by Zalman Shoval
"Gone are the hopes of an actual agreement on final status. But that doesn't mean Obama or his secretary of state have abandoned the idea altogether … even if progress means more tension with Israel's prime minister."
Israel will have to
pass two crucial tests in the coming weeks, both of which are expected
to impact its relations with the United States. The first test involves
the Iranian nuclear deal. Its make or break point is several weeks away.
The other test, involving the Palestinians, will immediately follow.
Is U.S. President
Barack Obama willing to let another failure on the Palestinian front
eclipse what he considers his signature foreign policy accomplishment --
the Iran nuclear deal? Opinions vary. Aaron David Miller, an adviser on
the Middle East in multiple administrations, recently penned an article
in the Washington Post in which he elaborated on Obama's state of mind.
"The president has certainly sobered [on the peace process] ... and lowered his expectations," he wrote.
"Gone are the hopes of
an actual agreement on final status. But that doesn't mean Obama or his
secretary of state have abandoned the idea altogether … even if progress
means more tension with Israel's prime minister."
Miller's article
dovetails with the rhetoric of American and European officials. Another
related development involves the French government's efforts to
jump-start the peace talks, led by French Foreign Minister Laurent
Fabius. The French initiative came about in phases. Initially, Fabius
declared that France would draft a new U.N. Security Council resolution
to replace Resolution 242 from 1967. That resolution, which was adopted
in the wake of the Six-Day War, stopped short of calling for a full
Israeli withdrawal from the land it had captured and made any such
withdrawal contingent on establishing secure borders.
It is safe to assume
that France has coordinated its moves with the United States, at least
when it comes the key provisions of the plan. France knows full well
that without Washington's blessing, the draft resolution will be
derailed by a American veto (or a veto threat) like the ones that came
before it. The next phase was Fabius' visit to Jerusalem and Ramallah.
During that visit, Israel said it was against plans that dictate the
terms of a deal. The French plan, Israel said, was contrary to the
principle of holding direct talks with no preconditions because it
considered the creation of a Palestinian state within 18 months a done
deal.
The Palestinians were
more elaborate in their reaction to the plan -- officials in Ramallah
were rather satisfied with the general spirit of the plan, interpreting
it as a victory for their strategy of gaining independence through the
U.N. while consistently refusing to engage in meaningful talks with
Israel. The Palestinians, true to their negotiating tactics, said they
wanted make Israel pay a heavier price and introduced the following
demands: a complete withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders with no land
swaps; all of east Jerusalem to be part of the future Palestinian state;
the upgrade of U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 on refugees into a
binding Security Council resolution; a construction moratorium in every
Israeli community in Judea and Samaria; and the release all Palestinians
held in Israeli jails. They also said they were categorically opposed
to recognizing Israel as a Jewish state and would not demilitarize the
future Palestinian state.
A scenario in which
France would accept the Palestinians' demands is far-fetched. That said,
it might agree to ambiguous language that would serve their cause.
Washington, it seems,
has yet to make its mind up on the French initiative, nor has it
insisted on following the traditional U.S. template for the peace
process: direct talks, with no preconditions.
Israeli diplomacy will have to grapple with these issues in the coming weeks.
Zalman Shoval
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=13469
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment