Between Paris and Cairo: Balancing Security and Diplomacy: Col. (res.) Dr. Eran Lerman, BESA, May 31, 2016— The loss of EgyptAir 804 on its way from Paris to Cairo – suspected to be an act of terror – happened to coincide with efforts by both France and Egypt to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Netanyahu and the Peace Charade: Jonathan S. Tobin, Commentary, May 31, 2016— Israel’s critics lambast its government as incorrigibly right wing and unwilling to advance the peace process.
The 'Peace Processors' are Back: Richard Baehr, Israel Hayom, May 26, 2016— There are certain things those who "know and understand the world" purport to know and understand.
For Middle East Peace, Look to Israel’s Arab Partners: John Hannah, Foreign Policy, May 16, 2016— Speculation is rife that President Barack Obama will make one final stab at putting his mark on the Middle East peace process before he leaves office.
French Summit on Middle East Peace: Five Reasons Not to Expect Much: Aaron David Miller, Wall Street Journal, June 1, 2016
In Surprise Move, Netanyahu Says He’s Ready to Negotiate Based on Saudi Peace Initiative: Gil Hoffman, Jerusalem Post, May 31, 2016
Why Israel Should Not Adopt Unilateral Initiatives: Maj. Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror, BESA, June 1, 2016
Peace: A Deceptive, Dictatorial Word: Martin Sherman, Israel Hayom, May 20, 2016
BETWEEN PARIS AND CAIRO: BALANCING SECURITY AND DIPLOMACY
Col. (res.) Dr. Eran Lerman
BESA, May 31, 2016
The loss of EgyptAir 804 on its way from Paris to Cairo – suspected to be an act of terror – happened to coincide with efforts by both France and Egypt to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. No causal connection should be imputed. But for both countries, their perceptions of broad regional security considerations play a significant role in driving their diplomatic initiatives. That insight should, and apparently does, inform Israeli policy responses.
Policymakers in Israel have ample reason to be apprehensive about French peace initiatives. For many reasons, most notably the pressure exerted by a large and vocal Muslim minority, French leaders have shown themselves ever more eager to endorse schemes in support of Palestinian demands. At moments of crisis, such as the internal EU debates during the Gaza fighting in 2014, it was France that took the lead in driving through to EU endorsement a position on permanent status that reflected Arab demands on borders, Jerusalem, and the interpretation of UN resolutions. This drive to impose "parameters" is inimical to Israeli interests.
France is planning to convene a conference on the Middle East peace process in Paris on June 3, to be attended by assorted international and regional players – though not by the protagonists themselves. Israeli reactions to this initiative have been subdued, and recent visits to Jerusalem by the French prime minister and foreign minister were amicable. To account for this, it is necessary to take a broader look at regional dynamics and at French policy responses, which tend to align closely with Israeli positions on the issue that truly matters: the need to face up to the threat posed by radical Islamist totalitarianism.
On more than one occasion, French positions and actions on this subject have been more reassuring from an Israeli point of view than those of our American ally. For example, France served as the hard-line anchor of the P5+1 (or, as they prefer to count it, the E3+3). It was France that raised questions about reliability and implementation (even as it was French business interests that were among the first to bang on Tehran's doors). In terms of action against Islamist terror groups, French forces have done more than most, including a dramatic campaign in Mali. Equally important is the French reluctance to buy into the illusion that the Muslim Brotherhood could be a stabilizing partner, as well as the ongoing relationship between France and the current regime in Egypt.
It is against this background that Israeli leadership has taken a cautious line in response to the French peace initiative. Israel did make the point repeatedly that the French initiative would prove counterproductive, insofar as it would move Palestinian leadership even further away from compromise at the negotiating table. But the point was not made aggressively, and French motives and friendship with Israel were never subject to question. The tempered Israeli response reflects, above all the importance of broader regional imperatives in Israel's current diplomatic calculations.
