T. Belman. My take is that we stand alone. Why would we go to a conference at which every participant wants us to capitulate. Our position is only direct negotiations will suffice. Why violate that principle by attending such a conference.
Many will argue that it is better to participate in a conference that is doomed to fail then to reject such a conference. At least while doing so, we alleviate some pressure and eat up some time. Also our participation may help to avoid the threatened French resolution at the UN recognizing Palestine.
According to a Channel 2 report on Friday, the French government has submitted details of its diplomatic plan to members of the UN Security Council.
There appears to be a move afoot to bring Israeli and Palestinian leaders together in a bid to revive the moribund peace process – with France leading the way.
According to a Channel 2 report on Friday, the French government has submitted details of its diplomatic plan to members of the UN Security Council.
The document calls for the convening of an international summit which would include Arab states as well as representatives of the Quartet.
The agenda of the conference, which would take place as early as April, includes laying the groundwork for a meeting between Israeli and Palestinian officials this summer.
Earlier this week, the French envoy to Tel Aviv, Patrick Maisonnave, presented the Foreign Ministry with details on the French initiative to convene a peace conference in Paris this coming summer, with the aim of relaunching the diplomatic process that last broke down in April 2014.
The meeting between the French and Israeli officials came the day after a senior Palestinian Authority official rejected the possibility of a return to the negotiating table.
On Monday during a visit to Japan, PA Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki said the Palestinians would never reengage in direct talks with Israel.
“Israel supports the direct negotiating process with the Palestinians, and opposes any predisposed attempt to determine the outcome of the talks,” the Foreign Ministry said in reference to Malki’s comments.
In January, outgoing French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius originally presented the French initiative, threatening that Paris would formally recognize a Palestinian state should its efforts to renew the peace process fail.
“France will engage in the coming weeks in the preparation of an international conference bringing together the parties and their main partners to preserve and achieve the two-state solution,” Fabius told a conference of French diplomats in Paris.
In response, Israeli officials blasted the initiative as “an erroneous approach” that gives Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas an excuse not to negotiate with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Israeli officials said Netanyahu would decide whether or not to participate in the conference only after receiving an invitation.
Meanwhile, Abbas has welcomed the latest French initiative.
The Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday that Israel still supports the prospect of direct diplomatic negotiations with the Palestinians despite their “predisposition” to oppose attempts at reaching peace.
“This principle [of talks], which has accompanied the process from its beginning, has won the support of the international community over the years and also stood as the basis for peace negotiations with Jordan and Egypt,” the ministry said in a statement.
If the pals get a UNSC resolution to declare a state then Israel is presented with the golden opportunity to unilaterally annex area C based on pal and quartet breach of Oslo and the clear need to exercise its claims to YS in the absence of any current agreement. Israel could continue not to recognize the pal state and to still claim A, B and even gaza with a legal basis. but I suspect that BB or Israel would not seize that opportunity. Such a scenario may even be desired by Abbas but with Israel not seizing it all…. mainly because he can never negotiate a final solution where anything is sacrificed… he must be seen to have it imposed on him. In this way, even with a state, he would be still able to blame not opening his state to the pals in foreign refugee camps to immigrate to Palestine….. he could blame it still on Israel. If they declare and Israel annexes less than all of C I would say that they might have pre arranged that situation to create a new paradigm without doing it overtly. Years down the line they can come to a peace or a solution based on it already being in existence de facto for years. Like the guatemala belize dispute and others.
@ bondmanp:
did not mean to imply otherwise. There is a cost to sitting down to negotiate when the parameters are fixed. Our rejection of them becomes meaningless when we sit down.
Negotiantions – per Bibi to be successful must at the conclusion include: –
Recognition of a Jewish State of Israel;
Demilitarization of the Pal State;
Unified Jewish Jerusalem
Security Arrangements agreeable to Israel (Inclduing Israel in Jordan Valley)
No Right of Return for the Palestinians
Once all the above is agreed we can discuss borders.
The Agreement is Final and the Palestinians can have no more Grievances!
However Israel has officially said now is not the time for a two state. The above are the official Israeli positions as stated by the Prime Minister. This clearly will not lead to two states as the Palestinians will never agree. So Bibi says let us talk directly. The Palestinians say this a waste of time and want a solution imposed.
This his way of managing the conflict. He is slowly building in Judah/Samaria and the population is growing by over 4% per year. The structures the Arabs built in Judah/Samaria (Area C) are in the process of being challenged and destroyed slowly. The unit in charge of this has a small contingent. The larger contingent is now assigned to direct security do to the current intifada.
In the end I certainly prefer Bennett’s approach in general. Annex the Jewish Towns and eventually all of area C and what at most would be offered is autonomy in Area A/B (which is basically status quo with economic incentives). Declare there will be NO full Pal state).
Ted – I respectfully disagree with your comment on this piece. When Israel sits down at the negotiating table, it is implied that Israel accepts the terms under which those particular negotiations are taking place. Thus, to sit down to these negotiations means Israel recognizes what the P.A. has disguarded: The terms of the Oslo Agreement. It also means Israel still accepts the ultimate goal of a the Two State Solution. Playing chicken with your nation’s existence is not leadership.
But the real issue for Israel is that by sitting down to negotiate its own demise, it only encourages her enemies and demoralizes her strongest supporters. Instead of negotiating endless “painful sacrifices for peace”, how about an Israeli leader who says: We defended our nation against you and won. Therefore, what will be done with the liberated terrirories will be the sole decision of the people of Israel, as represented by their elected representatives. If you took up arms against Israel, and lost, then you don’t get a seat at the table.
I can’t imagine the rest of the world being any more upset with Israel if it did as I proposed than it is now. In fact, I think it might earn Israel a fresh measure of respect (but not love – a pipe dream) from many of Israel’s biggest critics.
@ Ted Belman:Ted you are correct about where Obama would like the negotiations to go.
My point is still that Obama believes that there should be direct negotiations. This conference is not direct negotiations. It is about France superseding the USA as the head “referee” between the Israelis and Palestinians and driving the result to a quick two state “fix”
Obama believes the parties need to talk directly. He will not back the Pals if they are unwilling to negotiate directly. You are correct about his formula but he is insistent on direct negotiations.
Israel can use this as a lever to get out of the conference or make it useless and powerless.
Bear Klein Said:
I think that Obama stressed this as part of the deal to get Bibi to deliver the Bar Ilan speech. But since then he has backed away from such statement and is backing Arab facts on the ground in Area C while prohibiting Israel from doing the same.
Obama keeps narrowing what is to be done with direct negotiations. He is putting Israel in a straight jacket by supporting the division of Jerusalem and ’67 lines plus swaps.
Wouldn’t it be better for France to plan a conference on the subject of jihad which is threatening France and all of Europe? Leave it to the French who had an opportunity to stop Hitler in his tracks in the thirties but blew it. Talk about re-arranging the deckchairs.
Position could be we will be willing to attend conference providing the Palestinians agree to direct negotiations immediately after the conference. Also Israel stipulates in agreeing to go to the conference it is not binding and any conference resolutions but they these shall only be made by direct negotiations.
Obama will back Israel on that as his position as that all must be done in direct negotiations.