[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA:
If Barak Ravid's report is accurate, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu
proposed that Israel maintain a military presence in the Jordan Valley for
a limited period of time.
Why term this "reckless"?
#1. How long is long enough time?
Five years? Ten years? A quarter of a century?
Hint: We have had an agreement with Egypt since March 26, 1979. That's 33
years.
A little bit more than a year ago most of the experts in Israel projected
that the Mubarak regime would last basically forever and the cold peace
pay-off for withdrawing from the Sinai in the agreement was taken as an
incontrovertible truth.
#2. Is it reasonable to expect a military presence in the Jordan Valley to
be viable?
Hint: Israel has ultimately retreated from pretty much every location in
which it had only a military presence. In the absence of civilians the
temptation to pull up the stakes when things heat up is just too great for
the decision makers to handle. And our neighbors know this...]
Netanyahu's border proposal: Israel to annex settlement blocs, but not
Jordan Valley
The proposal that came up during the Israeli-Palestinian talks in Amman
effectively means a withdrawal from 90% of the West Bank, and is very
similar to the one proposed by Tzipi Livni during the 2008 Annapolis
Conference.
By Barak Ravid Haaretz 17:21 19.02.12
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/diplomania/netanyahu-s-border-proposal-israel-to-annex-settlement-blocs-but-not-jordan-valley-1.413473
Three weeks after the end of the talks that took place between Israel and
the Palestinians in Amman which took place under the patronage of the King
of Jordan, Israeli officials revealed their version of the events, laying
the blame on the failure of the talks on Palestinian Authority leader
Mahmoud Abbas. Despite the mutual “blame game,” according to positions
presented by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the topic of borders, it
is clear that it is not much different than the positions presented by Tzipi
Livni during the Annapolis Conference.
The five rounds of talks in Amman were the result of international pressure
placed on Abbas immediately after his speech to the UN General Assembly in
September 23 2011. On that same day, the members of the Quartet – the United
States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations – declared a new
outline for talks and called on both sides to respond positively.
After a few weeks, both Israel and the Palestinians responded to the request
with a “yes, but…” with both sides presenting a list of reservations. A
month after the assembly, delegations from the Quartet arrived for
first-round talks with Israeli and Palestinian representatives.
According to a top Israeli official, on the day of the meeting, the prime
minister’s envoy, Isaac Molho, arrived at the hotel and entered the meeting
room only to discover that his Palestinian counterpart, Saeb Erekat, did not
make it to the meeting. Mohammad Shtayyeh, a of Fatah’s central committee
was sent in his stead. The Palestinian side did not agree to sit with Molho
in the same room, and the envoys were resigned to hopping between different
rooms in the hotel in order to hold discussions between the two sides.
After a week, the Quarter envoys arrived in Jerusalem, although the
Palestinians refused once more to sit in the same room as Molho. “There is
an empty chair in the room,” said Molho to the envoys at the meeting. “Where
is Saeb Erekat?”
For over a month, the Quarter envoys attempted to bring the Palestinians to
the negotiation room, but only when King Abdullah II began to apply pressure
did things begin to move. The king came to Ramallah on a rare trip and
pressured Mahmoud Abbas. Finally, on January 3, the Jordanians were able to
bring together Erekat and Molho in Jordan’s Foreign Ministry in Amman.
First meeting: The blame game
A senior Israeli official said that the January 3 meeting began in a wider
forum where Jordanian, Israeli and Palestinian officials were present, as
well representatives of all the Quarter members. While speaking in front of
no less than 20 people, Saeb Erekat pulled out two documents: one on the
Palestinian position regarding borders, and one on the Palestinian position
regarding security.
The Palestinian documents were not surprising. On the topic of borders, the
Palestinians called for a return to 1967 borders with an acceptance of
land-swaps of 1.9% of the West Bank. On the topic of security, the
Palestinians agreed to a demilitarized state (devoid of heavy weaponry), and
the stationing of an international force on the border between Israel and
Jordan, with no presence of Israeli soldiers.
After the meeting in the general forum, the sides moved to a smaller meeting
with only Israeli, Jordanian and Palestinian representatives alone.
