Maariv, Livni supports the introduction of international forces
to the Jordan Valley, similar to the expanded role UNIFIL received in
southern Lebanon under Security Council resolution 1701, which ended the
Second Lebanon War in 2006, and which Livni was appointed by the
government to oversee.
Netanyahu, however, adamantly opposes
international forces, insisting on an Israeli presence in the Jordan
Valley even within the framework of a Palestinian state.
After all, Security Council resolution 1701 - negotiated by Livni - has just worked out so well.... Hezbullah only has about 100,000 more rockets now than it had in 2006....
'Palestinian officials' seethe at lack of 'progress' at 'peace talks'
'Palestinian officials' are seething at the lack of 'progress' at the 'peace talks' as US Secretary of State John FN Kerry tries to arrange a 'summit' between 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen and Prime Minister Netanyahu. This is from the first link.
Kerry and Abbas met in Ramallah briefly on Thursday night. Kerry, who
drove from Ben-Gurion Airport directly to the meeting with Abbas, was
forced to leave Ramallah because of the snowstorm.
The meeting between Abbas and Kerry lasted for less than 30 minutes.
Nabil Abu Rudaineh, spokesman for Abbas, said that the Palestinians "won't accept any Israeli presence on our land."
...
A
PA official told AFP that Abbas rejected the American security ideas.
The official said that Abbas delivered a letter to Kerry informing him
of his opposition to the ideas.
In the letter, Abbas also
reiterated his complete opposition to demands to recognize Israel as a
Jewish state, the official said.
The letter, according to the
official, also outlined the Palestinians' opposition to any Israeli
military presence on the border with Jordan. The official pointed out
that the Palestinians were not opposed to the presence of a third party
in the Jordan Valley.
Another PA official said that no progress
was achieved during the last Abbas-Kerry meeting. The official stressed
that talks between the Palestinians and Americans would continue to try
to find an acceptable formula that would allow Kerry to bring forward
his plan for Israeli-Palestinian peace.
In a related development,
the Bethlehem-based Ma'an news agency quoted "informed sources" as
saying that Kerry was now working toward holding a summit between Abbas
and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
Here's predicting that there won't be a summit because Kerry won't be able to guarantee the results and if there is a summit it will be the end of the 'peace talks.' Who will be blamed? What could go wrong?
As you read this post, please keep in mind that Britain held on to Hong Kong for 99 years before turning it over to China when the lease expired... barely. And China and Hong Kong (and the British) were not at a state of war.
The 'Palestinians' were offered to have the Jordan Valley returned to them after only 10 years! Even that was couched in terms of the 'Palestinians' needing time to train an army. There is currently a state of war between Israel and the 'Palestinians.' But fear not. The 'Palestinians' turned it down.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has reportedly shot down a proposal by US Secretary of State John Kerry
to maintain Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley for ten years
following the signing of an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord, a
Palestinian official told Al-Ayyam.
During this time, according to the paper, PA security forces would be trained to assume control over the Jordan Valley.
Quoting an unnamed Palestinian official, the paper said that Kerry’s
ideas also include “invisible” Israeli presence at the border crossings
between the West Bank and Jordan. In addition, the Americans would
install early warning systems on hilltops in the West Bank, the official
told the paper.
The Palestinians, however, rejected the offered
American security "ideas," saying the arrangements proposed were totally
unacceptable.
The official described the meeting between Kerry
and Abbas last week as being “worse than bad,” and added that the
American stance on the subject is a step back from proposals made in the
past.
He added that the Palestinians “will never accept Israeli presence in the valley.”
The
official accused the Americans of “abandoning” ideas previously
presented by former US security coordinator Gen. John Allen. Those
ideas, the official pointed out, talk about the deployment of US-led
NATO troops in the Jordan Valley with no Israeli presence.
They really do never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Heh.
US Secretary of State John FN Kerry is continuing to promote the 'demographic time bomb' myth, which confronts Israel with the seemingly Hobbesian choice of being a Jewish or a democratic state.
Israel faced not one, but two existential threats, Kerry concluded:
Iran, and the "demographic time bomb" that is the Palestinian question.
"Force
cannot defeat or defuse the demographic time bomb. The only way to
secure Israel’s long term future is through negotiations,” he said.
Should
Netanyahu decide to move forward with a final peace accord, he added,
the Arab League stands ready to fully recognize Israel within borders
that accommodate "realities" on the ground that have shifted since 1967.
And Israel's gross domestic product could jump by as much as 6 percent should a deal be reached, Kerry claimed.