The same applies to Egypt, which on May 28 led the Arab League in endorsing the French initiative. From an Israeli perspective, there is little in recent history to commend Egyptian intervention in the Palestinian negotiations. Citing their "expertise" (khibra) in diplomacy with Israel, Egyptians have all too often helped harden Palestinian positions and demands. Egypt’s role in the last territorial adjustment, the Hebron Agreement of 1997, was so problematic that King Hussein of Jordan had to be pulled in to mitigate the consequences of its involvement.
However times change. The regional realities in 2016 have generated a very different relationship between Israel and Egypt. The countries both face the same threats to their security – Iran, IS, and the Muslim Brotherhood – even if the Egyptian order of priorities is the reverse of the Israeli. The level of security cooperation is unprecedented, and President Abd al-Fattah al-Sisi has said so explicitly to foreign visitors. Energetic cooperation, including economic, is within reach, particularly in view of the easing of friction following the December 2015 release of Israeli Beduin Odeh Tarabin after a long and unjustified incarceration. Egyptian forces have acted vigorously in Sinai and have executed a systematic campaign to eradicate the tunnel system supplying Gaza, operating well above treaty specifications and with Israel’s explicit consent. Those forces have become an important part of Israel's security equation in the south.
In this context, it is easier to understand why Egypt's recent forays into the Israeli-Palestinian peace process have been greeted warmly by Israel. Sisi went so far, in a speech on May 17, as to openly intervene in Israeli politics, calling (upon request?) for the center-left to join a broad unity government. This move generated a strikingly positive response in Jerusalem. In explaining the choices he made in his recent cabinet reshuffle, Netanyahu spoke of intensive efforts underway for some time to revive peace efforts with the help of key regional players. This was a thinly veiled reference to Sisi, and probably also to the Saudis, whose close association with Sisi was recently cemented by the Egyptian decision to return the Tiran and Sanafir islands to Saudi sovereignty.
In short, the measured Israeli reaction to the latest flurry of diplomatic activity reflects its security imperatives, as well as its newly discovered sense of being a significant regional player rather than a besieged small state in a hostile sea.
As to the forthcoming peace conference, there is little reason to be sanguine. As expected, Palestinian positions have been hardening in response to the diplomatic effort (and to what Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas views as cleavages within Israeli society, as his latest speech at the Arab League indicates). The concept of compromise, raised once again by John Kerry in recent weeks, remains alien to Abbas’s negotiating posture. Hence, Abbas’ rejection of any recognition of Israel's identity as the embodiment of the right of the Jewish people to self-determination, and of any interim step short of "a Palestinian state on all of the land taken in 1967 with its capital in Jerusalem"…
[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]
NETANYAHU AND THE PEACE CHARADE
Jonathan S. Tobin
Commentary, May 31, 2016
Israel’s critics lambast its government as incorrigibly right wing and unwilling to advance the peace process. Those criticisms grew shriller in the last week after Prime Minister Netanyahu expanded his coalition by bringing in the Yisrael Beitenu Party and making its leader Avigdor Lieberman minister of defense. But on Monday, the same Netanyahu who embraced a two-state solution and expressed willingness to give up most of the West Bank as part of a negotiated agreement, took one step further to try and make clear that Israel is serious about peace. Netanyahu did what no other Israeli leader has done by saying he was willing to negotiate the terms of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative first suggested by Saudi Arabia and embraced by the Arab League.
After swearing Lieberman into his new office, Netanyahu said the following: “I remain committed to making peace with the Palestinians and with all our neighbors. The Arab peace initiative includes positive elements that can help revive constructive negotiations with the Palestinians. We are willing to negotiate with the Arab states revisions to that initiative so that it reflects the dramatic changes in the region since 2002, but maintains the agreed goal of two states for two peoples.”
Though left-wingers and pundits have embraced the Saudi proposal as a real breakthrough for peace, there were good reasons why Israel did not rush to embrace an idea that included recognition of Israel and an end to the conflict. The Saudis presented it as a take-it-or-leave-it proposal. Its terms required Israel to give up every inch of land it won in 1967, including Jerusalem. It also said that peace must also include a “just” and “agreed upon” solution to the question of Palestinian refugees, a poison pill that is equivalent to calling for an end to Israel as a Jewish state that seemed incompatible with the notion that its sponsors were truly prepared to live in peace. It was later adjusted to imply the possibility of some territorial swaps, but the refugee clause remains problematic because the only “just” solution to that problem in the eyes of the refugees and the Muslim world is a “right of return” that means the elimination of Israel. Many in the peace process crowd continue to ignore the fact that a nearly equal number of Jewish refugees from Arab and Muslim countries were forced to flee their homes after 1948.
In spite of all that, Netanyahu has just said he’s willing to talk about it and, provided that it be changed to reflect certain obvious problems, such as the refugees and the sheer impossibility of giving the Golan Heights back to a Syria wracked by civil war and the rise of ISIS, it could even serve as the starting point for negotiations. But in spite of that, do you think Netanyahu will get any credit for this? Will the Palestinians leap at his suggestion? Will the United States, the Diplomatic Quartet or Western European nations like France, which are so interested in starting their own peace process, start devoting their efforts to following up on this opening? Of course not.
The international community is heading to Paris later this week to hold a conference at which they’ll discuss ways to promote peace between Israel and the Palestinians. But neither Israel nor the Palestinian Authority was invited. The Palestinians are happy about that because their sole object isn’t peace, let alone statehood, but rather avoiding direct negotiations with the Israelis, even with a third party involved. That’s because they know that in such talks, they’ll sooner or later be required to either accept a peace offer or reject it and once again alert the world to their inability to end the conflict. The PA rejected offers that would have given them statehood, including possession of almost all of the West Bank and a share of Jerusalem three times (2000, 2001, and 2008) and refused to negotiate seriously with Israel in 2014 when Secretary of State John Kerry restarted talks. They far prefer diplomatic exercises such as the one promoted by the French because it diverts attention from their intransigence and heightens Israel’s diplomatic isolation without actually bringing a peace that they don’t want any closer.
Given that even Palestinian “moderates” such as PA leader Mahmoud Abbas have made it clear they won’t recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn and regard all of Israel as “occupied” territory, it’s not clear what new initiatives will accomplish. But in the face of growing international pressure, Netanyahu has demonstrated, as did his predecessors, that Israel is still willing to negotiate and to contemplate painful decisions that involve risk. But don’t expect him the administration or the Europeans to take the prime minister up on his proposal, let alone to prod the Palestinians to negotiate directly with Israel.
Nearly 23 years after Israel began taking grave risks for peace with the signing of the Oslo Accords, “progress” toward an agreement has only been measured in one currency: Israeli concessions. At no point, has the international community come to grips with the grim fact that Palestinian national identity is inextricably tied to the war they have been waging on Zionism for a century. If pressure is needed, it should be on the Palestinians to finally take the “yes” for an answer they’ve been offered for several decades…
[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]
THE 'PEACE PROCESSORS' ARE BACK
Richard Baehr
Israel Hayom, May 26, 2016
There are certain things those who "know and understand the world" purport to know and understand. These things are the seeds for most opinion journalism and "news" reporting in the current era. The perils of climate change are certainly near the top for the informed commentariat, despite the fact that most people, certainly most Americans, rate this a virtual nonissue, not even among their top 10 issues of concern. The planet may have experienced an average temperature increase of one degree centigrade or less over the last 165 years since the start of the industrial revolution. But supposedly, according to the media, catastrophe is at hand.
The need for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is another one of those "big" stories that are never far from the news lead, on which the groupthink consensus is never challenged. This week, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman managed in one column to repeat pretty much every accepted wisdom about Israel today that counts as opinion journalism among the "well informed." This is no particular achievement for Friedman, who has been recycling his columns on Israel for decades, always with the same sage advice for Israel, a country he is trying to save from itself.
