Two important op-eds in the major US MSM today.
In this one in the NYT, Roger Cohen reports on a new initiative in which ten significant American national-security mandarins have now spelled out the steps they urge Pres. Obama speedily to take, to win a sustainable two-state solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict.
The ten include Brent Scowcroft and Zbig Brzezinski, along with Lee Hamilton, Chuck Hagel, Tom Pickering, and other luminaries.
The web version of Cohen’s piece has a link to the PDF of the whole policy paper the ten have now handed to Obama, via group member Paul Volcker, who is a key Obama economic adviser (and former Chairman of the Fed.)
Cohen writes that he believes that the paper’s approach is also generally in line with that of national security adviser Gen. Jim Jones,who has considerable familiarity with Palestinian issues, as well as special envoy George Mitchell.
The paper urges speedy US intervention in the diplomacy including the articulation of a specifically American vision of the outcome.
It also urges what it describes as A More Pragmatic Approach Toward Hamas and a Palestinian Unity Government, as follows:
- A legitimate, unified and empowered Palestinian side to negotiate with Israel is of importance if any agreement is to be reached and implemented. Direct U.S. engagement with Hamas may not now be practical, but shutting out the movement and isolating Gaza has only made it stronger and Fatah weaker. Israel itself has acknowledged Hamas is simply too important and powerful to be ignored.
In brief, shift the U.S. objective from ousting Hamas to modifying its behavior, offer it inducements that will enable its more moderate elements to prevail, and cease discouraging third parties from engaging with Hamas in ways that might help clarify the movement’s views and test its behavior.
Finally, cease discouraging Palestinian national reconciliation and make clear that a government that agrees to a ceasefire with Israel, accepts President Mahmoud Abbas as the chief negotiator, and commits to abiding by the results of a national referendum on a future peace agreement would not be boycotted or sanctioned.
In his article, Cohen explains that Henry Siegman, the now London-based American figure who has organized this initiative, recently traveled to Damascus to meet Hamas head Khaled Meshaal:
- Meshal told him, and put in writing, that although Hamas would not recognize Israel, it would remain in a Palestinian national unity government that reached a referendum-endorsed peace settlement with Israel.
De facto, rather than de jure, recognition can be a basis for a constructive relationship, as Israel knows from the mutual benefits of its shah-era dealings with Iran.
Israeli governments have negotiated a two-state solution although they included religious parties that do not recognize Palestinians’ right to statehood.
“But,” Siegman said, “if moderates within Hamas are to prevail, a payoff is needed for their moderation. And until the U.S. provides one, there will be no Palestinian unity government.”
Some parts of the Group of 10’s detailed proposal seem highly unlikely to be workable, including the idea that for 15 years after the signing of a peace agreement a US-led NATO force supplemented with forces from other countries including Israel should be responsible for security in the demilitarized Palestinian state.
But the urgency expressed in the proposal and the way it proposes finding a way to include Hamas in the diplomacy both seem excellent.
… Meantime, over in the WaPo, David Ignatius has a piece on a small but significant subset of the “problem” of the US’s current stance on matters Palestinian. Namely the fact that numerous organizations based in the US and registered with US tax authorities as “philanthropies” have in fact been funneling huge amounts of money into Israel’s completely illegal settlement-building project in the occupied territories over the past decades.
As David points out, official US aid monies cannot in general be used by Israel on its settlement projects in the occupied territories. But the US “charities” that are supporting Israeli settlements get a tax break from the IRS because of their charitable status; so the amount of that tax break is in effect being contributed to the recipients by the US taxpayer.
Some parts of the Group of 10’s detailed proposal seem highly unlikely to be workable, including the idea that for 15 years after the signing of a peace agreement a US-led NATO force supplemented with forces from other countries including Israel should be responsible for security in the demilitarized Palestinian state.
Sounds like you are trying to find something salvageable in a totally unworkable proposal. Shifting from an Israeli to a NATO occupation of Palestine? You’ve gotta be kidding. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. I’ll go and read the report, although that “single” provision shows bad faith enough to dismiss it out of hand. Maybe you got it wrong somehow…
Nato troops in Palestine? Abbas as negotiator? These are obvious deal killers. There would probably have to be a negotiation TEAM and peacekeepers would have to be agreed on by both sides, Israel and Palestine, which each side nominating components.
Re. the Charities: isn’t it interesting that a muslim scholar is barred from the US for once contributing to a Palestinian charities while charities in the US freely collect for the illegal settlments and militias, and even openly call for the assassination of Abbas? We need to relentlessly point out these examples of blatant and grotesque one-sided policy.
Nato troops in Palestine? Abbas as negotiator? These are obvious deal killers. There would probably have to be a negotiation TEAM and peacekeepers would have to be agreed on by both sides, Israel and Palestine, which each side nominating components.
Re. the Charities: isn’t it interesting that a muslim scholar is barred from the US for once contributing to a Palestinian charities while charities in the US freely collect for the illegal settlments and militias, and even openly call for the assassination of Abbas? We need to relentlessly point out these examples of blatant and grotesque one-sided policy.
I. Arab-Israeli Peace in the Context of American Interests and Capabilities
1. Present a Clear U.S. Vision to End the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict…
That’s a good idea. At least a clear vision of what the US will no longer do to keep the Israeli-Palestinian conflict alive and thriving.
But:
A non-militarized Palestinian state, together with security mechanisms that address Israeli concerns while respecting Palestinian sovereignty, and a U.S.-led multinational force to ensure a peaceful transitional security period. This coalition peacekeeping structure, under UN mandate, would feature American leadership of a NATO force supplemented by Jordanians, Egyptians and Israelis. We can envision a five-year, renewable mandate with the objective of achieving full Palestinian domination of security affairs on the Palestine side of the line within 15 years.
is an non-starter. A few crucial changes might make a two-fer possible:
A non-militarized Palestinian state, together with security mechanisms that address Israeli concerns while respecting Palestinian sovereignty, and a non-U.S.-led multinational force to ensure a peaceful transitional security period. This coalition peacekeeping structure, under UN mandate, would feature non-American leadership of a non-NATO force supplemented by non-Jordanians, non-Egyptians and non-Israelis. We can envision a five-year, renewable mandate with the objective of achieving full Palestinian domination of security affairs on the Palestinian side of the line within 15 years.
And a non-militarized Israeli state, together with security mechanisms that address Palestinian concerns while respecting Israeli sovereignty, and a non-U.S.-led multinational force to ensure a peaceful transitional security period. This coalition peacekeeping structure, under UN mandate, would feature non-American leadership of a non-NATO force supplemented by non-Jordanians, non-Egyptians and non-Israelis. We can envision a five-year, renewable mandate with the objective of achieving full Israeli domination of security affairs on the Israeli side of the line within 15 years.
I think one or the other or both states might object to such an arrangement.
2. Encourage Israeli-Syrian Negotiations… encourage Israel to negotiate peace with all its neighbors.
3. A More Pragmatic Approach Toward Hamas and a Palestinian Unity Government… the Palestinians are unified behind Hamas. All the US and Israel have to do is recognize the Palestinian government.
II, and
III. come under the heading of Hot Air
III. Substantive Issues to be Resolved
Territory. Borders of the two states would be based on the 1967 armistice lines. Yet they would likely be adjusted by mutual agreement in order to take into account areas heavily populated by Israelis in the West Bank since 1967 and equivalent areas to be ceded to Palestine in exchange.
Preserve the Israeli settlements on the West Bank. Impossible.
Security. The borders between the two states must be physically secure and fully controlled for their entire length. A U.S.-led multinational force would likely be essential for a transitional period once a peace agreement is concluded. Palestine would likely be non-militarized. No doubt Jerusalem will require a special security and administrative regime of its own and special arrangements will be needed for the use and regulation of Palestinian airspace.
This calls for the US occupation of Palestine, as in Iraq. Ridiculous.
Jerusalem. Ideally the city would remain physically undivided while accommodating two national capitals, with Jewish holy places administered by Israel and Muslim and Christian holy places administered by Palestine. Yet worsening security conditions accompanying the “Al Aqsa Intifada” beginning in September 2000 have perhaps made it mandatory (at least for a transitional period) for physical controls to secure Israeli and Palestinian areas of control. The formula of Israel governing Jewish neighborhoods and Palestine governing Arab neighborhoods largely works. Special arrangements, however, will be needed for the Old City and the Historic Basin of which it is a part. In some cases (most notably the Temple Mount/Haram ash-Sharif) creative approaches to control merit close examination.
We foreswear your “creativity” with regard to Jerusalem.
Refugees. For Israelis the “right of return” issue is the ultimate “third rail.” For Palestinians, the entitlement of four million refugees to justice and dignity is an absolute. A formula must be found to protect Israel from an influx of refugees, assist Palestine to absorb as many refugees as possible, and offer Palestinian refugees options for productive and dignified lives in Palestine or elsewhere, closing refugee camps wherever they exist. This will be an undertaking requiring substantial resources. While Arab support will be critical, so will American leadership and Israeli cooperation.
That’s just a statement of the problem.
Water. Even during the worst of times Israeli and Palestinian water officials and experts have found it possible to speak and act in ways consistent with the proper administration of a scarce and vital shared resource. Still, terms will have to be reached protecting Israel’s access to aquifers lying largely beneath Palestinian territory while permitting Palestine to develop its water resources to support an expanding population as well as agricultural and industrial development. Desalination can play an important role in increasing municipal water supplies for both parties, and cooperation in the water sector can build strong ties between Israel, Palestine and Jordan.
Israel maintains control of Palestinian water. Ridiculous.
Israel-Syria
Territory. Syria desires the return of all territory lost to Israel in June 1967. Should Israel comply, Syria would regain the Golan Heights plus about 12 square miles of land in the Jordan Valley, including beach-front property on the northeastern shore of the Sea of Galilee (Israel’s natural reservoir).
Israel owns the Sea of Galilee (naturally… that means that god gave it Israel?)… the Syrians merely have “beach-front property”. Ridiculous.
Water. Israel wishes to protect its full jurisdiction over water resources in the Israeli part of the Jordan Valley (including the Sea of Galilee) and ensure that a return of the Golan Heights to Syria does not create environmental problems affecting water vital to Israel. Israel also wants Jordan River sources beyond its sovereign control to flow relatively unobstructed. “Syria gets the line, Israel gets the water” is the essence of the tradeoff.
Ridiculous.
Security. Demilitarization of the Golan Heights and limited forces zones on both sides – all likely to be supervised by multinational forces featuring American leadership – will be mandatory.
The US occupies the Golan Heights. Ridiculous.
Access. Regardless of where the official boundary is placed, Israelis – loath to give up the Golan Heights for any price – will want easy access to the full circumference of the Sea of Galilee.
No matter what was said above, Israel still “owns” the Sea of Galilee. And anything else it might remember that “god gave it” in the future. Ridiculous.
Iran-Lebanon-Hamas. Israel will want to be certain that the return of territory to Syria in accordance with a peace treaty will be preceded or accompanied by a strategic decision by Syria to participate in no anti-Israeli alliances of any kind. Moreover, Syria would be expected to use its influence to encourage Lebanon to reach a formal peace with Israel and to negate any threats to Israel from Lebanese territory. Finally, (assuming a “Syria first” scenario) Israel would want Damascus to use its influence with Hamas and other Palestinian organizations to facilitate Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Syria agrees to become an instrument of Israeli foreign-policy. Ridiculous.
ANNEX: ADDRESSING ISRAEL’S SECURITY CHALLENGES
Redefines Palestinian “sovereignty” as slavery and specifies that the Palestinians will take it and like it too.
The most amazing thing here is the breezy air of omnipotence these guys exude! Even Volker, who knows better.
Very shortly China and the rest of the world are going to take over the IMF and redefine the lay of the land.
The US will go from World’s Sole Remaining Superpower to World’s Most Outrageous Deadbeat, and stuff like this will raise nothing but a chuckle at the hubris of the bankrupt United States of America, quite possibly unable even to repatriate its own troops from their far-flung stations at the ends of its erstwhile empire.
I’m doubtful that the US is capable of being a fair mediator, so I’m not optimistic about this. Unfortunately there’s no chance Israel would allow anyone else to play that role.
One phrase in this report was intriguing–“cease discouraging Palestinian national reconciliation “. That’s a step forward, because it is a tacit indirect admission that we’ve been engaged in trying to divide the Palestinians, instead of the usual hypocritical bewailing that internal Palestinian divisions mean there is no partner for peace.
I would like to take a minute and discuss the “brilliant “Phil Zelikow “.I have read Phil Shenon ‘s book ,The Commission ,History of 911″. He states that Hamilton called Zelikow to take the job and that P.Z. was not a ‘plant”. Wrong on both counts ?>.,,
Zelikow was foisted on Kean (whom had no say in the matter).That is why he did not have to resign no matter who called for it.
Tom Kean’s book spells it all out .In simple terms I would like to take a minute and discuss the “brilliant “Phil Zelikow “.I have read Phil Shenon ‘s book ,The Commission ,History of 911″. He states that Hamilton called Zelikow to take the job and that P.Z. was not a ‘plant”. Wrong on both counts ?>.,,
Zelikow was foisted on Kean (whom had no say in the matter).That is why he did not have to resign no matter who called for it.
Tom Kean’s book spells it all out .In simple terms