The positive aspects of Clinton’s statement
I sent Barry Rubin my post Obama wants return of all territories. In it I note Clinton’s quote and simply point out what the title says. Thus we don’t get to keep even 10% of the land. Rubin prefers to embrace the positive aspects.. I agree with most of what he writes but resist the deal Clinton is offering. He apparently prefers to accept it as most Israelis would accept it. But as he notes the PA will never accept it.
I agree that Obama is ruling out a return of refugees for the most part.. That’s good. But as for the PA never accepting swaps, I beg to differ. I believe that the Kadima government offered swaps. I didn’t think the PA rejected them out of hand. Furthermore the Saudi Plan which Obama embraces, and which I believe was originally drawn up by the State Department, definitely refers to swaps. In subsequent discussions the Saudis insisted the swaps were to be of equal value rather than size. She assumed that Israel wanted to keep prime real estate around Jerusalem and therefore had to give much more land in return. The Saudi Plan also refers to a just settlement of the refugee issue pursuant to Res 194 of the UNGA which provides
11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;
This leaves open the possibility of compensation rather than return. Keep in mind that the Arab League amended the Saudi Plan and gave Syria a veto over any settlement deal that left refugees in Syria.
Rubin rightfully highlights the importance of the phrase “subsequent developments”. I would add that the State Department micromanaged the location of the fence and in various areas the fence will be the border. Where there was disagreement such as around Ariel, Maaleh Adumin and Jerusalem, the fence wasn’t built.
Such a settlement would reduce the expulsion of Jews to a minimum; perhaps 10% of those now living east of the greenline. Such a deal as proposed by Clinton/Obama would be accepted by a majority of Israelis.
Hillary’s Bombshell: Obama Administration Subtly Launches Dramatic Policy Change on Peace Process
By Barry Rubin
In a one-paragraph statement welcoming Israel’s ten-month-long freeze on building apartments in existing West Bank settlements, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a major statement. The dramatic new U.S. stance on Israel-Palestinian Authority peace agreement is camouflaged by brevity and subtle wording. But make no mistake: this is one of the most important foreign policy steps the Obama Administration has taken.
Here is the statement in full:
-
“Today’s announcement 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.”
Clearly, this approach builds on the 2000 Camp David meeting and the December 2000 plan of President Bill Clinton. Ironically, the latter is called the Clinton plan, so the name need not change since now it is renewed and extended by another Clinton.
These 77 words are worth analyzing in great detail. First, there is what the United States is offering the Palestinian side:
“The Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps…”
One should first ask, which Palestinians? Hamas and Islamic Jihad don’t favor this approach and Hamas still runs the Gaza Strip. To pretend that Israel can or should make a peace treaty with the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority (PA) which has no authority over the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip is ludicrous. Whatever deal Israel makes with the PA, it could—indeed, probably would–be attacked by Palestinians from Gaza the next day. The conflict cannot be ended by anything the PA does by itself. Without a real commitment to overthrow Hamas the United States can never make peace.
The second issue is that what Clinton lists is not the entire Palestinian goal since the PA also demands a right for all Palestinians to go and live in Israel, thus subverting that country and destroying the state. This is no mere throw-away line but a very strongly held demand. Anyone who thinks that the PA is just going to drop it—no matter how much land or money it is given—knows nothing about Palestinian politics.
The word “based” in the phrase, “based on the 1967 lines” is carefully chosen to imply flexibility as to where the exact border would be drawn. In fact, the PA has always said that it must get the 1967 boundaries completely, never mentioning the word “swaps.” Therefore, when Clinton says that this is a Palestinian “goal” she is wrong.
It tells a great deal that the idea of “swapping land” so that the PA gets the equivalent of the same number of square miles as Jordan ruled before 1967 is an Israeli idea, another example of Israel’s willingness to compromise. Remember that the original Israeli position was that it annex about four percent of the West Bank.
Hence, by whittling down the demands she is making the typical negotiators’ error of putting forward a false stance and then finding out the negotiation fail. But at the same time, however, Clinton is trying to define how the United States sees a reasonable Palestinian demand that it will accept. In other words, she is implying: this is all you’re going to get.
There is also Clinton’s formulation of what Israel gets:
“The Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.”
This incorporates several Israeli demands:
–“An outcome which ends the conflict”: Israel insists that any peace treaty will explicitly end the conflict. Makes sense, right? But the PA refuses to agree to this principle. The reason is, of course, that it does not view getting an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and east Jerusalem as an end to the conflict but only as stage one of a longer-term effort to wipe Israel off the map.
– “Jewish state”: Israel wants Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Why: To show a real acceptance on the Palestinian side. In addition, though, it has a very practical side, avoiding a Palestinian claim to recognize “Israel” and then doing everything possible—like flooding it with Palestinian Arabs—to transform it into an Arab and/or Islamic state. (“Binationalism” is just a cover word to hide a step in that direction.)
–“With secure and recognized borders”: Israel wants borders recognized as a sign that full peace exists. The word “secure” here implies security arrangements to prevent future attacks.
–“That reflect subsequent developments”: This is a fascinating and new phrase. What can it mean other than this: Since so many Jews have moved into settlements, this new factor must be taken into account in shifting the borders. This is the Obama Administration’s version of its predecessor’s idea that Israel could keep “settlement blocs,” large towns built up along its border like the Etzion bloc and Maale Adumim. It could also be applied to Jerusalem, though that sensitive word is not mentioned in the statement.
–“And meets Israeli security requirements”: Another and stronger reference to security guarantees.
How will this statement be received in Israel? This raises a fascinating question: Was it coordinated with the Netanyahu government as part of the freeze deal? If so, the Netanyahu government has certainly proved itself to be flexible and peace-oriented. Certainly, there isn’t everything Israel wants in this statement yet it does encompass some important points taken out of the cabinet’s position on peace arrangements.
The more I think about this point, the more it makes sense to me that the position is a gesture toward Israel. This is a statement that favors Israel’s position while still offering the Palestinians, in the mind of the administration, enough to make them happy (wrong) and enough to show the world that the United States is even-handed (right for Europe; wrong for the Arab world). It isn’t a blatantly pro-Israel stance but does incorporate key elements of what Israel wants to an extent greater than where the United States has gone before.
It also offers the Palestinians, or at least the PA, what it says it wants. Well, not exactly but in a way that Americans think is reasonably close. Unfortunately, that’s not the way the PA thinks. For more than thirty years the United States has been trying to formulate plans on the basis of what it thinks will satisfy Palestinian goals—the first Camp David meeting, the Reagan plan, the second Camp David meeting, and a thousand plans, conferences, statements, and initiatives in between.
Each time they fail because they aren’t addressing what the Palestinian leadership really wants. And today that is further complicated by there being two Palestinian leaderships.
The United States has endorsed the Israeli position that the PA must recognize Israel as a Jewish state, this is a big step forward and a victory for Israel.
ps: (in response to a reader’s question asking if this means the United States demands that Israel return to the 1967 borders):
It does NOT say the 1967 borders. Israel’s formula for the last 15 year has been: “with minor modifications” to the borders. I definitely don’t think this will lead to any breakthrough–the Palestinians will reject it and there is no treaty in sight for decades. In that sense, what it offers the Palestinians is not important because they will say no to everything short of all they want without their making any concesions.
Compare this statement to the Israeli government’s own program as well as to Israel’s position in the 2000 Camp David meeting and the subsequent [Bill] Clinton plan in December 2000. It is quite comparable. It includes recognition of the Jewish state, security arrangements satisfactory to Israel, changing the border, and end of conflict are four of the main six points. The fifth, resettling Palestinian refugees in a Palestinian state–no return, is unquestionably going to be endorsed by the United States. The sixth, a demilitarized Palestinian state, is also not mentioned either way.
Of course, Jerusalem is an important issue not explicitly mentioned here. But Clinton statement of ["that reflect subsequent developments"] also must apply to Jerusalem, thus legitimizing post-1967 Israeli neighborhoods there. This is very significant.
As I said, this is not a statement endorsing everything Israel would like to have. But it is the best conceivable position that the United States, and especially the Obama Administration, could conceivably take.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
Hey, Barry Rubin.
Since you are painfully slow on the uptake, let me provide you with a window into the future. Here is how the Clinton Initiative is Absolutely Positively Guaranteed to play out:
Israel will make unilateral concessions…The Palestinians will murder Jews…Obama will blame Israel.
Israel will make more unilateral concessions…The Palestinians will murder more Jews…Obama will blame Israel…
That has been the template for ten months, and it will continue as long as a pathological anti-Semite remains in the Oval Office.
This cavalcade of Oblivious Pollyannas is too much. There is no reason to be encouraged while Obama is president. He hates Jews.
Since this reality is apparently too much for you to handle emotionally, you may now resume fantasizing.
In fact, I will join you:
“Wow, when you examine the phrasing of Clinton’s statement, and then you read between the lines, and then you consciously forget that Obama never requires anything of the Palestinians, and you then ignore that the only country in the world he constantly condemns is Israel, and then you pretend that he has not filled his administration with Jew haters, and then you consume copious amounts of fermented liquids, it becomes unavoidably obvious that this new dynamic is absolutely thrilling!”
Comment by ayn reagan — November 28, 2009 @ 1:56 am
How many dead Jews does it take to turn on a light bulb in the head of the remainder?
Answer? After 2000 years no one knows yet.
Comment by RandyTexas — November 28, 2009 @ 4:57 am
OK, Mr Think Tank Genius, what exactly in your esteemed Think Tank Wisdom Be those SECURE and RECOGNIZED BORDERS (Emphasis on Secure)! Even the use of that term obfuscates the bankruptcy which is the pillar of your analysis or what passes for analysis in your NEWSPEAK, that would make Orwell proud of you.
You throw out terms and concepts with little or no definition of the terms of reference. When looked at under a minimum of critical scrutiny What you approve of and what you accept as a positive for Israel and the Jews becomes in the parlance of the common plebes so much Bullshit. If I had to choose an Israeli Jew who represents a mortal danger (SYMBOLICALLY) to the Israeli State and third Jewish Commonwealth it is you Rubin.
Peace for us is an ideal to be achieved within a context of World Peace ( a messianic abstraction) not Peace made by an artificially imposed and accepted appeasement. Our raison d’être as a people was never and should never be peace especially a Peace elevated into a post modern deity, a reincarnation of the Golden Calf. A peace never defined, therefore never really accepted as a national concept as ea. of us are left to self define the term for ourselves.
Borders of Israel will never be secure as long as we live in a region where every nation in that region would see us disappear and the means of our disappearance for them are flexible , what ever works. For those enemies their ends justify any means, and always will.
No nation ever secured it’s security with or by agreements, at least not for very long. Only by strength of arms,national will, blood, tears and faith and help of the Almighty.
You premise and place faith in the good will of man especially our sworn and implacable enemies, (as long as there are agreements) and the altruistic nations of the world. That puts you and those who think as you in Brain Dead stupid category.
I agree with Ayn’s comment 100%. But heh, Ted likes and seems to agree with you most of the time. He may be the only one; (with the possible exception of Narvey?)who does on this site. By the way who funds your think tank?
Comment by yamit82 — November 28, 2009 @ 11:20 am
The holocaust has proved that dead Jews have no value and that murdering them is an acceptable act with no negative consequences to those who murdered them.
The same Jewish mentality that aided and abetted their own murderers in their own murder are alive and well mostly in America but not just.
Comment by yamit82 — November 28, 2009 @ 11:58 am
Which is the obliteration of Israel and the genocide of its Jews.
Comment by Laura — November 28, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
Laura is correct. Talk of a Palestinian state for that reason is a pipe dream. And there is no sign the Palestinian leadership is going to ever become reconciled to the existence of Israel.
Comment by NormanF — November 29, 2009 @ 5:30 am
Yamit, you and Ted live in Israel. I assume you both have the same information and experience available to you to know what the majority Israeli view is as to what kind of peace deal Israel needs and wants.
Bearing in mind only the matter of what the majority of Israelis would accept, do you agree/disagree with Ted in that regard?
If you disagree, then what kind of deal do you say that the majority of Israelis would accept, ignoring for the moment whether such kind of deal would be acceptable to the Palestinians?
Comment by Bill Narvey — November 30, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
Unfortunately there is none.
