The Peace Talks: A last-Minute Reprieve

 Next Tuesday, April 29, the nine months allocated for the current attempt to solve the Israeli Palestinian conflict will expire. It started as an ambitious, well-intended US driven plan to negotiate a final peace treaty, which would once and for all end the century plus long ongoing dispute.

       Secretary of State John Kerry deserves praise for his continued optimism, patience and tireless efforts while watching his initiative deteriorate from a short-lived attempt at a real peace treaty to trying to get the sides to just agree on a “framework” for future negotiations, to the now desperate last ditch effort to at least extend the current “preliminary” talks till the end of 2014.
   While both the Israelis and the Palestinians are interested, each for their own reasons, in extending the talks, both sides have laid down pre-conditions which, as of this writing, make that virtually impossible. 
   Israeli preconditions:

1. Abbas withdraws all 14 applications of accession as “Palestine” to UN and International treaties and conventions (now pointless since they were accepted and confirmed last week, with lightning speed, by UN officials, including Secretary General Ban Ki Moon).
2. Abbas recognizes Israel as the “Jewish” homeland.
3. Abbas retracts the demand for Palestinian refugees’ (all 5 million worldwide) “right of return” into Israel proper.
4. Abbas agrees to discuss an alternative to Jerusalem as the future capital of Palestine.

   Palestinian preconditions:

1. Israel recognizes “right of return” of 5 million refugees…to Israel
2. Israel announces that East Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine
3. Israel agrees, in advance, that borders will be the 1967 lines with minor adjustments
4. Israel releases all agreed 4th tranche convicted terrorist prisoners plus (new list) Arab terrorists who have Israeli citizenship, plus two very high-profile terrorist leaders: Marwan Barghouti and Ahmed Saadat. This was never part of the original agreement with Kerry.

The last item is interesting and could possibly be the deal-maker to restart the talks. It’s complicated so bear with me:

1. Abbas is in the 6th year of a 3 year term of office. There is no Palestinian legislature body. 
2. He is viewed by the street as corrupt and an Israeli/American lackey, with no “terrorist” credentials.
3. He is facing strong opposition from powerful leaders within his own faction, led by Muhammad Dahlan.
4. Prisoner release, especially of terrorists, is a top priority of the Palestinians.
5. Getting prisoners released, especially Barghouti and Saadat, may buy him time to reinforce his position, or pack up and leave while he can. It may also let the USA keep up the pretense of ongoing “talks”.
6. Netanyahu is under pressure by the extreme right wing of his coalition. Naftali Benet, leader of the settler friendly “Jewish Home” party is threatening to pull his 12 Knesset members from the government, thus toppling it, if Netanyahu, under US “persuasion”, bends to the Palestinian demands for prisoners. 

    So how can the US save face and keep the talks going without endangering Abbas and causing Netanyahu’s government to fall? Here’s one tortuous possibility:

1. The US releases Jonathan Pollard in exchange for Barghouti, Saadat and a few Arab-Israeli terrorists (who immediately renounce their Israeli citizenship and are exiled with the rest).
2. Abbas declares a voluntary freeze on “Palestine” activities re international treaties and conventions.
3. Bibi agrees to “discuss” a limited, conditional and very long-term “right of return”
4. The rest sort of falls into place or gets lost in the shuffle and the talks continue, and continue, and continue.

   Obviously Benet’s party bolts. But Netanyahu, in anticipation, is reported to have cut a deal last week with Sheli Yechimovits of the Labor Party (15 seats) to join the coalition as long as Benet is out, and the “peace talks” go on. And for the record, she would not oppose a justified strike on Iran.
   Is there a chance that such a convoluted plan will actually succeed by the April 29th deadline? With so many “moving parts” to precisely coordinate – I doubt it. 
   But this is the Middle East…and as we just retold during this holiday season – stranger things have happened over the past, say, 3,000 years.  
   Agree or disagree, that’s my opinion.

DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed above the writer’s, and do not represent SWJC directors, officers or members

The Peace Process Needs a Miracle

In an interview on CBS in 1956, David Ben Gurion said: “In Israel, in order to be a realist you must believe in miracles”.  

   Now would be a good time for a miracle. Even the most optimistic Middle East observers are saying that at this point, ONLY a miracle can save the current Israeli-Palestinian peace process.  
  Last Thursday, there was a contentious meeting between Tzippi Livni, chief Israeli negotiator, Saeb Erikat, chief Palestinian negotiator and former ambassador Martyn Indyk, representing the US. It ended, according to reports, in a verbal shouting match. One observer described it as resembling combat more than a negotiation.
   US Secretary of State John Kerry, who has invested more than a year in intensive shuttle diplomacy, said that it was  "reality-check time” and he would evaluate with President Obama Washington's next move. "There are limits to the amount of time and effort that the United States can spend if the parties themselves are unwilling to take constructive steps."
    Kerry spoke to both Israeli and Palestinian leaders on Thursday night in a last minute bid to bring the two sides back from the brink of failure. How did we get there?
   Direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians began on July 29, 2013 after consultations with leaders in the region. Former US ambassador Martin Indyk was appointed to oversee the negotiations.
   The talks were scheduled to last nine months, with a goal of reaching a final status accords by April 29th. 
   Before the peace talks began, both sides agreed to the following good-will gestures and ground rules:

• The Palestinians will put on hold all forms of applying for international recognition as a state.
• Israel will release of 104 Palestinian prisoners, all of whom have been in jail since before the 1993 Oslo Accord, in four rounds. These convicted terrorists are responsible for killing 70 Israelis. Three rounds of prisoner releases were completed; the last release was planned for this past weekend.
• Both sides agreed to refrain from taking actions or making statements that could impede the negotiations.
• And that only the Americans will issue statements about the talks (that one lasted about 30 seconds!)

   During the past eight and a half months, there were very few actual meetings between the negotiators, and those were typically short, argumentative and produced unhelpful and uncompromising declarations. 
   In the meantime, John Kerry made frequent visits to the region and phone calls to the leaders, while dedicated US staffers met regularly with both teams to present versions of draft plans, ideas and compromises. According to reports, if one side liked a proposal, the other rejected it. The negotiations were going ahead at “full speed in neutral”.
   As the April 29th deadline drew nearer, there was growing opposition in Israel to fulfilling the final prisoner release. This was in view of the lack of progress and recent statements by Abu Mazen and other Palestinian leaders that the minute the talks “failed” they would apply to join UN affiliated and international organizations, treaties, conventions, etc. as “Palestine”. Once confirmed, especially to the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, they could, in theory and practice, charge Israel, namely current and former Israeli leaders and IDF officers, in International, UN affiliated and various sovereign countries’ courts with all kinds of crimes, getting sympathetic judges to issue international arrest warrants for Israeli politicians and IDF officers.
   Based on past experience, Israel is convinced that the Palestinians simply want to get the prisoners released so that they can “pocket” this Israeli concession without giving any in return. 
   Last Saturday Abu Mazen, in blatant violation of the peace talk’s ground rules, preemptively signed applications to join fourteen (!) international conventions and treaties, including the Rome Statute, even while negotiations over the final prisoner release were still going on. He also issued new demands just to “agree” to extend the talks.
  So barring an awesome miracle (OK, I’m a realist…), despite John Kerry’s herculean efforts, this current round of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process (the thirteenth since the 1949 Lausanne Conference) seems doomed to join its predecessors in the footnotes of history. 
  Agree or disagree, that’s my opinion.

DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed above the writer’s, and do not represent SWJC directors, officers or members

A tale of two visits

With so much happening in the past week – two important Middle East stories received scant, if any, coverage in the media.

   President Obama in Saudi Arabia: Last Friday Air Force One landed in the Saudi capital. President Obama, John Kerry and the US entourage were then flown by Marine One to meet King Abdullah and several of the senior Saudi princes at the king’s luxurious ranch in Rawdat Khuraim, about 40 miles northeast of Riyadh. 
   While there was no press conference after the short visit, the official Saudi line was that they discussed “tactical differences” regarding Middle East issues, including Iran, Syria and the Peace Process. A US spokesman said that Obama assured Abdullah that the US “won’t accept a bad deal” regarding Iranian nukes.
   But an editorial in the semi-official al-Riyadh newspaper on Friday said Obama does not know Iran as well as the Saudis do, and could not "convince us that Iran will be peaceful". "Our security comes first and no one can argue with us about it," it concluded.
   Was this really about reassuring the Saudis? I don’t think so.  In all the pictures of the meetings there was one prince rarely seen until now, yet this time he stood or sat just a few feet away from the president and the king. His name is Prince Muqrin Bin Abdul-Aziz, he’s 69, and is this youngest surviving son of the Kingdom’s founder: Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud. Last week Muqrin was effectively designated to be the next king, receiving the title of Deputy Crown Prince. 
   King Abdullah, who is over 90 and was hooked up to oxygen during part of his talk with Obama, issued a Royal edict that “should the position of King or Crown Prince become vacated”, Muqrin was to be elevated to either. Since the current Crown Prince, Salman, 78, is suffering from dementia; Muqrin will be the next king of Saudi Arabia. Following the edict all the members of the Royal family vowed loyalty to the new king-in-waiting.
   And that is what the visit was mostly about – introducing Muqrin to Obama and the White House advisors. And possibly even more important – getting the Americans expert to evaluate Muqrin’s views, attitude, ideology, etc.
   In the conflict with Iran, Saudi Arabia is a key ally of the US and Israel. Following events in Syria and the so called Geneva agreement, the current leadership has lost trust in the US commitment to prevent its mortal enemy, Iran, from having nuclear weapons. With Muqrin becoming king, his position and alliances will be crucial, especially with Vladimir Putin knocking at the door...  
   General Dempsey in Israel: At the same time General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was in Israel on a working visit with Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz and senior IDF officers. Aside from smoothing ruffled feathers following recent criticism by Ya’alon of Secretary of State Kerry, reports talk about detailed operational planning, “target bank” updates and mission coordination.
   I would be surprised if the two visits were not connected. And I would be even more surprised if the Saudis – including Prince Muqrin’s advisors, were not in the loop.
  Agree or disagree, that’s my opinion.