The Mideast Peace Deal You Haven’t Heard About

Netanyahu has agreed to terms of reference for future negotiations, that enshrine Clinton’s statement,

“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.”

No surprise there. It was obvious when she made the statement right after Bibi agreed to the freeze. In fact the deal was done in the summer.

In addition Jerusalem is on the table and so is the refugee problem. So much for no preconditions.

by Steven J. Rosen, ForeignPolicy.com

For a year or two at an early stage in his career, I commuted to and from our adjacent offices each morning and evening with Martin Indyk, later a top peace-process official of the Clinton administration at the Camp David negotiations and now vice president for foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. I had just left the Rand Corporation to work at AIPAC, the main pro-Israel lobbying organization in Washington.

Even in those pre-Oslo days of 1982 to 1983, Martin was a True Believer in the idea of a grand land-for-peace bargain between Israel and moderate Palestinians. Reviewing each day the latest installments in the Middle East epic as we rolled down Rock Creek Parkway, we argued all the way. I heaped scorn on any solution that required Israel to trust Palestinian intentions, and I held that Israel’s security could only be based on a qualitative military edge and the balance of power. I told Martin that he and our mutual friends Dennis Ross, Aaron Miller, and Dan Kurtzer, though with the noblest of intentions, were pursuing an illusion.

Martin emphatically thought I was wrong about the Middle East, and he also thought I was blind to an enduring reality in Washington. He said that Democratic and Republican administrations of the left and right may come and go, and some presidents will have less confidence in Middle East peacemaking than others, but no U.S. president will be able to sustain a policy of benign neglect of the peace process for long. The American people, the United States’ European allies, and U.S. friends in the Arab world all need to have a ray of hope. They need to believe that active diplomacy under U.S. leadership is bringing closer a resolution of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, because it is a conflict that roils other American interests and destabilizes U.S. relations in the region and throughout the world. Martin often cited our friend, the late Peter Rodman, who taught us that U.S. policy in the Middle East is a bicycle. You can keep your balance if you roll forward even at a snail’s pace, but if you try to stand still you will fall off.

Martin never did succeed in converting me to the peace camp, but over time I saw the undeniable evidence that he was right about the imperatives of U.S. foreign policy. Sooner or later, every president turns to the peace process, and the Mideast advisors who move to the president’s inner circle are the ones he thinks have the best ideas about how to move forward toward a contractual peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

I think Benjamin Netanyahu has gone through a personal evolution a little like my own. He continues to be profoundly skeptical that signing a piece of paper can put an end to this conflict. He is a fierce advocate of defensible borders and military strength as the true guarantors of Israel’s security. Nevertheless, he has come back to a second term as prime minister with a deeper appreciation of the reality that his relations with the United States, Europe, and moderate Arab neighbors depend on the perception that he can be a partner in the search for diplomatic progress with the Palestinians.

And he certainly knows that many harbor doubts about him. That is why Bibi agreed to do something unprecedented, something that six previous Israeli prime ministers since the 1993 Oslo Accords (Rabin, Peres, Barak, Sharon, Olmert, and Netanyahu himself in his previous term) refused to do. Very much against the will of his party and coalition, Netanyahu consented to putting a freeze on “natural growth” of settlements. He has drastically curtailed the volume of construction starts, even in the “consensus” settlement blocs that he believes were conceded to Ariel Sharon by George W. Bush.

Now, below the radar, Netanyahu is making a series of additional concessions to Barack Obama and his Mideast peace envoy, George Mitchell. Their current priority is negotiating “terms of reference” to permit the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations (TORs in negotiators’ vernacular). Dismissed by some as mere “talking about talking,” TORs are in fact vital elements to create the parameters for serious negotiations. For example, then-Secretary of State James Baker shuttled around the region for eight months to negotiate the TORs that made the 1991 Madrid conference possible. All that was done just to phrase a letter of invitation that all sides could accept. The result was far from trivial; it was a framework that opened the way to all the direct negotiations that followed over the ensuing two decades.

Mitchell’s challenge today is to define such a framework that can bridge differences between Netanyahu and his Palestinian counterpart, Mahmoud Abbas. Defying skeptics who say you can bridge a river but not an ocean, Mitchell keeps going at it, and his perseverance is paying off. While no one was watching, Netanyahu has in fact agreed to language that Mitchell can accept. With the Israeli agreement in his pocket, Mitchell is now working to bring Abbas around, according to sources close to the discussions.

The issues are not small. Abbas wants to enshrine the 1967 boundary as sacrosanct, even though that line was merely a military demarcation after the war that ended in 1949 and had never been recognized by the Palestinians or anyone else as a legal border. Reflecting the Israeli consensus, Netanyahu insists that future agreed frontiers have to meet Israel’s security imperatives and reflect post-1967 demographic realities, whether or not they diverge from the former armistice line. But Netanyahu has accepted a solution based on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s formulation: “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.”