According to Friedman, the government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is destroying Israel by building settlements in the West Bank and by including ministers who happen to represent segments of the population that agree with Netanyahu on security issues. Netanyahu has shifted Israel hard to the right and is thereby closing off chances for peace with the Palestinians, Friedman claims. In time, he adds, the window to achieve a two-state solution will close (as it has presumably closed after every prior unsuccessful peace processing period, until it reopened with the next one).
Then, Friedman issues the only news in his column: a "threat" that The New York Times may soon begin calling Israel the state of "Israel-Palestine." Horror of horrors, this would be as brave and earth shattering for the paper of record as refusing to call the Washington football team (the Redskins) by its name, as many "brave " journalists posing as social justice warriors have chosen to do or not do, despite a recent survey suggesting that 90% of native Americans surveyed on the matter could not care less about the name of the team, and were not "insulted" by it in any case. The timing of Friedman's column is not accidental. These days, the periodic push to secure a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians is back on the agenda for those with nothing better to do and those too lazy to think of something new to write about. We are in the midst of rerun season and the end result of the latest peace process will be no different than all the prior failed efforts. That should come as no surprise considering that this effort involves all the same players raising all the same solutions.
In the United States, the election this year will yield a new president. Those in the know want to "help" the new president with a plan for achieving a two-state solution. So a new document is in the works from leaders of the Jewish establishment. The new working group will produce a plan that will presumably tell the new president what he or she does not already know, or in any case lay out steps to be taken that will finally achieve what all other processors have failed to accomplish before them. Obviously, the authors of the plan have Hillary Clinton in mind and not Donald Trump, since none of the members of the new group have any interest in talking to Trump, but many want to influence or secure a job with a restored Clinton administration. There is enormous narcissism involved in such an effort, which pretends to have come up with something new while doing nothing more than rehashing the old bromides from the Saudi peace plan or the Geneva conference document from 2003.
The problem with the new approach, described as a "rare show of independence," is that for over two decades, the parameters of the two-state solution have never been a mystery for these informed Jewish community leaders or their media sidekicks. They were known to left-of-center Israeli prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, and to American presidents including Bill Clinton and the two Bushes, and all others who profess to care deeply about protecting Israel's security while securing Palestinian rights and sovereignty. Israel needs to pull all its settlers out from beyond the separation fence, and offer land to the Palestinians of equal quality to what Israel would retain beyond the Green Line. Jerusalem should be an open, shared city and become a capital of two nations.
It is easy enough to write, but it may be a bit more complicated to work out the details. How will the two sides address the problem of knife-wielding terrorists trying to kill Jews in the holy city? So-called refugees would return to a Palestinian state, with a very limited right to return to Israel. Compensation would be paid for their losses, presumably by the flush Western Europeans and the Americans. The new Palestinian state would not be armed. The deal that achieves a two-state solution would call for an end to all future claims by either party. The chances of Palestinians ever agreeing to these points regarding refugees, weapons, and ending the conflict, is of course zero. The history of peacemaking between the two parties is that the Palestinians have never gotten to a yes that requires them to forgo future demands or accept that there is no right of return, or that Israel is a Jewish state. Bill Clinton could advise his wife about this…
[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]
FOR MIDDLE EAST PEACE, LOOK TO ISRAEL’S ARAB PARTNERS
John Hannah
Foreign Policy, May 16, 2016
Speculation is rife that President Barack Obama will make one final stab at putting his mark on the Middle East peace process before he leaves office. One theory has the administration supporting a United Nations Security Council resolution that would codify terms for a deal between Israel and the Palestinians. Another has Obama going it alone, delivering a high-profile speech setting out “Obama parameters” for a two-state solution.