The Palestinians are controlled and are being used by: 1. Hamas a terrorist organization funded and aided by the Iranian gangsters. Their aim is not for peace or statehood, rather kill Jews and the takeover of Israel.
2. Mahmoud Abbas, a chicken running around with his head off and dangled by string held by Hamas.
The real losers, the Palestinians who are used by the 1. and 2. as a weapon against the Israelis.
It will take a real leader to arise amongst the Palestinians to convince his or her people who the real enemy is and it’s not Israel.
Comment by rongrand — November 30, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
Narvey I never deemed to speak for anyone but myself. I think the release of almost a thousand terrorists for Shalit will illicit more measurable reactions than polling as to what any single or collective individual believes is a peace deal we can live with. I think most Israelis know or suspect that there is by now no peace deal we can live with. That said there won’t be if the past is a guide, any major opposition to whatever the government comes up with.
I live in a smallish desert town of 35,000 souls including some 2000 Black Heebes from Chicago who in the nature of cults keep pretty much to themselves. I don’t run with the up-tempo in crowd Ted is exposed to in Jerusalem, Two worlds apart. Here most of the population comes from North Africa and Yemen with about 40% Russian Immigrants and about a thousand old timers from Romania.
I live with the animals my dog and cats and my horse. They combined keep me pretty busy. No Doolittle Jokes Pls.
The nearest metropolitan city to us is Beersheba and I am there 4 times a week business and personal and with the contacts I have politics rarely come up. I know Israelis though and they tend to go along with any government decision even if they don’t agree. Most people are not informed enough and feel politically disenfranchised enough not to make waves. It is always the Zealots who make a fight of it. The majority are political lemmings.
What has always worked by all governments, is to sell their nefarious schemes as: Shalom and ain breira: Peace and no choice or other options offered.
Anyway, nobody will ask the people for approval and they kind of like it that way as then, they believe they will not share in the responsibility and consequences of those decisions. That said, I haven’t met many people not satisfied with the current status quo. For most life here has never been better. Only the media and the far left politically are pushing for some resolution, most here are pretty content with the way things are.
As I predicted we are doing better than most other countries and we will weather the current Global economic recession better than just about anyone. I did predict this ask Hymie Peskin for corroboration.
My company( Sold it a few years back) supplied components to all of Israels Hi tech industries and I have long had an insiders view of what is taking place even before it became public knowledge. We worked with many companies including start ups and Israel military industries on many projects.
There will never be an agreeable agreement between we and the Arabs. Maybe after the next major war? and there will be a next major war maybe even sooner than anyone expects.
BB’s latest moves are almost 60% based on our internal political constellations and interests and not because of Obama. Israel knows how to say no when she wants to or needs to. Believe me it has more to do with making Barak happy than Obama and I have said BB has an old score to settle with the right who brought him down last time he was PM.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and our politicians are totally and absolutely corrupt. An honest politician here (almost an oxymoron) will never get elected and if by chance he or she is they will never rise beyond insignificant backbenchers.
Cynical sure it is but largely accurate. Believe it or not American hegemony in and on our political system and politicians helps to perpetuate our politically corrupt system and our corrupt politicians.
First step in any correction needs to include first and foremost a political break with America.
Comment by yamit82 — November 30, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
Uncle, you grew up in New Jersey and I suspect the eastern section close to NYC and I believe you once mentioned living in Southern California.
Did you find it difficult to adjust to living in a smaller desert community far from the metropolis areas?
Comment by rongrand — November 30, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
It is puzzling Yamit that with your great energy and passion in expressing your very strong views, that you have limited your advocacy to only Israpundit.
So long as you so limit yourself, surely you must realize that you have virtually no chance of effecting the changes in Israeli governance and Israeli opinions that you so desperately want to see.
Surely you realize it takes action and not just words to effect change.
Surely there are some political action groups in Israel that share your views.
Why have you not augmented your Israpundit advocacy by joining such a group and lending your voice to that group’s efforts to effect a shift in the views of the Israeli goverment and Israeli society at large?
Comment by Bill Narvey — November 30, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
Don’t know where you got it that I an from N.J but I am not. I am from up state NY. Capitol District. No difficulty! If I wanted big cities I didn’t have to come to Israel.
