T. Belman. I originally posted this article on Oct 3/14. It dealt with whether Netanyahu agreed to Kerry’s frame work as a basis for restarting talks. Essentially from Bibi’s own mouth we learn that he agreed to the framework as the basis of negotiations to get them started but was free to not agree to any part of the framework during negotiations. Bibi had no intention of making a deal. He only wanted to preserve negotiations. But the Document of Concessions negotiated in back channels was dated August 2013 long before and independent from the Framework discussion. Today, Dermer explained:
“In complete contrast to what is claimed, at no stage was any concession agreed upon. This was an attempt to ignite negotiations based on the principles of the international community, while Israel retains the right to reject topics that it doesn’t accept.”
YNET discussed Dermer’s role in the most biased way here.
By Ted Belman (Originally posted on Oct 3/14)
In May 2014 I posted:
David Horowitz the Editor of Times of Israel told the PM “Lead, Netanyahu, Lead”. He took him to severe task for releasing murderers and wrote:
It is frankly impossible to reconcile the clear thinking of Netanyahu 1995 with the muddled leadership of Netanyahu 2013 who, rather than facilitate peace talks by the simple and reversible expedient of freezing settlement expansion and acknowledging the indisputable fact that Israel is negotiating on the basis of the pre-1967 lines, as Mahmoud Abbas had demanded, chose to capitulate to the least palatable of Abbas’s preconditions: releasing pre-Oslo era Palestinian terror convicts. The four-phased deal to free some of the most evil killers was a terrible mistake from the start — and not only with the benefit of hindsight, with the peace process in tatters because Israel balked at the final hurdle, refusing to release Israeli-Arabs without at least Abbas’s confirmation that he’d deign to keep on talking past April.
As I have written in the past, Netanyahu is negotiating without preconditions, in name only, but in reality has accepted negotiations based on ’67 with swaps..
Today, an old controversy reappeared
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahuanyahu told Israel Radio late Thursday that he had agreed to anAmerican framework proposal whereby Israel would negotiate peace with the Palestinians on the basis of the ’67 cease-fire lines with territorial swaps.
The framework, which was drawn up by US Secretary of State John Kerry as part of Washington’s efforts to re-start the stalled peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, was not presented after negotiations broke down. Both sides accused one another of sabotaging the nine-month talks with unilateral steps.
Netanyahu told Israel Radio that he agreed to the framework, though he and Kerry came to an understanding that the Israeli government could note a number of reservations with certain elements of the document.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denied having consented to basing “the border between Israel and the Palestinians on the ’67 borders” in an interview with Israel Radio that was broadcast on Friday morning.
“That is simply untrue,” said Netanyahu. “What happened was that the Americans wanted to propose a framework that will include items the Palestinians reject, such as the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, or the inclusion of territorial swaps as part of an Israeli withdrawal to the ’67 borders. The Americans’ said ‘we will raise this as a proposal for a discussion, and every side will say what they accept and what they reject.'”
Arad said that during the Kerry- brokered negotiations, Netanyahu was “close to accepting a formula he never accepted before, and would be quite a departure for him.” That formula, Arad said, was that the border between Israel and a future Palestinian state would be based on the June 4, 1967, lines, with territorial swaps.
Arad said that accepting the idea of land swaps, even if they were not one-to-one swaps, removed the argument that Israeli settlement policies in the West Bank were part of a “land grab,” since any land beyond the Green Line that Israel would retain would be offset by land inside the Green Line that it would be asked to “swap” with the Palestinians.
Arad described Netanyahu’s acceptance of the formula of land exchanges and borders based on the pre-1967 lines – even if Israel would add reservations to the notion – as a “major qualitative and quantitative change” in the prime minister’s position.
Netanyahu is obviously trying to sell the Kerry Framework. What difference to us does it make, that the other side doesn’t like it too. We should have our red lines period. No wonder Shaked and Bennett are telling Netanyahu that Jewish Home will leave the coalition if Kerry’s Framework is accepted even with reservations. Netanyahu is making minimal demands and certainly sounds like he is willing to negotiate based on the ’67 lines plus minor swaps. He has also bought into the need for an agreement. When one side needs an agreement, it will accept anything. Ted Belman
Israel will reportedly work with Obama’s 1967-lines formula as a basis for peace talks if the PA drops its statehood bid at the UN.
JPOST: Official: Netanyahu ready to discuss border ‘package’
According to both articles, Bibi is doing this to avoid a UN vote and to avoid potential violence. But why? Why are these good reasons to cave. They aren’t, not remotely. A vote by the UNGA would make no difference on the ground. Details would still have to be negotiated. In both case they would involve the armistice lines. As for the violence, that’s what the IDF is for.