CONTEMPLATING A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE IN THE PALESTINIAN
POSITION ON A POLITICAL AGREEMENT: POSSIBLE ISRAELI RESPONSES
By Zaki Shalom via INSS Insight
The prevailing opinion in ISRAEL and among many AMERICAN and
PALESTINIAN officials is that chances are slim that the current negotiations
will lead to a real breakthrough that will promote a full settlement between ISRAEL
and the PALESTINIANS. Yet while the assessment is reasonable, powerful
considerations could in fact lead the two parties to decide to make a material
change in their positions. This article examines the possibility that a
fundamental and perhaps even dramatic change will occur in the familiar PALESTINIAN
position, and examines possible responses by the US administration and the
Israeli government.
Read also:
JORDAN AND
ISRAEL http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com/2013/10/jordan-and-israel.html
Far
from the eyes of the media and for the most part discreetly, ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN
negotiations are underway. The UNITED STATES is apparently present at some of
the discussions, serving in a “supervisory” role over the ISRAELI and PALESTINIAN
positions. According to information that has not yet been officially confirmed,
discussions on the issue of borders will soon begin in the presence of US
General John Allen.
Background Information:
PALESTINIAN -
JORDANIAN CONFEDERATION
TELLING THE UN SIX
HOME TRUTHS
PALESTINE
AND PARANOIA - JORDAN, JERUSALEM AND JITTERS
The
prevailing opinion in ISRAEL and among many AMERICAN and PALESTINIAN officials
is that chances are slim that the current dialogue will lead to a real
breakthrough that will promote a full settlement between ISRAEL and the PALESTINIANs.
Gaps between the respective positions are wide, and the mediator – i.e., the UNITED
STATES – is seen as lacking sufficient leverage to lead the two sides to modify
their positions significantly. Yet while the assessment is reasonable, powerful
considerations could in fact lead the two parties to decide to make a material
change in their positions.
THE BACKGROUND TO A POSSIBLE CHANGE
Several
considerations could lead the PALESTINIAN Authority (PA) toward a substantive
change in its traditional positions on the issue of a settlement. The first
concerns a PALESTINIAN assessment of the US administration’s ability to dictate
terms for a settlement that are not acceptable to ISRAEL. During President
Obama’s first term it became clear that his administration’s ability to force ISRAEL
to act against what it sees as a national interest, namely, continued
construction in the settlements, is limited.
It
has also become clear to the PA that the Obama administration is intentionally
avoiding linkage between ISRAEL’S positions on the issue of a settlement and
bilateral relations with ISRAEL. Furthermore, the PALESTINIAN leadership was
disappointed by the administration’s position on upgrading the PALESTINIAN
Authority’s status in the UNITED NATIONS, and thus the PA’s apparent hopes that
the Obama administration would impose on ISRAEL a settlement favorable to the PALESTINIANS
were dashed.
Background Information: …..that offer to share
the large land was so logical, generous and right, it was literally ‘an offer
he couldn’t refuse’--but Arafat did in fact refuse that huge geographical land
mass for a homeland. Instead he tried to overthrow the King and take over all
of Jordan.
Read entire article at: http://specialguests.com/guests/viewnews.cgi?id=EFFkkVkuulgKBngPvH&style=PrintFull&tmpl=fullprint
and
The
ARAB world, likewise perceived as another supporter of the PA in its struggle
to obtain a political settlement with ISRAEL, has been shown in recent years to
be a fair weather friend. Major Arab countries – e.g., EGYPT, SYRIA – are
undergoing powerful and historic upheavals, and their international status has
suffered a harsh blow. Other countries, such as SAUDI ARABIA, JORDAN, and LEBANON,
are contending with serious threats from within and without, and it is doubtful
that they have significant ability to help the PALESTINIANS achieve their
national goals. In addition, the events in EGYPT have led to a considerable
weakening in the standing of Hamas, which was sorely limiting the PA’s
political room to maneuver. Under these circumstances the PA might feel freer
to adopt more moderate positions.
LIMITED CONCESSIONS BETWEEN THE TWO ARCH FOES
In
the meantime, construction in the settlements continues, in spite of some
restrictions ISRAEL has placed on itself – apparently with some coordination
with the US administration – concerning the scope and location of the building.
The widespread impression that right wing tendencies among the ISRAELI public
are growing and that the left is weakening could lead the PA to conclude that ISRAEL
might continue to expand the settlement enterprise in the foreseeable future.
The current peace process appears to be a personal whim of US Secretary of
State John Kerry and thus far has not earned substantive backing from the
President. The crisis over the SYRIAN regime’s alleged use of chemical weapons and
the US dealing with the ever evolving situation regarding SYRIA could lead to a
PALESTINIAN assessment that President Obama’s standing is weakening and in the
coming month’s international attention will be focused on SYRIA. This could
push the PALESTINIANS toward a settlement, even a limited one, with ISRAEL.
The obvious conclusion from the PA’s
point of view is that it may currently be facing a historic decision of “to be
or not to be,” specifically, a final opportunity to fulfill the vision of two
states for two peoples.
POSSIBLE CHARACTERISTICS OF CHANGE
The
PALESTINIANS are not likely to go so far as to adopt positions that are close
to those of ISRAEL. However, it is certainly possible that they would adopt
positions acceptable to the US that would lead the administration to demand
that ISRAEL yield something measurable in exchange. For example, the PALESTINIANS
might announce to the US government that they are prepared to pledge – most
likely in secret – that the PA will consent to a certain formula that might
satisfy the ISRAELI demand that the PA recognize Israel as the nation state of
the Jewish people and/or an agreement on terminating the conflict, if and when
there is agreement on the settlement in its entirety. Or, the PA might agree,
under the above conditions, that the right of return would apply mainly to the PALESTINIAN
state to be established, on the basis of an understanding that over the years, ISRAEL
would be prepared to take in a limited number of PALESTINIAN refugees. Or, the
PA might make it clear that it is prepared to consider favorably an agreement
on security arrangements proposed by the US military delegation that has been
examining this issue with ISRAEL in recent months.
Background Information:
What no mains stream
media ever reports are the opinion, citizens of other ARAB Nations, and tribes
have of the PALESTINIANS. Ask for example SYRIAN, JORDANIAN or LEBANESE
citizens, and they will in most cases comment, that no Sunni ARAB
tribe or nation really want PALESTINE Arabs in their country for PALESTINIAS
are notorious when it comes to land ownership, for they never are satisfied
with what they have. "Thus it’s better to let the ISRAELIS struggle
with them instead of us."
Read entire article at: http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com/2011/07/license-to-statehood.html
POSSIBLE ISRAELI RESPONSES
If
in fact the above scenarios materialize, either individually or in some
combination, President Obama will likely abandon the quiet passivity he has
recently adopted concerning the MIDDLE EAST peace process. He will likely
aspire to be intensively involved in achieving a settlement, and the fact that
he is now in his second term will give him a freer hand vis-à-vis ISRAEL. There
is no doubt that he will want to leave his historical mark as the man who
succeeded in bringing about a settlement of the ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN conflict,
which was a flagship issue in his first term.
Beyond
this, the threatening moves made by the EUROPEAN UNION against ISRAEL concerning
the ongoing construction in the territories could help the President create an
international front to exert heavy pressure on ISRAEL to offer a conciliatory
platform in exchange for the more flexible PALESTINIAN position. For example,
the administration might demand that ISRAEL present the map of its borders at
the opening stage. Another possibility is that the administration demands that ISRAEL
agree to hold discussions on the basis of the 1967 lines and the possibility of
territorial exchanges.
If
– and this is a big "if' – this situation comes about, Prime Minister
Netanyahu would face difficult and far-reaching decisions on both the national
and the personal levels. In his party, there is a group of ministers and
Knesset members with considerable political clout who strongly oppose any
concessions to the PA beyond gestures such as releasing additional prisoners
and perhaps even freezing construction in the territories for a limited time
and in limited areas. If there were a willingness to make further concessions,
this would almost certainly lead them to demand that the party institutions be
convened immediately for the purpose of making decisions that would restrict
the Prime Minister’s room to maneuver. Netanyahu would need to take into
account the shocks to his current coalition, although these would be relatively
insignificant in terms of the stability of the government, since if the right
wing religious party HaBayit HaYehudi were to leave the coalition, this would
enable the entry of the moderate Labor party.
On
a personal level, Netanyahu would have to take into account that political
moves toward a settlement would seriously damage his credibility. Over the
years, he has been extremely critical of prime ministers who sold the public
one agenda and implemented an opposing agenda when they reached office. He was
elected on the basis of a right wing platform, and it will be difficult for him
to explain why he is abandoning these principles. In such circumstances, the
prime minister could decide to dissolve the coalition and hold elections, with
the agreement as the central issue. If that happened, the elections could be
seen as a referendum.
Netanyahu
would probably seek to create linkage between his willingness to make
concessions to the PALESTINIANS and AMERICAN willingness to continue supplying
ISRAEL with high end defense technology and hardware as well as increased -
renewed economic cooperation. The Obama administration might consent to this if
it believes that by failing to consent to this linkage it could cause the peace
process to fail. In such a case, Netanyahu is far more likely to respond
positively to the administration’s demands in the PALESTINIAN context.
No comments:
Post a Comment