According to the Israeli official, the Palestinians immediately demanded a
freeze on settlement building, freeing prisoners and emphasized that from
their point of view, the talks would end on January 26 as that was the date
that the Quartet set for negotiations on the subject of borders and
security.
The Israeli delegation was surprised by the announcement. “We had just begun
and you are already threatening to end the talks,” said Molho to Erekat. The
Israeli side emphasized to the Palestinians that the talks are only in their
beginning stages and that with such a short timeframe it is impossible to
hold serious negotiations. At that same meeting, Molho presented a 21-point
document that included all the topics Israel is interested in discussing
during the talks, including borders, Jerusalem, settlements, security
arrangements, Palestinian incitement and more. And although the document
included all the points, it did not include any of the Israeli positions.
The meeting produced very little progress, except for the fact that the two
sides agreed to decide on another two meetings that would take place during
January.
Second Meeting: Molho asks for clarification
On January 9, a second meeting took place between Molho and Erekat, this
time in a smaller forum. Present alongside the Israeli and Palestinian
negotiating teams was Jordan's Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh and his top
adviser. Molho, who went over the documents presented by the Palestinians
during the previous meeting, passed along a document with 19 requests for
clarification regarding the Palestinians' positions.
One of Molho's questions was about the future of the settlements in the
Palestinian state. Would they be evacuated or would they be allowed to
remain? From the question it is clear that Netanyahu's position on the issue
of borders is that at least some of the settlements will remain where they
are in a Palestinian state and will not be evacuated. "Erekat told us that
he prefers not to respond to the question, and until this day we have not
received an answer," said a top Israeli official.
Another question brought up by Molho to Erekat had to do with the PA's
relationship to Hamas and the situation in the Gaza Strip. Erekat responded
that the Palestinian state will be "a strong democracy," and blamed Israel
for Hamas' takeover of Gaza.
Molho further asked whether the position on borders was final. The top
Israeli official claimed that among the Palestinian delegation there were
contradictory positions on the issue. "On the one hand, Erekat told us that
the documents are not the Quran and are not holy. On the other hand,
Mohammad Shatyyeh told us that the Palestinians had already made their
compromise and that a land swap of 1.9% is the maximum they are willing to
give," he said. "In the end, the Palestinian proposals were a step backward
from the more progressive positions that they presented in Annapolis."
Fourth meeting: Israeli general sits outside the room
A third meeting between the two sides took place on January 14, but did not
produce any results. During a meeting on January 18, the Israeli delegation
brought with it the Head of the Strategic Planning Division in the IDF
Planning Directorate, Brigadier-General Assaf Orion in order to summarize
Israel’s position on security arrangements. The Palestinians refused to
allow him to speak. “We came to the meeting place and were delayed for an
hour and a half because the Palestinians were not willing to hear the
Israeli general. They said that they are not willing to hear a military
person speak,” said the Israeli official.
When both sides finally entered the room, Erekat handed Molho a letter that
demanded the release of Hamas member and Speaker of the Palestinian
Legislative Council Aziz Duwaik, who was arrested a few days earlier. A few
hours later, the contents of the letter were leaked to the Palestinian
media.
The Israeli side also presented documents to the Palestinians, including one
on incitement against Israel in the Palestinian media. The document
contained quotes from the Mufti of Jerusalem that called for the killing of
Jews. Erekat rejected the claims. “The accusations are wrong, and in the end
you will have to apologize for this slander,” said Erekat to Molho.
In the meeting that took place afterwards, the Palestinians had understood
that they had a problem on their hands, and suggested organizing a joint
committee that would deal with the issue of incitement. Head of Israel’s
National Information Directorate Yoaz Hendel, who participated in the
meeting, told Erekat that instead of organizing a committee, they themselves
can take care of the issue of incitement.
Fifth meeting: Molho presents Netanyahu’s proposal on borders
On January 25, a day before the date which the Palestinians threatened to
walk out on the talks, the final round of talks took place between the
sides. During the discussions, Molho presented Netanyahu’s proposal on the
borders of the Palestinian state.