The 'demographic time bomb' has been proven to be a myth time and time again. But even if that were not the case, most Israeli Jews are sane enough to choose a Jewish state - or at least the status quo - over acquiescing to a 'Palestinian state' that would literally place every Jewish life in danger.
Kerry also discussed the 'security plan' developed by John Allen.
The United States has proposed to the Israeli government a security
plan for new borders with a future Palestinian state that games out an
exhaustive list of possible threats, US Secretary of State John Kerry
told the Brookings Institution's Saban Forum on Saturday.
Overseen
by US retired general John Allen, the plan "guarantees" that the Jordan
River will remain secure for years after any deal is signed, Kerry
said.
"We approach this challenge believing that Israel has to be strong to
make peace," Kerry said, "but that peace will make Israel stronger."
American mediation is moving significantly toward Israel's demands,
according to a diplomatic source who was involved in the meetings
between the two on Thursday. The source told the Ma'ariv daily
that the US accepts Israel's stance on a long-term presence in the
Jordan Valley as well as the need for an Israeli military presence
there. The source added that the outline presented by Kerry and security
advisor John Allen "gives good responses to Israeli demands and comes
very toward Israel."
"The Palestinian side rejected them
because they would only lead to prolonging and maintaining the
occupation," the official said, referring to Israel's hold on the West
Bank, among territories where Palestinians seek statehood.
...
One of the main obstacles in
the talks up until now is believed to be the issue of whether Israel
will retain a security presence along the Jordan River after any
agreement.
Kerry said that retired US general John Allen, who he
described as one of the best military minds in the US, has been charged
by US President Barack Obama with analyzing the security aspects of any
future agreement and "ensuring the security arrangement that we might
contemplate in the context of this process will provide for greater
security for Israel."
I would not hold my breath waiting for the Obama administration to conclude that it's the 'Palestinians' who are preventing an agreement. But a few more indicators like this one could push some members of Congress to start speaking out.
Deja vu all over again: Obama stringing Israel along
Jennifer Rubin is seriously concerned at the games that the Obama administration is playing with Israel.
Beginning last Thursday I started questioning the State Department. Could its spokesman confirm that the U.S. would oppose a proposal for a ’67 border settlement, given Israel’s categorical statements that such borders would not be defensible? Could the administration confirm it would oppose and seek to block moves by the U.N. or Quartet to recognize a Palestinian state unilaterally (i.e., not as a product of bilateral negotiations)? These are not hard questions, and the fact that the administration would face questioning is an indication of how strained the U.S.-Israeli relationship has become.
After much back and forth, the only statement I could receive from a State Department spokesman was this non-answer: “Our goal remains to get both parties back to the negotiating table — that is, we believe, the best way to reach a comprehensive solution. We continue to engage with the parties to make that happen, and within the Quartet to see how it can best support that process.” After further prodding the spokesman offered, “We do not support any unilateral declaration of statehood.”
I was then referred to another State Department spokesman. Edgar Vasquez in Near East Affairs was equally circumspect. Is the U.S. supporting or encouraging a Quarter proposal for a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders? All he would say is “U.S. policy hasn’t changed.” The spokesman indicated the “preference” was for the parties to return to the bargaining table. “We are in discussions with the Quartet to support the [direct negotiation] process.” What about a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state? “We do not think this is the way to go.”
Administration equivocation has also rankled key members of the House and Senate, where support for Israel is strong and widespread. A senior Senate aide was chagrined at the State Department’s waffling. “This sounds like a bad episode of State Department Gone Wild. The Administration should not abandon America’s long standing policy on Israel’s right to defensible borders. We need to hear in no uncertain terms that this Administration will not allow any Quartet statement that endorses a Palestinian state based on ’67 borders.”
Likewise on the House side, members of both parties are nervous that the administration is playing this too cute by half. A congressional aide to a key Democrat on Israel???? tells me, “The administration ought to remember where Congress is on this issue. The fact that they insist on continuing to go out of their way to upset many of their key supporters in Congress is baffling.” He noted this wasn't the first instance in which Israel has been strung along. He recalled, “As with the U.S. veto at the U.N. in February, the administration seems to be interested in repeating virtually every political and diplomatic mistake that led up to that vote. I assume they’re going to do the right thing, but it would be nice if they didn’t make us hold our breath for so long.”
The administration's treatment of Israel reflects a genuine ambivalence. Obama really would like to abandon Israel and so would most of his advisers. But they can't do that now - not with a re-election bid dead ahead on the road. So they play cute just hinting at what they would really like to do.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
