Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Can Final Peace Deal Overcome Settlements Roadblock?

As a new round of U.N.-sponsored Israeli-Arab peace negotiations fast approaches, it remains unclear how much and what kind of pressure the Obama administration is willing to exert on Israel.

Print Friendly

(Inter Press Service)

The Obama administration —perhaps the president himself —will reportedly be launching a new round of authoritative Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations sometime during the upcoming U.N. General Assembly session, scheduled to start in New York on Sep tember 15.

So far, most media attention has focused on the administration’s ongoing tussle with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over Israel’s continued settlement-building project in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Far less attention has been paid to prospects of the broader effort to nail down a final Palestinian-Israeli peace accord.

The issues are connected. Israel’s continued construction of its illegal settlements in the West Bank eats deeply into the territory of any future Palestinian state. Even the strongly pro-peace Mahmoud Abbas, president of the interim Palestinian Authority and head of the Palestinian Liberation Organi zation (PLO), has said he cannot take part in final-status talks unless Israel stops building the settlements.

All other Palestinian leaders and parties, including Hamas, firmly support Abbas’s position. (Abbas, has said he might “meet” with Netanyahu at the General Assembly even without a complete settlement freeze. But he has not clarified whether or not this meeting would be in the context of a negotiation .)

Israel’s nearly continuous pursuit of settlements has always been a major factor undermining Palestinians’ confidence in the  Israeli government’s good faith.

The settlement-building project is also a violation of the “Road Map” for peace drawn up in 2002 by President George W. Bush and his partners in the international ”Quartet .”

However, some seasoned analysts of Israeli-Arab negotiations argue that the main focus for Obama and all others who seek a fair and durable peace in the region should now be not the settlement-building issue, but starting —and winning —speedy completion of the negotiation for a final peace agreement (FPA).

From that perspective, any further prolongation of the fruitless tussle over the settlements can be seen both as a huge time-waster and as a growing drain on Obama’s domestic and internation al political capital.

These analysts point out that any FPA will necessarily include a demarcation of the final borders between Israel and the future Palestinian state.

Once those lines are demarcated, the issue of whether and where Israel can build new housing for its people is instantly transformed. After border demarcation, Israel can presumably build freely within its own final borders, consistent with international law.

But outside those borders not only will Israel be unable to continue its building programs , but Israeli citizens already living in those areas will rapidly come under Palestinian law.

And as the FPA goes into effect, there will be no more Israeli military occupation of the West Bank, and thus no remaining problem, under international law, regarding Israeli settlers there.

Demarcating a final border for Israel in the West Bank is something that Netanyahu and many of his allies in Israel ‘s rightwing government have long opposed . Netanyahu’s Likud party traditionally considered the whole terrain between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean —and even a stretch of land east of the Jordan —to be part of the Biblical “Land of Israel.”

In June, Netanyahu finally succumbed to U.S. pressure and expressed grudging support for a tightly circumscribed form of a Palestinian state inside the West Bank. But he and his advisers have indicated they want this state to have, in the first instance, only “provisional” borders that would be open to further modification in the future.

“Phase Two” of the 2002 Road Map in fact envisaged this kind of provisional state. But the Palestinians strongly oppose it. The strongly pro-peace Palestinian analyst Walid Salem has said that establishing such a state would “put Palestinians in a situation that some will consider an international occupation.”

Like most other thoughtful Palestinians, Salem is now urging rapid action towards securing the FPA.

Is it possible to imagine that Abbas and other Palestinian leaders might set aside their insistence on an Israeli settlement freeze for long enough to allow the negotiations over the FPA to resume?

There is a chance they might do this. But they would need to receive enough ironclad guarantees that this next round of negotiations will not end up as damaging and unsuccessful for the Palestinians as the negotiations  that Pres ident Bush launched in late 2007, with much fanfare, at Annapolis.

At Annapolis, Bush vowed he would secure an FPA before the end of his presidency. That never happened. Nor did the settlement freeze as required in the Road Map and reaffirmed at Annapolis.

The Annapolis-launched negotiation was the last in a long series, dating back to the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991, in which Palestinian leaders were promised that a final peace would rapidly be secured.

What could give the Palestinians more assurance of U.S. seriousness today than they had at Annapolis?

One clue comes from the veteran Palestinian journalist and commentator Rami Khouri, who recently wrote that any realistic attempt to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict “must affirm the rule of law as defined by U.N. resolutions and international conventions on refugee rights.”

Obama and his peace envoy George Mitchell could indeed affirm that their peace diplomacy is based on the international rule of law; they could stress that the United States has its own strong interests in an Israeli-Palestinian peace and state that it intends to use the instruments of its national power to secure that peace . These kinds of declarations could provide just the assurances the Palestinians need to return to the negotiating table.

It has, however, been a long time since any U.S. president was prepared to state openly that securing an Israeli-Palestinian peace is in the American people’s own interests. Both Pres idents Clinton and George W. Bush avoided ever stating that , although Clinton  occasionally argued that the United States “can’t want peace more than the parties themselves.”

As a result, neither he nor his successor was ever prepared to use pressure against Israel.

Now, there is reportedly a debate inside the Obama administration over how forcefully to articulate and pursue U.S. interests in securing a peace accord.

Washington Post columnist David Ignatius recently pointed out that the White House “is debating whether Obama should launch his initiative with a declaration of U.S. ‘parameters’ for a final settlement. … But Mitchell is said to favor a more gradual approach, in which Israelis and Palestinians would begin negotiations and the United States would intervene later with ‘bridging’ proposals.”

For 16 years now, Israel’s leaders have become accustomed to exercising a near-veto over any U.S. initiative in the peace diplomacy. Almost any independent initiative that Obama takes that is not cleared in advance with Netanyahu will almost certainly arouse the ire Netanyahu’s supporters in the U.S. Congress.

But how politically weighty will Netanyahu’s supporters turn out to be inside Washington? That is hard to predict. One new factor this year has been that Netanyahu received very little effective support from anywhere in Congress in his tussle with Obama over the settlements.

Veteran political analysts recogni ze that Obama has many tough battles on his hands right now. But they note he has not yet done much to spell out for U.S. or Israeli voters  the many benefits to both countries of securing a durable and final end to the long-running conflict between Israel and its neighbo rs.

Between them, Obama and Mitchell —the man who helped Northern Ireland’s warring communities end their conflict —could surely muster a lot of persuasive power. Along with adroit and focused international diplomacy, such persuasion could yet win the day.

Helena Cobban is a veteran Middle East analyst and author who reports for the Inter Press Service. She blogs at www.JustWorldNews.org.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) has been an outspoken proponent of militarist U.S. foreign polices and the use of torture, aping the views of her father, Dick Cheney.

United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.

John Bolton, senior fellow at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute and the controversial former ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, has been considered for a variety of positions in the Trump administration, including most recently as national security adviser.

Gina Haspel is a CIA officer who was nominated to head the agency by President Donald Trump in March 2018. She first came to prominence because of accusations that she oversaw the torture of prisoners and later destroyed video evidence of that torture.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been advocating regime change in Iran since even before 9/11.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Hardliners at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies are working overtime to convince the Trump administration to “fix” the nuclear agreement with Iran on the pretext that it will give the US leverage in negotiations with North Korea.

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.