Isarpundit
By Ted Belman
In my Dec7/09 article Obama to Impose a Solution, I hit the nail on the head.
[..]
On the heels of Netanyahu’s speech, Sec Clinton made the following statement,
- “Today’s announcement by the Government of Israel helps move forward toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.”
This is little different from Bush’s wording,
- “In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”
Thus the borders probably will be moved to the east of these blocks thereby limiting the number of Jews that have to be uprooted to about 100,000 give or take 20,000 depending on negotiations.
So why did Obama repudiate the Bush letter which his man, Sen Mitchell had two months earlier endorsed in his name?
There are two, and possibly three, major departures from the Bush letter. Bush had written that “Israel must have secure and recognized borders… in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338” leaving open the possibility that Res 242 did not require retreat from all territories. Clinton made no mention of 242 and said the borders must be “based on the 1967 lines”. This suggests that all the land is to be ceded, facilitated by mutually agreed swaps.
Whereas Bush had written “and the settling of Palestinian refugees there [Palestine], rather than in Israel.”, Clinton was silent. Is this also a departure? I think so. Obama is clearly trying to stay as close to the Saudi Plan as he can. It requires the settlement of the refugee issue pursuant to UNGA Res 194.
In the scheme of things these differences are of little importance. Why take the heat for so little profit? Especially when Bush had said doing otherwise was “unrealistic”.
Perhaps there was another reason.
Bush had committed in said letter that “the United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan”.
By challenging the whole letter in the first instance and endorsing most of it subsequently, save for this commitment, Obama has succeeded in ridding himself of the commitment. Is Obama thereby reserving the right to impose a plan as many in his administration recommend he do.
In case you haven’t noticed, neither Obama, nor his administration, refer to the Roadmap. That is because the Roadmap precludes an imposed solution.
It would appear that the Obama administration has no confidence that a negotiated solution will be achieved. Most pundits and politicians believe likewise and that includes Netanyahu. [..]
According to todays’s report, Obama plans to release a Plan in the fall. The US always assured Israel that all final status issues would be negotiated. Yet at the same time she limited her negotiating room by narrowing the confines of a “deal”.
Also Netanyahu under great pressure agreed to negotiations without pre-conditions. Obama even agreed.
In effect for Obama to announce his own plan having regard to what the parties had already agreed to, is his way of keeping the Olmert offer that Netanyahu had rejected.
Also all the offers made that Obama wants as his starting point were made by Kadima or Labour. Thye Right would never make such offers. Obama is trying to circumvent the right.
