The Kerry Initiative Is A Joke: The US Is Still "Israel's Lawyer"

More

I wonder what it is that other people see about Secretary of State John Kerry’s Israeli-Palestinian breakthrough that I’m missing.
The fundamentals haven’t changed. The Palestinian Authority’s goal is to achieve a peace agreement with Israel in which it (yet again) recognizes Israel and Israel agrees to the establishment of a Palestinian state in the occupied territories of the West Bank (including east Jerusalem) and Gaza.
This has been the Palestinian position since theOslo agreementof 1993, the one that produced the famous handshake between Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat. The Palestinians have never changed their position. They insist on taking possession of 100% of those occupied territories, with “land swaps” that will permit a few settlement blocs to stay under Israeli jurisdiction in exchange for equal acreage now inside Israel. It, of course, should be noted that 100% of the West Bank and Gaza represents only 22% of historic Palestine (Israel plus the West Bank and Gaza). Israel would still control 78%.
That is important to remember when you read a report that Palestinians are being obstinate for not agreeing to accept 90%. That is because the 90% is of the 22% which would reduce their portion to 18%.
The Palestinian position has been consistent since the days of Arafat. And evenHamashas endorsed it in its more realistic moments.
But no Israeli government has ever agreed to the 78-22% deal, certainly not Netanyahu’s (Ehud Olmertcame closestbut it was at the very end of his term and the Palestinians knew that he couldn’t deliver). On the contrary, Netanyahu says that he will never yieldany part of Jerusalem,that although he would conceivablygrant Palestinians 90%of the West Bank, he would insist on thepresence of Israeli forceson a demilitarized Palestinian state’s border with Jordan and even onretaining Ariel,the Israeli city deep in the West Bank. Additionally, he would keep Ma’aleh Adumim, a huge settlement a few miles from Jerusalem and fill the (E-1) corridor which, separates it from Jerusalem, with 3000 settler homes topermanently dividethe northern West Bank from the southern part.
Nothing that Kerry or any Israeli official has said since the “breakthrough” indicates that Netanyahu has modified these positions.
And the Palestinians, rightly, will never accept them. After all, they have considerably compromised from their pre-Oslo demand for the return of all of Palestine to 22% of it. They have recognized Israel’s right to security and, even without a peace treaty, they work hand-in-hand with the Israeli Defense Forces todefend Israel.Additionally,under international law,the occupied territories are just that – occupied – and must be returned to them.
What are they supposed to compromise on? They have nothing to give to Israel except an enhanced version of the security guarantees they already implement. Netanyahu likes to say that he will not sacrifice Israel’s security for any peace agreement. But he knows that he will never be asked to. Every significant proposal for Israeli-Palestinian peace containsextensive security guaranteesfor Israel . Notably,the Palestinians, who are infinitely weaker than Israel, don’t demand security guarantees, just their territory.
There is one last point as to why Kerry’s agreement will go nowhere. The Palestinians cannot trust the United States to be an impartial mediator, far from it. Even beyond the fact that the U.S. official expected to be chosen as mediator, Ambassador Martin Indyk, was long affiliated with AIPAC and then with thethink-tank it created,the Washington Institute For Near East Policy, is the simple fact that the United States has unambiguously taken Israel’s side for decades.
The Palestinians understand the role of the Israel lobby in keeping Congress in line behind Israel, with Congress doing the job of making sure the administration doesn’t stray. As recently as 2012, the United Statesled the oppositionto a resolution granting Palestine observer status at the United Nations (only seven countries voted with us). In March of this year, PresidentObama visited Israelto deliver, both in words and symbolic actions,the message that the United States and Israel were essentially one, a vivid demonstration of Vice President Biden’soft-repeated pledgethat there must be “no daylight, no daylight” between U.S. and Israeli policies.

This is significant.The only successful U.S. mediation between Israelis and Arabs was conducted by President Jimmy Carter at Camp David in 1978. Carter managed to bridge the gaps that had led Israel and Egypt to go to war three times previously by being the ultimate honest broker.

In his book about Camp David, Gen. Moshe Dayan, who was then Israel’s foreign minister, described how Carter would keep the pressure on both sides equally, telling President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin, in turn, that if the talks failed, he would publicly name who was responsible. All during the long arduous process that produced a peace treaty that has survived 34 years, Carter refused to act as either side’s advocate. His only client was peace and that is how he achieved an agreement.

Can anyone seriously imagine that the Obama administration with its “no daylight” policy would ever do that? Occasionally, very occasionally, over the past 5 years it has laid blame equally on the two sides but, other than once in 2009 on the matter of settlement expansion, it has never blamed Israel for anything and, in that one case, it quickly flinched. That means that all Palestinians can expect in the Kerry negotiations is blame on them whenever anything goes wrong with Israel getting a pass.

Exactly why would the Palestinians trust the United States? The answer is that they don’t and they shouldn’t because, during two presidencies in a row, we have made not the slightest attempt to play “honest broker,” remaining even more “Israel’s lawyer” than we were when Clinton-era negotiator, Aaron Miller firstused the termto describe our modus operandi.
The bottom line is that the Kerry initiative is dead even before arrival. And, sad to say, that is how it should be until the United States looks at the Palestinian and Israeli demands, side by side, and decides, honestly, that there is no moral equivalence between the demands of the occupier and the occupied. And then we can, just possibly, help achieve peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians. But not before.