Molho presented several principles:
1. The border will be drawn in a way that will include the maximum amount of
Israelis living in the West Bank, and the minimum amount of Palestinians.
2. Israel will annex the large settlement blocs, without defining what
exactly is considered a ‘bloc,’ nor defining its size.
3. It is necessary to first solve the problem of borders and security in
relation to Judea and Samaria, and only afterwards move to discuss the topic
of Jerusalem which is far more complicated.
4. Israel will maintain a presence in the Jordan Valley for a period of
time. Molho did not mention how long nor what kind of presence.
During the meeting, Erekat asked for clarification regarding the Jordan
Valley. Molho referred him to Netanyahu’s speech’s to the opening session of
the Knesset, as well as to that in front of Congress in May 2011. In both
speeches, Netanyahu spoke of a “military presence along the Jordan River,”
yet he did not demand that Israel maintain sovereignty over the valley. “And
if we refuse?” Erekat asked. Molho responded: You would prefer that we annex
the valley?”
Molho did not mention how size of the territory from which Israel will
withdraw, but according to the principles he presented, it seems that it is
similar, if not identical to that which was presented by Tzipi Livni during
the negotiations that took place in 2008 after the Annapolis Conference. And
although Netanyahu does not admit it, the meaning behind the principles
Molho presented is a withdrawal that will cause Israel to give up 90% of its
sovereignty. “The possibility of leaving the settlements in a Palestinian
state also came up in Annapolis,” said a source that participated in the
2008 talks.
Erekat, who understood the principles, asked at the end of the meetings for
a series of clarifications: whether Israel accepts the 1967 borders as a
basic tenet upon which the two sides can negotiation, whether Israel accepts
the principle of territory swaps, how many percentages of the West Bank is
Israel interested in annexing, whether Israel has a map with border
proposals, whether Israel is willing to evacuate settlements, etc.
“I’d be happy to answer all these questions in the next meeting,” said Molho
to Erekat. But the next meeting never took place. A day later, the
Palestinians said that they will not resume talks unless Israel freezes
settlement building and accepts the principle of 1967 borders.
Israeli officials: Abbas ran away once again
Israelis are now admitting that the talks have come to an end and their
renewal is not expected anytime soon, especially in light of the recent
reconciliation meeting between Abbas and Hamas leader Khaled Meshal in Doha.
Up until two weeks ago, Netanyahu had discussed a series of goodwill
gestures toward the Palestinians with Tony Blair and the Americans, in order
to enable the renewal of the talks. However, the meeting between Abbas and
Meshal caused the Israelis to take of the offer off the table.
In a briefing to journalists on Sunday in Jerusalem, Israeli officials
blamed the freeze in the talks on Abbas. “For the past three weeks, Abbas
has run away from negotiations, and has done the same regarding the talks in
Amman,” said a top Israeli official. “We had the willingness to make
gestures and we presented a full package, but the Palestinians simply did
not want it. More and more international bodies understand that we were not
the ones that thwarted the talks. You can see it from the silence on the
part of the Jordanians. They did not blame Israel in any way.”
It must be noted that Netanyahu’s goodwill gesture package was much more
modest han what the Palestinians and the international community had hoped
for. Netanyahu proposed releasing 25 prisoners, establishing 10 new stations
for the Palestinian police in Area B (where Israel is in charge of
security), as well as a series of economic projects in Area C (where Israel
has full control).
What now? Officials in Jerusalem are waiting to see which path Abbas will
take: reconciliation with Hamas in a meeting set to take place in a week, a
return to the United Nations or in a more optimistic scenario – a
willingness to return to talks with Israel. “It is unclear what the
Palestinians will choose, but we believe they will return to their campaign
in the United Nations within a few weeks,” said the Israeli official.
The assessment in Israel is that the attempt to establish a unitary
government with Hamas will not succeed. However, if the reconciliation does
take shape, the Israelis clarify that it will have consequences. “We will
not enter negotiations with any government that Hamas takes part in, or that
its members are appointed by Hamas,” said the official. He hinted that
Israel may once more freeze Palestinian taxes. “We will see what happens at
the meeting in Cairo at the end of the month. The political leaders will
decide what to do,” he said.
| 