Most of my Israeli military service was in the Southern Command today the Negev then including all of Sinai.
I worked for over a year and a half on an oil rig in the middle of the Red Sea, as a roughneck. Then I moved into a north Sinai Jewish Community called Yamit (seaside in Hebrew) After almost 10 years Begin and Sharon kicked us out and bulldozed my house and property. I moved to Tel Aviv figuring it would be safe for a long time before they bulldoze Tel Aviv like Yamit.
I remember a year before they kicked us out I gave an interview to the NYT. I said then that we were the first but won’t be the last. A Nation willing to sacrifice her citizens and establish irrevocable precedents won’t be able to stand the coming world pressure to relinquish more and more. The original precedent for the dismemberment of the State of Israel began when metaphorically they bulldozed my home without my permission and consent.
I received 15 large mail sacks of mail, mostly of the HATE variety a month after my interview. That’s when it hit home that Yamit was a symbol of victory for every antisemite and Jewish self haters. I realized that if a Begin and Sharon consented to such an act that we were really in trouble. We were in danger and not from our external enemies but from our own. I started to understand how 6 million Jews went to their end like sheep without a fight.
I learned a lot from that experience. A lot. Once you start to compromise on basic and core principles, eventually they all go and everyone expects them to go because you already agreed, already succumbed: once twice, so why not thrice and more till in the end there is nothing left to give, to trade and bargain and that’s when all the wolves will descend en mass.
What good deterrence if you won’t use it and the enemy knows you won’t? What value are principles, ideologies and beliefs if under pressure you toss them aside in the name of pragmatic flexibility etc/… Everybody knows this is a projection of weakness and begs for more pressures, which are always forthcoming.
NO RON I DID NOT FIND IT DIFFICULT TO ADJUST BECAUSE BY THE TIME I ARRIVED WHERE I AM NOW I WAS ALREADY PART OF THE LANDSCAPE!
Comment by yamit82 — November 30, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
What we need is a revolution not more talk.
I do comment on other forums with other web names. Sometimes under my own given name.
Comment by yamit82 — November 30, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
Uncle, sorry about the mix up, Albany is not quite NJ.
A true philosopher who is able to see the handwriting on the wall.
You certainly have. No question about. Israel should not have given into compromise and I am sure it did not please G-d. Could it be there were not enough (Zionist) religious Israelis in the government at the time?
By the way Uncle your a pretty smart guy if I may say so.
Comment by rongrand — November 30, 2009 @ 7:06 pm
They were all religious and non religious Zionist nationalists and most supported the Government, with the opposition parties they had overwhelming majority. When the left has power it is usually a thin majority so the right can unite and coalesce against the sitting government. Our tragedy is when a supposed right wing government gets elected adopts the lefts program, the left automatically supports the government the government even if it has internal opposition is more than compensated from the left opposition. Thus the left gets the program implemented whether they are in power or not.
Comment by yamit82 — November 30, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
Where Yamit do you find the time to post on other blogs. Besides, you did not answer my question about why you have not taken your advocacy to the next obvious level by joining a group that engages in political advocacy and seeks to reach and influence Israeli public opinion and government policy?
Comment by Bill Narvey — November 30, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
.
I learned how to chew gum and scratch my ass at the same time at a very young age. some people are speed readers I am a speed commenter. It’s like multitasking.
Advocacy groups a dime a dozen here none that I see can or have had any influence on our decision makers. Only a direct and serious threat to their continued positions of power will move them to take notice. I have only really seen a grass roots effort determine anything here a few times and then it took months and years to accomplish. Looking for domino effect. Need to see first real cracks in party discipline and then just a long shot maybe.
I have been saying for almost a year BB must be shackled or dumped, so far the weasel has out weaseled us. He will make that critical error and be brought down, it’s in his nature. Just wait you will see.
Comment by yamit82 — November 30, 2009 @ 10:01 pm
And a fine name it is: Dr. Joyce Brothers.
Comment by ayn reagan — December 2, 2009 @ 2:54 am
Cute
Comment by yamit82 — December 2, 2009 @ 3:12 am