Right Web

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

Unraveling the Knottiest Issues in Stalled Peace Talks

A new study published by an institute led by former Republican official James Baker argues that the Obama administration needs to be more aggressive in pushing Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.

Inter Press Service

The United States needs to take on a more aggressive presence in peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians, according to a major report published earlier this month by the James Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University.

Baker, who served as President George H. W. Bush’s secretary of state, generally maintains a low profile, especially on such controversial issues. However, he underscored the need for a more assertive U.S. approach to the Middle East peace process during an interview in this week’s National Journal in which he accused President Barack Obama of "caving in" to Israel’s continued settlement expansion.

"Both Democratic and Republican administrations have long endorsed the U.S. policy that settlements are an obstacle to peace… You can’t take a position that is consistent with U.S. policy going back many years, and the minute you get push-back you soften your position," elaborated Baker in the interview.

Baker’s strong remarks come amid continuing delays in convening negotiations regarding "final status" issues in the 60-year conflict, such as borders, refugees and the status of Jerusalem.

Israel continues to build settlements throughout the territory it has occupied since the Six-Day War of 1967, a practice that is in violation of international law. Early on in his attempts to restart the peace process, President Obama repeatedly called for a complete freeze all settlement activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

But after facing months of resistance from Israeli leadership, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the administration relented when a partial freeze was implemented.

The 107-page report, "Getting to the Territorial Endgame of an Israeli-Palestinian Peace Settlement," makes a series of recommendations to the Israeli, U.S., and Palestinian leadership regarding key issues that have paralysed previous peace efforts.

The report is the culmination of 18 months of workshops and discussions between a wide array of Israeli, Palestinian and U.S. officials, academics, and business people convened by the Institute’s Conflict Resolution Forum, chaired by Edward P. Djerejian, Baker’s top Middle East aide in the early 1990s.

"No agreement will please every constituency on either side," said Djerejian, who also served as U.S. ambassador to Syria and to Israel. "But this report can provide the respective governments with a heads-up on significant problems and contentious issues that they most likely will encounter in actual negotiations."

Territory is the main focus of the report, and though the panels did not reach a consensus on what the borders of a future Palestinian state would look like, Djerejian called for the U.S. to implement a bridging proposal on territory, based upon the Green Line – the ceasefire line of Jun. 4, 1967.

The premise of the bridging proposal is to negotiate a territorial compromise within the range of 3.4 to 4.4 percent, with active United States participation. While Palestinian teams indicated that they could not accept giving up more than 1.9 percent of the West Bank, with borders based upon the Green line, the Israeli team said they would not accept anything less than seven percent.

Israel’s settlements in the West Bank have historically been an obstacle in past negotiations between the Jewish State and the Palestinians. The report underscores "space and time" as an important component in any future arrangement concerning the relocation of settlements over a period of time and presents several options including land swaps and territorial corridors in order to ensure a continuous and viable future Palestinian state.

The report also recognises the enormity of settlement negotiations, as "this would put an end to 41 years of settlement drive, based on Israeli ideological and security motives. Such a move necessitates a major political, organisational and financial effort on behalf of Israel."

The issue of Jerusalem as a hoped-for capital for both states remained problematic and was not directly addressed in the report as a final-status issue. However, the most contentious settlements in the vicinity of the city were considered, including Ma’ale Adumin, located east of Jerusalem and which, if annexed by Israel, would sever Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank.

The report comes on the heels of Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak’s unusually candid remarks at Israel’s annual national security conference in the port city of Herzliya earlier this month.

In his speech, Barak acknowledged an impending single state "apartheid" solution to the conflict, if a peace agreement with the Palestinians is not realised in the near future. Barak went on to warn that the only way to ensure the survival of a "Zionist, Jewish, democratic state" was to "to demarcate a border within the land of Israel," and "pay attention to international constraints."

Saeb Erekat, lead negotiator for the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), also made a similar comment in November of last year, imploring his chief, President Mahmoud Abbas, to "tell his people the truth, that with the continuation of settlement activities, the two-state solution is no longer an option," alluding to a policy shift where the Palestinians would pursue full Israeli citizenship and voting rights.

The Baker Institute’s report is not the first to stress the urgency of a final status peace accord. Obama himself spoke about the pressing nature of an agreement when he declared, "the moment is now" to settle the decades-long conflict, while in Germany last year.

The Baker Institute’s report also bears resemblance to the Geneva Initiative, which was composed under similar circumstances in 2003. These accords brought Israeli and Palestinian academics and politicians together to strike an agreement over final status issues as well, using similar formulas on land swaps and settlements.

Another notable proposal for the two-state solution was 2009’s "A last Chance for a Two-State Israel-Palestine Agreement," by the U.S./Middle East Project. That report emphasised the fleeting nature of the two-state solution and urged the Obama team to engage immediately, as "political capital will erode; domestic obstacles will grow; other issues will dominate; and the warring parties will play for time and run the clock."

The report, subtitled "a Bipartisan Statement on U.S. Middle East Peacemaking," urges the Obama administration to seize the opportunity for a two-state solution by engaging Hamas and facilitating Palestinian reconciliation, in order to form another unity government.

Henry Siegman, former national director of the American Jewish Congress, and now the president of the U.S./Middle East Project, noted Wednesday in an op-ed for the Financial Times that a two-state solution would be reached only if "an American president would draw on the massive credit the U.S. has accumulated with Israel to insist it dismantle its illegal settlements, which successive U.S. administrations held to be the main obstacle to a peace accord."

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Update was slow, but still no lag in the editor window, and footnotes are intact.     This has been updated – Bernard Lewis, who passed away in May 2018, was a renowned British-American historian of Islam and the Middle East. A former British intelligence officer, Foreign Office staffer, and Princeton University professor, Lewis was…


Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


For the past few decades the vast majority of private security companies like Blackwater and DynCorp operating internationally have come from a relatively small number of countries: the United States, Great Britain and other European countries, and Russia. But that seeming monopoly is opening up to new players, like DeWe Group, China Security and Protection Group, and Huaxin Zhongan Group. What they all have in common is that they are from China.


The Trump administration’s massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.


Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


RightWeb
share