Israel must also take no actions that prejudice a final settlement, and must help ensure that a new Palestinian state is truly viable. A state of scattered territories will not work.---Condi Rice
Unfortunately, no surprise there. It has been the US policy since the Six Day War to prevent Israel from acquiring territory by force. No doubt this position was cooked up in the ”Oil Cabinet”.
As a result, UNSC Res. 242 emphasized “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” even though this was not then and is not now, a recognized principal of international law. True that the words “all” or “the” were not included when it required “that Israeli armed forces withdraw from territories occupied as a result of the recent conflict”, resulting in what diplomats call “constructive ambiguity”. The resolution also required the establishment of “just and lasting peace in the Middle East” and “a just settlement of the refugee problem” [...].
For the next twenty-five years Israel kept talking about what would constitute secure borders. During the years that Labour was in power, settlements were constructed that were deemed to be for security purposes and it was generally accepted that Israel had to retain the high ground including the Golan and had to retain the Jordan Rift.
During this period of time the US maintained the position that the settlements were illegal or at least an obstacle to peace. In addition the US when not referring to the settlements also emphasized the need for secure borders. No longer.
Israel can blame no one but its own leaders for the Oslo debacle. That was its first big mistake. This process lead to the negotiations at Camp David in which Barak offered from 93% to 97% of Yesha to the PA to reach a final agreement. Everyone thought that this was a very generous offer including President Clinton. Everyone except the Arabs. the US State Department and the EU.
Arafat rejected it saying that among other things that it left his future state with cantons rather than with contiguous territory. He then launched the murderous Intafadah II.
As a result Israel was not in the mood to better the offer and instead wanted to offer less next time around. Terrorism must have consequences, negative ones for the perpetrators, that is.
The EU for its part started to say that the Palestinians needed "hope" which was a a code word for a state preparing the way for Bush to make his June '02 speech in which he called for a peaceful Palestinian state.
The State Department started working with the Arabs and Great Britain to get support for the invasion of Iraq. To accomplish this they engineered the Roadmap that was said to be under the auspices of the Quartet. Not only did that document promise the Palestinians a state but "a viable state". It also required a settlement freeze. Thus Arafat came out the winner once again. Strangely, and regretably, Israel accepted it. That was its second big mistake.
Now the whole debate is about Israel's obligation to create a viable state rather than the Palestinian's obligation to concede land to make the border secure. This shift in focus changes the paradigm which existed since Res 242. No one talks about secure borders anymore. Its all about what it takes to make Palestine viable. (See the Debka article as to the meaning of "viable"). Arafat, supported by the world, has won.
As a result of Israel accepting the Roadmap, Condi can now say to Israel that it is bound to freeze settlement activity because it accepted the Roadmap. Otherwise Israel could still be arguing for secure borders. To accept a settlement freeze is tantamount to accepting that Israel has no right to the land itself,
The talk has also progressed to the point where the Armistice lines of '48 has become the point of reference rather than the '67 borders.
The State Department recently created a diverse coalition of forces to force Syria to end its occupation of Lebanon. The quid pro quo was the American promise to get Israel to end the occupation of Yesha.
In fact, if you step back and view events since the failure of the Camp David talks, the State Department has been engineering a substitute for the failed offer together with Saudi Arabia and the EU. It accepted the position of the Arabs that the offer was not enough and more had to be offerred. First came the Saudi Peace Plan which had America's blessing in advance of its release and the Plan was then enshrined in the Roadmap with the added idea that there must be a settlement freeze. The US continues to value Saudi Arabia as its indespensible ally. Diplomatically S. Arabia supported the invasion of Iraq and the demand that Syria get out of Lebanon. In exchange, The US has accepted the Saudi Plan and is committed to getting Israel out of Yesha. This plan requires all Arab countries to make real peace with Israel. So far the US has given Saudi Arabia a pass on its support for terrorism and incitement all over the world. Oil is very important.
When will Israel ever learn?
"Viable state" trumps "secure borders"
By Ted Belman
Rice: Plan to expand settlement 'at odds' with U.S. policy
I commented on this American position in my article Making a Silk Purse out of Sow's Ear
During this period of time the US maintained the position that the settlements were illegal or at least an obstacle to peace. In addition the US when not referring to the settlements also emphasized the need for secure borders. No longer.
Israel can blame no one but its own leaders for the Oslo debacle. That was its first big mistake. This process lead to the negotiations at Camp David in which Barak offered from 93% to 97% of Yesha to the PA to reach a final agreement. Everyone thought that this was a very generous offer including President Clinton. Everyone except the Arabs. the US State Department and the EU.
Arafat rejected it saying that among other things that it left his future state with cantons rather than with contiguous territory. He then launched the murderous Intafadah II.
As a result Israel was not in the mood to better the offer and instead wanted to offer less next time around. Terrorism must have consequences, negative ones for the perpetrators, that is.
The EU for its part started to say that the Palestinians needed "hope" which was a a code word for a state preparing the way for Bush to make his June '02 speech in which he called for a peaceful Palestinian state.
The State Department started working with the Arabs and Great Britain to get support for the invasion of Iraq. To accomplish this they engineered the Roadmap that was said to be under the auspices of the Quartet. Not only did that document promise the Palestinians a state but "a viable state". It also required a settlement freeze. Thus Arafat came out the winner once again. Strangely, and regretably, Israel accepted it. That was its second big mistake.
Now the whole debate is about Israel's obligation to create a viable state rather than the Palestinian's obligation to concede land to make the border secure. This shift in focus changes the paradigm which existed since Res 242. No one talks about secure borders anymore. Its all about what it takes to make Palestine viable. (See the Debka article as to the meaning of "viable"). Arafat, supported by the world, has won.
As a result of Israel accepting the Roadmap, Condi can now say to Israel that it is bound to freeze settlement activity because it accepted the Roadmap. Otherwise Israel could still be arguing for secure borders. To accept a settlement freeze is tantamount to accepting that Israel has no right to the land itself,
The talk has also progressed to the point where the Armistice lines of '48 has become the point of reference rather than the '67 borders.
The State Department recently created a diverse coalition of forces to force Syria to end its occupation of Lebanon. The quid pro quo was the American promise to get Israel to end the occupation of Yesha.
In fact, if you step back and view events since the failure of the Camp David talks, the State Department has been engineering a substitute for the failed offer together with Saudi Arabia and the EU. It accepted the position of the Arabs that the offer was not enough and more had to be offerred. First came the Saudi Peace Plan which had America's blessing in advance of its release and the Plan was then enshrined in the Roadmap with the added idea that there must be a settlement freeze. The US continues to value Saudi Arabia as its indespensible ally. Diplomatically S. Arabia supported the invasion of Iraq and the demand that Syria get out of Lebanon. In exchange, The US has accepted the Saudi Plan and is committed to getting Israel out of Yesha. This plan requires all Arab countries to make real peace with Israel. So far the US has given Saudi Arabia a pass on its support for terrorism and incitement all over the world. Oil is very important.
When will Israel ever learn?
Posted by Ted Belman at March 26, 2005 08:08 AM