0 thoughts on “The Kerry Initiative Is A Joke: The US Is Still "Israel's Lawyer"

  1. Have the Palestinians dropped these demands that would wipe Israel out?
    http://mideastweb.org/taba.htm
    Palestinian Proposal on Palestinian Refugees
    January 22, 2001, Taba
    ARTICLE XX: REFUGEES
    The Significance of Resolving the Refugee Problem
    1. The Parties recognize that a just resolution of the refugee problem is necessary for achieving a just, comprehensive and lasting peace.
    Moral Responsibility
    2. Israel recognizes its moral and legal responsibility for the forced displacement and dispossession of the Palestinian civilian population during the 1948 war and for preventing the refugees from returning to their homes in accordance with United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194.
    3. Israel shall bear responsibility for the resolution of the refugee problem.
    The Basis for a Settlement of the Refugee Problem
    4. A just settlement of the refugee problem, in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, must lead to the implementation of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194.
    Right of Return
    5. a. In accordance with United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 (III), all refugees who wish to return to their homes in Israel and live at peace with their neighbors have the right to do so. The right of every refugee to return shall be exercised in accordance with the modalities set out in the Agreement.
    6. a. A Palestinian refugee is any Palestinian who was prevented from returning to his or her home after November 29, 1947.
    b. Without limiting the generality of the term “refugee”, a “refugee” in this Agreement shall include a refugee’s descendants and spouse.
    c. Without limiting the generality of the term “refugee”, all registered persons with UNRWA shall be considered refugees in accordance with this Article.
    Repatriation Commission
    7. A Repatriation Commission shall be established in order to guarantee and manage the implementation of the right to return in accordance with this Article.
    8. The Commission, inter alia, shall:
    a. Verify refugee status as defined in this Article.
    b. Determine priorities for certain categories of refugees and certain areas.
    c. Determine procedures for repatriation.
    d. Process applications.
    e. Repatriate the refugees.
    f. Provide assistance to returning refugees.
    g. Ensure the protection of returning refugees.
    9. The Commission shall be composed of representatives from the United Nations, the United States, the Parties, UNRWA, the Arab host countries, the EU, and Canada. The Commission shall consult the governments of the Arab host countries as it may deem it necessary.
    10. The Parties should implement the decisions of the Commission and should take appropriate actions to facilitate the execution of the Commission’s decisions.
    11. The Commission shall define its structure and work procedures.
    12. The Commission shall have its headquarters in ___ and may have offices at other locations, as it deems appropriate.
    13. The Commission shall establish a mechanism for resolution of disputes arising from the interpretation, application or performance of this Article.
    14. Refugees shall have the right to appeal decisions rendered by the Commission pursuant to this Article. The Commission shall establish a mechanism for appeals.
    Modalities of Return
    15. All refugees who currently reside in Lebanon and choose to exercise the right of return in accordance with this Article shall be enabled to return to Israel within two years of the signing of this Agreement.
    16. Without prejudice to the right of every refugee to return to Israel, and in addition to refugees returning pursuant to Paragraph 15 above, a minimum of XX refugees will be allowed to return to Israel annually.
    17. The refugees who wish to return should declare their intention to the Commission, in accordance with procedures to be set out by the Commission, within 5 years of the date the Commission starts receiving these declarations. The exercise of the right of return subsequent to such declaration shall not be limited in time.
    18. The Commission shall determine, according to transparent criteria, who will be allowed to return in any given year in accordance with Paragraph 16 of this Article.
    19. Repatriation should be based on an individual voluntary decision, and should be carried out in a way that maintains the family unit.
    20. The refugees should be provided with information necessary for them to make an informed decision with regard to all aspects of repatriation.
    21. The refugees should not be compelled to remain in or move to situations of danger or insecurity, or to areas lacking in the basic infrastructure necessary to resume a normal life.
    22. The refugees shall be permitted to return in safety, without risk of harassment, intimidation, persecution, or discrimination, particularly on account of their national origin, religious belief, or political opinion.
    23. The Parties shall make such modifications to their internal laws as are necessary to facilitate the implementation of the right of return.
    24. The Parties shall call upon states that currently host refugees to facilitate the early return of refugees in a manner consistent with human rights and international law.
    Legal Status of Returning Refugees
    25. Returning refugees should enjoy full civil and social rights and should be protected against discrimination, particularly in employment, education and the right to own property.
    26. The returning refugees shall assume Israeli citizenship. This shall end his or her status as a refugee.
    Restitution of refugees’ Real Property
    27. Real property owned by a returning refugee at the time of his or her displacement shall be restored to the refugee or his or her lawful successors.
    28. In case where, according to criteria determined by the Repatriation Commission, it is impossible, impracticable or inequitable to restore the property to its refugee owner, the refugee shall restituted in-kind with property within Israel, equal in size and/or value to the land and other property that they lost.

  2. Great blog right here! Additionally your web site
    loads up very fast! What host are you using?
    Can I am getting your associate link on your host? I desire my web site loaded
    up as fast as yours lol

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *