Netanyahu’s false promises

By Henry Siegman

April 14, 2009

The Guardian

Tony Blair, who now serves as the Middle East Quartet’s envoy, told Time magazine he has concluded that the return to power of the newly elected Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu – universally seen as a near-fatal setback to prospects for a two-state solution – may be a blessing.

Blair informs us that he had a serious chat with Netanyahu in which it became clear that far from putting Palestinian statehood beyond reach, Netanyahu intends to become the father of the Palestinian nation. Like his friend George W Bush, Blair apparently looked into his interlocutor’s soul and concluded that this man aspires to nothing less than “to build the [Palestinian] state from the bottom up”.

Of course, there is the annoying matter that Netanyahu refuses to affirm his support for a two-state solution; indeed, Netanyahu considers a Palestinian state a plague to be avoided. However, Blair would like all of us to understand that “circumstances must be right” for Netanyahu before he can let the world in on his secret passion for Palestinian nation-building.

With all due respect, one has to wonder if Blair has lost all touch with Middle Eastern realities. If nothing else, he himself has repeatedly warned that Israel‘s continuing encroachments on Palestinian land, the expansion of its settlements, and the damage to Palestinian economy and society wreaked by the more than 600 Israeli military checkpoints are destroying what hope remains for a two-state solution. Does he really believe that Netanyahu and his government will put an end to these practices while they go about rebuilding Palestinian statehood “from the ground up”, whatever that is supposed to mean?

What is particularly astonishing is Blair’s understanding of Netanyahu’s unwillingness to declare support for a Palestinian state until “circumstances become right”. Blair has given no indication he is willing to extend the same forbearance to Hamas for its refusal to affirm its recognition of the State of Israel until “circumstances become right”. Is this not a blatantly un-evenhanded approach to his mediation? Should not the sanctions applied by the Quartet to Hamas for refusing to abide by previous Palestinian agreements with Israel be applied to a Netanyahu government that is similarly guilty of renouncing previous agreements with the Palestinians?

To be fair, Blair does not agree with every aspect of Quartet and US policy in Gaza. He has said that it does not work, and that he would like to see humanitarian help “in its broadest sense” allowed in. He has stressed that this means not just food and fuel but also help in rebuilding infrastructure and houses. But none of this begins to deal with the double standard that has been applied by the Quartet, not to speak of the Bush administration, to Israeli and Palestinian violations of past agreements and international law.

Palestinians have fallen dismally short in their efforts at nation-building and in fashioning the internal cohesion indispensable to their struggle for statehood. But the difficult measures they must take to put their house in order will remain beyond their grasp if they do not receive a credible commitment to viable statehood alongside Israel. An Israeli government that expressly refuses to provide such a commitment is not one that can end the conflict, much less rebuild the Palestinian state “from the ground up”.

Israel’s government can pose reasonable conditions for Palestinian statehood, but only after it has clearly recognised the Palestinian right to national self-determination, an acknowledgement that becomes meaningful only if Israel also accepts the Road Map‘s requirement that no unilateral changes can be made in the pre-1967 border. Such adjustments can only come about as a result of a negotiated agreement. There is nothing in Netanyahu’s past, nor in his present pronouncements, to indicate that he intends to pay the slightest attention to this provision.

In that same interview in Time magazine, Blair stated that three elements are needed for a resolution of the conflict: a credible political negotiation for a two-state solution, a programme of major change on the West Bank, and an easing of the blockage in Gaza. “If we get those, we’ll be back in business again”, he said.

Netanyahu has made it clear that whatever else he envisages for the Palestinians, not one of these three elements is a part of it.

 

Henry Siegman, president of the U.S./Middle East Project in New York, is a visiting research professor at the Sir Joseph Hotung Middle East Program, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.  

 

OBAMA MUST BROKER A NEW MIDEAST PEACE

By Brent Scowcroft

April 13 2011

Financial Times

The “Arab Spring” that is flowering in fits and starts in most countries of the Middle East has significantly altered the geopolitical situation in the region, and is likely to have a profound effect on American interests.

No one knows how or when the region will settle down, and there is little that the US can do to help shape events directly. Even in Libya, the US and other countries have been reacting, admittedly in a direct manner, rather than shaping the outcome of the struggle between Muammer Gaddafi and his opponents. This is all for good reason.

As a new Middle East has begun to be shaped by citizens in individual countries, one issue appears conspicuously unaffected, at least on the surface: the Arab-Israeli dispute over Palestine. Israelis and Palestinian leaders remain incapable or unwilling to talk seriously. It is wishful thinking that this situation can continue for long.

The US has more direct interests at stake in ensuring a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine than it does in the outcome in most other countries in the region. Remaining silent on deadlocked negotiations over a two state solution, while encouraging greater democratisation in other countries, suggests a double standard that damages America’s image in the Middle East and the broader Muslim world.

This is particularly true because the Palestinian issue stands out as the one issue in the Middle East where nothing can be accomplished without active American leadership, including that of President Barack Obama.

No other country can convince Israeli and Palestinian leaders to reach a binding compromise that results in two states living side by side in peace and security, ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and all claims related to it. Such an outcome would significantly increase Israel’s security, while resolving an issue that adversely affects America’s national security interests in the region.

Some argue that the uncertain situation in the broader Middle East is not a propitious time to re-engage on Palestine; that we should wait to see what new leaders arise and what their policies towards Israel might be.

Others argue that, facing re-election next year, Mr Obama should avoid personal involvement unless he is guaranteed of success, so as not to appear weakened or to offend domestic constituencies. These views do serious injustice to the interests of all the main parties, including those of the US.

Adding to these interests is that fact there is increasing international support to have the UN General Assembly declare in September a Palestinian state based on the borders of 1967. The US cannot block such a declaration; indeed it is likely to be isolated in its opposition (along with Israel). However, such a declaration, satisfying as it may be to those rightly frustrated with decades of failed negotiations, is likely to result in a deepened stalemate rather than the lasting peace devoutly desired by majorities in Israel and the occupied territories.

Resuming the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is not a matter of forcing concessions from Israel or dragooning the Palestinians into surrender. Most of the elements of a settlement are already agreed as a result of the “Clinton parameters” of 2000, the Oslo Accords, and the “road map” of 2003.

What is required is to summon the will of Israeli and Palestinian leaders, led by a determined American president, to forge the various elements into a conclusion that all parties have already publicly accepted in principle. Indeed, a broad-based Israeli group has just announced its ‘Israeli Peace Initiative’ that endorses these elements, and there is strong support from the leaders of Europe, especially Germany, France and the UK.

Thus the time has come for Mr Obama to lay out his view of the parameters of a fair and viable peace agreement. Four issues should be highlighted.

First, territory and borders should be addressed. Two states, based on the lines of June 4 1967 with minor, reciprocal, and agreed-upon modifications as expressed in a 1:1 land swap is needed, to take into account areas heavily populated by Israelis in the West Bank.

Next, there has to be a solution to the refugee problem that is consistent with the two-state solution that does not entail a general right of return to Israel and addresses the Palestinian refugees’ sense of injustice, while also providing them with meaningful financial compensation as well as resettlement assistance.

Third, Jerusalem has to be made the undivided capital of both Israel and Palestine, with Jewish neighbourhoods under Israeli sovereignty and Arab neighbourhoods under Palestinian sovereignty. There should be a special regime for the Old City, providing each side control of its respective holy places and unimpeded access by each community to them.

Last, on the issue of security, Mr Obama must push for a non-militarised Palestinian state, together with security mechanisms that address Israeli concerns while respecting Palestinian sovereignty, and a US-led multinational force to ensure a peaceful transitional security period.

These parameters would serve as a basis for substantive and productive discussion by the parties to move the peace negotiations to a positive resolution. They would achieve priority US national security and foreign policy objectives with respect to the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Also, they would fulfill the repeated urgings of the international community, including the Arab League and the Quartet (the UN, the US, the European Union, and Russia), that the US exercise determined and effective leadership as the chief facilitator of the Middle East peace process. The parameters should be part of a comprehensive and ambitious strategy designed to move the parties forward to a lasting agreement.

Of course, success is not guaranteed. By its very nature, no issue that requires a president’s direct involvement is. But many issues of importance to US national security interests depend on achieving lasting peace between Israel and Palestine.

The nature of the new Middle East cannot be known until the festering sore of the occupied territories is removed. Iran’s hegemonic ambitions, including its support for Hezbollah and Hamas, cannot be blunted as long as it is seen in the region as the champion of the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians.

Syria and Lebanon will remain arenas of direct concern to Israel as long as there is no regional peace agreement. Relations with Saudi Arabia, already tested by the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, likely would be strengthened if King Abdullah saw the US as moving in a serious manner to resolve the Palestinian issue.

There is no issue in the Middle East more deserving of the president’s engagement, both for US interests globally and for the stability of a vital region undergoing historic change. In June 2010, Mr Obama spoke eloquently in Cairo about justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. It is now time to use his office and prestige to bring peace to the Holy Land, uniting Israelis, Palestinians and Arabs in a lasting peace.

The writer is former national security adviser to US presidents George H. W. Bush and Gerald Ford, and president of The Scowcroft Group, an international advisory firm.

Event: Meeting of the International Board, Washington D.C., September 10, 2008

Event: Annual Meeting of the International Board, Washington D.C., January 28-29, 2008



General Brent Scowcroft, Eric Melby and Henry Siegman

General Brent Scowcroft, Eric Melby and Henry Siegman

more events »

OBAMA MUST BROKER A NEW MIDEAST PEACE

As a new Middle East has begun to be shaped by citizens in individual countries, one issue appears conspicuously unaffected, at least on the surface: the Arab-Israeli dispute over Palestine.The US has more direct interests at stake in ensuring a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine than it does in the outcome in most other countries in the region, writes General Brent Scowcroft. Remaining silent on deadlocked negotiations over a two state solution, while encouraging greater democratisation in other countries, suggests a double standard that damages America’s image in the Middle East and the broader Muslim world.

read more »