But if Obama has anything more in mind than adding another shiny exhibit to his presidential library, he’d be wise to forego either option. Neither stands much chance of actually advancing the cause of regional peace and stability. On the contrary, they’re more likely to set it back. Instead, the president would be better advised to apply the powers of his office to a slightly more promising — albeit less headline-grabbing — effort, where his engagement might really have strategic impact. I’m talking about facilitating the burgeoning relations between Israel and America’s most important Arab friends.
It’s virtually impossible to imagine Israel and the Palestinians conducting fruitful negotiations under the current circumstances. Mistrust is at an all-time high. Gaps on the core issues are wide. Talks have been in deep freeze for over two years. For months on end, young Palestinians have targeted innocent Israelis in a wave of random stabbings. The Palestinian leadership, in particular, seems weaker, more divided, and more paralyzed than ever, utterly incapable of taking on the gut-wrenching compromises that even the most generous peace offer would require. Secretary of State John Kerry devoted his first year at Foggy Bottom to a dubious, but nevertheless Herculean effort to force-feed a deal to the parties, and failed miserably. There’s no reason whatsoever to believe that the chances for success would be any better today.
Even Obama has acknowledged that renewed negotiations, much less a peace agreement, aren’t in the cards before he leaves office. So why even toy with the idea of a big initiative that would have him — or worse yet, the U.N. — dictating terms of a settlement from on high? Advocates suggest that Obama’s purpose would be to leave his successor with the issue on a more promising or hopeful trajectory than the current unsatisfying deadlock. But given Israel’s historical objection to any outside effort to impose a solution, the more likely result is that the next president would inherit a relationship even worse than what we have today with our best Middle East ally. As for the Palestinians, if outside intervention to impose a deal rewards their refusal to negotiate, what incentive would they have to return to the table, rather than merely sit back and wait for even greater international pressure to be brought on Israel? What exactly would be more positive or hopeful about any of that from a U.S. perspective?
Truth be told, the more likely impetus for any last-minute grand gesture by the president on the peace process seems more personal than strategic in nature. Within days of taking office, Obama signaled that a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict was among his highest priorities, the deus ex machina that would right everything wrong about America’s relations with the Muslim world. Yet for more than seven years, his lofty ambitions on this front have been frustrated at every turn — as often as not, in Obama’s eyes, by the failure of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to appreciate the deep wisdom of the White House’s transformative agenda for the Middle East. The president’s credibility on Israel-Palestine is in tatters. A high-profile declaration as he prepares to leave office would offer Obama at least the possibility that his legacy on the issue could be something other than a dreary litany of failure and futility. Better his sentence in the history books read “the Obama Parameters for Peace,” than some version of “all hat, no cattle.” And if in the process he can stick it to Netanyahu and defy the Washington foreign policy establishment (aka, the Blob) one last time, well, so much the better. Mic drop moment. Obama out…
[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]
French Summit on Middle East Peace: Five Reasons Not to Expect Much: Aaron David Miller, Wall Street Journal, June 1, 2016—After 20-plus years of planning mostly failed Middle East peace conferences for Republican and Democratic administrations, I know a fatally flawed one when I see it.
In Surprise Move, Netanyahu Says He’s Ready to Negotiate Based on Saudi Peace Initiative: Gil Hoffman, Jerusalem Post, May 31, 2016—Israel is prepared to hold peace talks based on the Arab Peace Initiative, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu surprisingly declared Monday just moments after new Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman took the oath of office, ending a month-long saga over which party would join Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.
Why Israel Should Not Adopt Unilateral Initiatives: Maj. Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror, BESA, June 1, 2016—With respect to the Palestinians, the current situation can be described as stagnation clouded by terrorism: In 2002 it was Palestinian suicide bombers, and in 2016 they introduced terrorism at knife-point.
Peace: A Deceptive, Dictatorial Word: Martin Sherman, Israel Hayom, May 20, 2016—After a long absence, "peace" is back in the headlines, due in large measure to this week's visit to Israel by French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, who came to try to promote a new French initiative that somehow, by as yet unspecified means, would resuscitate the moribund "peace process."