Abbas wants Israeli territorial concessions in Jerusalem as a precondition for negotiations. Netanyahu has accepted that the Palestinians will bring their claims for Jerusalem to the table, but he is not going to make this or any other concession just to bring Abbas to negotiate. Mitchell’s TORs will include implementation of all existing agreements between the parties, as well as the 2003 “Roadmap” for a two-state solution. These already define Jerusalem as a subject for discussion.

Abbas wants an absolute two-year deadline for the achievement of a permanent agreement. Netanyahu is accepting target dates for agreements, but he does not believe achievement can be guaranteed. Mitchell has the language he needs for the TORs regarding target dates.

Abbas wants language that obliges Israel to repatriate and compensate descendents of Palestinians who lost their homes in the upheavals before 1949. Netanyahu has agreed to participate in multilateral solutions for this “refugee” problem, provided these solutions do not include an obligation that will dilute Israel’s own Jewish majority. Mitchell will point out that a solution to the refugee question is already incorporated in the documents to which the TORs will refer.

Abbas wants the 2002 Saudi-initiated Arab Peace Initiative to be the basis of negotiations. Netanyahu has agreed to have it listed among the references, though it is not among the signed agreements whose specific terms are binding. In any case, the Roadmap already contains a positive reference to the Saudi peace plan, and the Roadmap will be a major source document for the TORs.

The Palestinians eschew the concept of interim agreements because they fear that any temporary arrangements will become final. Israel believes that interim steps are a necessity for building confidence between the two parties. The Roadmap’s Phase II already contains “the option of creating an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders and attributes of sovereignty,” and the Oslo Accords are replete with interim steps. This will not be an obstacle to agreed TORs.

Mitchell has not announced the agreement with Netanyahu because delicate negotiations with Abbas still lie ahead. He did say on Nov. 25, “We have been in discussions with both Israelis and Palestinians for some time regarding terms of reference for negotiations. We have closed many gaps between them. And while admittedly important differences remain, we’ve made very substantial progress.”

Now, a month later, the work on the Israeli side is done. Netanyahu has put the ball in the Palestinian court.

Steven J. Rosen served for 23 years as foreign-policy director of the American NIsrael Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and was a defendant in the recently dismissed AIPAC case. He is now director of the Washington Project at the Middle East Forum.

Point of View (West Bank i.e. Yehuda and Shomron)

by Marc Prowisor

Many have asked that I give an update and my view of the Security situation in Yehuda and Shomron today. Not an easy task, due to the many mitigating factors that change every time a Government official - either here in Israel, an Arab or American - sneezes.

The simplest way to put it is that we are here in our communities in our heartland and there are many Arabs that want us out, (not all of the Arabs wish to see the Jews leave this area). It is important to remember, that they want and desire to be "Jew Free", doesn't apply just to Yehuda and Shomron, but all of Israel, this view is not held by all Arabs, but certainly most.

It is impossible to discuss the Security situation in Yehuda and Shomron without first reminding everybody that this conflict did not start yesterday. Whereas this is not the place to get into a history lesson, it is the place to remind everybody that ignorance regarding the conflict is the wrong foot to stand on. To quote a friend, "the Jewish –Arab conflict started when Jews decided to fight back".

I will discuss the situation today. Since Oslo, we have witnessed the birth of a new Arab army in the Middle East, that of the "Palestinian Authority", however this is not the only Arab Military body in this region. There are many branches to this tree, with each branch spreading out to even more factions. Fatah itself is divided into many factions based on regions and philosophies, i.e. Nablus, Ramallah and so on. The same principal applies to Hamas, of course from there we can add on the Jihad Islami, PFLP, Al Qaeda, the list goes on. Each of these "Units" claims their own agenda and "work load", but they do work also in accordance to the strategical and political whims of the two (Fatah and Hamas) leaderships.

The Operational and Tactical strength of all of these units has greatly increased and over the recent months and years and continues to rise to the point where they can be and are considered a "tangible" threat today - not just to our communities, but to the IDF as well. This due to the enormous funding, instruction and training they have and continue to receive from the rest of the Western world. It is no secret how the US, England and Canada have been involved with the upgrading of this new Arab army to it's current status. Lt General Keith Dayton, (The US man in charge of this venture) indeed has what to be proud of.

Besides all of the "regulars", there still exist numerous "independents" in the field, who are ready to attack at any minute they deem necessary and this presents an entirely separate threat level that must be not be ignored. Often downplayed in the mainstream media and International Threat Assessments, these "individual" cells have taken many lives and caused no fewer casualties than their bigger and better organized brothers. Adding to this is the fact that arms continue to flow in from various sources and continue to spread throughout the region due to the opening of the roadblocks (as a sign of good faith to the US). This all leads to an extremely volatile situation in Yehuda and Shomron. The IDF is still operating in order to capture terrorists, but these operations have been slashed due to an increasingly confused political situation on the ground. The uniforms have also changed, so not every terrorist is a "terrorist" anymore, He/She might now be a member of a new army or political wing making arrest more complicated.

Over the past year we have be seeing a significant increase in terrorist activity, although it is measured and restrained, never less it is present and enables us to gauge some of the risk and threat factors that we are and will be up against. The IDF and Israeli Security Services, Thank Gd, have been very successful in thwarting most of these attacks. Many of these incidents are probes, being used to measure our response. Where they may seem "trivial" enough, such as a stoning or Molotov cocktail, they supply the Arabs with much needed information regarding our security apparatus. Probes and attacks into the Communities have increased with a few ending in murderous rampages. Most thankfully are thwarted before any severe harm occurs, whether it is by the IDF or the communities' own First Response Teams.

We are witnessing serious efforts by the Arabs in the gathering of Intelligence about the communities, and their increased efforts and success at sabotaging many industrial and agricultural ventures. While we are enjoying a relative lull in terror compared to the earlier days of the Intifada, most Security Analysts have discussed and stated that this is simply the "quiet before the storm". Indeed the infighting going on between Hamas and Fatah serves us well but is also fueling the future flames that we will inevitably be pointed towards us in the not to distant future. Every day there are incidents, most that go unreported, but they do occur and people do get hurt. The efforts that the Jewish communities of Yehuda and Shomron have been showing beyond doubt has had a very positive affect on keeping terrorism down, not just in Yehuda and Shomron, but all of Israel. Though this is not politically correct to report, it is however a very big part of the picture in Israel.

This being a very short and minimal summary of the Arab build up, we can now move on to the Jewish side of the coin. Bear in mind that there are subjects that I will intentionally leave out due to security sensitivity regarding the IDF and our own Tactical Response, and the simple fact that I live in one of the communities and do not wish to divulge certain weakness that would place anyone in danger.

Much has been learned in the field of Community Security and First Response, simply by experience being our teacher, and we have had countless "professors". It is this experience and excellence that has made Israel and specifically these communities in Yehuda and Shomron the vanguard in the Homeland Security Field. Today in many of the communities there are teams who are well trained and well equipped, however there are still many who are not as fortunate. Equipment must be constantly maintained as it ages and over time must be replaced and/or upgraded. This also applies to members of First Response Teams. The weak link that is common to all of the regions and communities is the financial backbone holding up these teams. The IDF supplied the basic needs - that of weapons and simple bulletproof vests, some basic training, but that is all. It must be stated, these are official Response Teams and not private militias. They work in coordination with the IDF. Whereas it used to be that the IDF was solely responsible to secure our communities, they are now the backup in the event of a terror situation thanks to these brave civilians. The IDF realized that time of response in a terrorist infiltration is paramount. Every extra minute waiting for the army could cost lives. So, the creation of first response teams has significantly decreased the delay in responding to such incidents. These first response teams and Security Chiefs are usually the first to arrive at the scene of a terror attack.

The motivation in the community's remains very high, as it is essentially their own lives and those of their family at stake. Training by the IDF is minimal and most teams will train on their own, being either sponsored by their regional council or private donors. If there is a weakness to these teams, it is due to the continuous budgetary cuts by the Defense Ministry to the overall community defense structure. These cuts are across the board and are increasing the Risk and Threat Levels these communities are facing.

Politics of course is a factor that we all must deal with, however the main difference in Israel, is that any sign of weakness provides motivation to our enemies. This combined with the increasing supply and funding of the various Arab Terror organizations by Western Governments in Yehuda and Shomron, makes for one deadly cocktail.

The IDF is currently removing many soldiers that guard communities and their security is, in turn falling mostly upon their own shoulders. This cut is also affecting the budgets that were supplied to the communities and regions in the Communication, Tactical and Perimeter fields. The lacking that these cuts have created is being filled by the continued support, effort and work of the local population and supportive Jewish Communities and Individuals abroad.

In summation, what is happening is such. The lines are being drawn and redrawn daily for a future conflict once again in the region. The North is seeing a total and increased rearming by Hizbullah, soon to be the recipient of new US arms and drones that will be sent to the Lebanese Army and funneled south, The South is witnessing a rearmed Hamas, whose reign of Terror will reach Tel Aviv, and last but certainly not least, the Heartland of our people, Yehuda and Shomron, will bear the brunt of the latest Arab Army in the Middle East whose arms will reach out in an attempt to strangle the center of the country, it is only a matter of time before the Arabs of the Galil create unrest as well.

I know that we are a strong people and can bear anything they can throw at us, and we can and will defeat any enemy. My main concern is the cost – in lives lost.

I am not using Fear or Guilt tactics here to get a point across. I have tried to supply a simple yet accurate analysis of the current security situation that is based on the region, the peoples, and the history, as well as the ever increasing component of extreme Islam in the Western world and "Homegrown" Islamic Terrorists.

Of course if the entire Arab and Muslim world change their collective mind regarding Israel's existence as a Jewish State, then I readily admit to being wrong.

Marc Prowisor

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.