About Us

IMRA
IMRA
IMRA

 

Subscribe

Search


...................................................................................................................................................


Tuesday, February 4, 2014
U.S. Security "Assurances" and the End of UN Resolution 242

Secretary John Kerry took Israel's primary requirement -- "secure and
recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force" (the language of
UN Resolution 242) -- off the negotiating table.

Under Kerry's new formulation, Israel's sovereign legitimacy and secure
boundaries do not have to be recognized by the Arab states, the Palestinians
or anyone else; just determined, accepted and guaranteed by the United
States -- and for how long is not clear… until about the time the U.S
decides it wants to end another war "responsibly."

U.S. Security "Assurances" and the End of UN Resolution 242
by Shoshana Bryen February 3, 2014 at 4:00 am
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4153/israel-us-security-assurances
.
Secretary of State John Kerry and special envoy Martin Indyk have been
meeting and talking with groups of American Jews in an effort to "sell" the
interim deal Mr. Kerry plans to put on the table for Israel and the
Palestinians. With Mr. Kerry acting as the "bad cop" and Mr. Indyk as the
"good," they want the Americans to press the democratically elected
government of Israel to accept the deal even if the Netanyahu government
doesn't find it secure and responsible to do so. This is in keeping with the
apparent belief in the administration that American Jews are both
responsible for Israeli policy decisions and subject to them, but it is a
poor way to approach American citizens and a very poor way to understand the
independence of the government of Israel, which answers to its citizens.

And here is why they are doing it.

Secretary Kerry took Israel's primary requirement -- "secure and recognized
boundaries free from threats or acts of force" (the language of UN
Resolution 242) -- off the negotiating table.

UN Res 242 was directed at the Arab States, not the Palestinians (who were
referred to only as "refugees"); and not only were the Arabs required to
provide "secure and recognized boundaries," but also "termination of all
claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the
sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State
in the area," reversing their 1948 rejection of the legitimacy of Jewish
sovereignty.

But Mr. Kerry told his Jewish audience at the White House, "One of the
lynchpins of the current peace process is the separation of Israel's
security assurances from the general negotiations," He told them security
assurances would be guaranteed in a "separate agreement" with the U.S. In
that sentence, he eviscerated possibly the last remaining fundamental
promise of the international community to the State of Israel.

Under Kerry's new formulation, Israel's sovereign legitimacy and secure
boundaries do not have to be recognized by the Arab states, the Palestinians
or anyone else; just determined, accepted and guaranteed by the United
States. And for how long is unclear. Palestinian leaders have indicated that
they might be amenable to international forces for two or three years, but
then they want everyone out. That should be just about the time the U.S.
decides it wants to end another war "responsibly."

The Israeli government vociferously objects to the notion of international
troops filling in the security gap that would be created if Israel withdraws
from vital territory in the face of continuing hostility from the newly
independent State of Palestine as well as from the Arab states. That is not
an objection American Jews should try to paper over, because the consequence
of failure will accrue to Israelis, not to American Jews.

Secretary Kerry also told his Jewish audience he "fears for Israel's future
if a deal isn't reached." His fears are nothing to sneeze at -- they
distinctly resemble threats, and he has been waving them around at least
since last summer, when, before a meeting with Israel's President, he
pronounced Israel's prosperity an impediment to peace. "I think there is an
opportunity [for peace], but for many reasons it's not on the tips of
everyone's tongue. People in Israel aren't waking up every day and wondering
if tomorrow there will be peace because there is a sense of security and a
sense of accomplishment and of prosperity."

It is appalling, to say the least, to have an American Secretary of State
suggest Jews value prosperity over a peaceful future for their children.

He followed up in November with two not-very-veiled threats. First, "If we
do not find a way to peace, there will be an increasing isolation of Israel,
there will be an increasing campaign of delegitimization of Israel that's
been taking place on an international basis." Second, "The alternative to
getting back to the [peace] talks is the potential of chaos," Kerry said.
"Does Israel want a "third intifada?"

Israel was, at that moment, actually facing a spike in Palestinian violence.
To Israeli political commentator Alon Ben David, suggesting that Palestinian
violence would be a price Israel would have to pay for rejecting the
American position was more than a mistake. "This isn't an intifada yet
(but)...there is an atmosphere that appears to be encouraging these
incidents."

Minister of Strategic Security Yuval Steinitz echoed Ben David's concern
this weekend. "The things ... Kerry said are hurtful, they are unfair and
they are intolerable. Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with a gun to
its head when we are discussing the matters which are most critical to our
national interests."

In neither case did it seem to occur to Mr. Kerry that the better position
for the United States would be to stand firmly by its friend and ally,
Israel, rejecting both violence and boycott. No, Mr. Kerry has simply warned
Israel that it will suffer severe consequences for its failure to do as the
U.S. determines best, regardless of the behavior of those who wish it ill,
plan to do it ill and are prepared to follow through.

No wonder he needed former Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk to cheer up the
Jews. Indyk is said to have been upbeat in a telephone meeting (it was "off
the record," but at least four participants spoke to reporters), with Israel
getting "75-80% of Israeli settlers inside Israel; recognition as 'the
nation state of the Jewish people,' compensation for Jewish refugees from
Arab land while the Palestinian refugees also get 'compensation.'" There was
no apparent mention of a "right of return."

It is difficult to square Indyk's 75-80% with expressed Palestinian anger
over houses being built in the largest town and villages of the "settlement
blocs" that will apparently, according to Indyk, remain in Israel. PLO
Executive Committee member Hanan Ashrawi said, "Israel is destroying chances
of peace... There is no possibility of peace with such actions and plans."
It is also hard to square the 75-80% with Kerry's formulation of a
Palestinian State in the 1967 borders with "agreed upon land swaps." And
there appears to be no way to square Indyk's formulation of the "nation
state of the Jewish people" with Abbas's public refusal to contemplate that.

Indyk slid over the difficulties by noting that the parties could accept the
American document "with reservations" without killing the deal. So while the
U.S. may have included clauses American Jews appreciate, the Palestinians
are free to reject Jewish nationalism, settlers, and borders. And, of
course, that pesky UN Resolution requiring "secure and recognized
boundaries."

Secretary Kerry the "bad cop" and Ambassador Indyk the "good cop" are
threatening, cajoling and playing all the angles in an effort to create
American Jewish leverage to replace the policies of the government of Israel
with the policies of the Obama Administration.

Search For An Article
....................................................................................................

Contact Us

POB 982 Kfar Sava
Tel 972-9-7604719
Fax 972-3-7255730
email:imra@netvision.net.il IMRA is now also on Twitter
http://twitter.com/IMRA_UPDATES

image004.jpg (8687 bytes)