Olmert's Unprecedented Offer
Ehud Olmert has been telling anyone who will still listen that he and Mahmoud Abbas were "very close" to a settlement this past fall; that he presented the PA president a deal and map--in his words, a more generous offer than any ever made by an Israeli prime minister, and that Abbas "refused to sign."
Sources close to their conversations have now filled in the essential details of their talks. Journalists take note: If anything about the following account is mistaken, then it is up to Olmert, the putative maker of the offer, to confirm or deny things, point by point. The idea that these are delicate diplomatic negotiations, and must remain secret, is ridiculous. We are not speaking here about two private people negotiating the price of a rug in the bazaar.
Olmert and Abbas had little standing among their own citizens when they took on these talks; for both, negotiating was a kind of ongoing photo-op. Yet every clause of what Olmert offered has a moral idea behind it--therefore a public consequence to it. If Abbas rejected something, we should all have the chance to judge if we would have, too. Israeli politics are still suffering from Ehud Barak's warped account of the Camp David summit in the summer of 2000. Then, too, Yasir Arafat was presumably made an offer of unprecedented generosity and he rejected it. The resulting meme was: "Israel offered Palestinians everything, and Palestinians came back with violence." This meme was not quarantined in time, and it has infected the talk of Israeli voters, journalists, and American "supporters" ever since.
HERE ARE THE details of Olmert's offer:
Prologue: Sources say there was never a document, formal or informal, presented to Abbas. Everything offered by Olmert was offered orally and provisionally, and with the specific proviso that Olmert's ideas were not endorsed either by Foreign Minister Livni or Defense Minister Barak.
1. Olmert offered an Israeli withdrawal from 96% of the West Bank, but he did not include Jerusalem in this calculation. Israel would compensate Palestine with a land swap amounting to 4% of Israeli territory: 2.5% would be Israeli land in the Negev added to the Gaza Strip, while 1.5% of Israeli land would be the area devoted to a land bridge between the West Bank and Gaza. The Palestinian state would be demilitarized.
(Note: Since Jerusalem was not included in the land calculation, Palestinians plausibly argue that withdrawal would really be from 94%. They argue, moreover, that the 1.5% devoted to a land bridge would actually be Israeli controlled. But leaving aside the arguable specifics of the withdrawal, it is clear from these numbers that Olmert--unlike Barak at Camp David in the summer of 2000--accepted the principle enshrined in the offer of the Arab League in 2002, that any deal would be based on the 1967 borders, that is, on the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by force; that land would be exchanged 1:1. This is a principle which must be preserved in any final deal.)
2. Israel would, in return for the land given to Palestine, annex the territory of the major settlement blocs (including Kiryat Arba, next to Hebron, and Alfe Menashe), the Gush Etzion bloc, the town of Ariel in the Samarian hills, the land between Maale Adumim and East Jerusalem, and the towns hugging the 1967 border near Jerusalem, Har Adar and Givat Zeev.
(Note: A glance at a map shows that to retain especially Kiryat Arba, Ariel, and the territory between Jerusalem and Maale Adumim, Israel would require sovereign roads and land bridges that cut the Palestinian state into four enclaves, two north of Jerusalem and two south of it, while cutting East Jerusalem from the descent to the Dead Sea. More important, these annexations would leave the most ruthless Israeli settlers in isolated pockets that are bound to become targets for ruthless insurgents on the Palestinian side. The only possible justification for these annexations is the Israeli government's distaste for confronting the settlers; defending them after a deal would serve as justification for all kinds of military escalations.)
3. Israel agrees to accept up to 30,000 refugees within its 1967 border. But this is a humanitarian gesture only. It does not in any way imply that Israel endorses the Palestinians "right of return."
(Note: The number itself is not very different from what was agreed to in the Taba Agreement and the Geneva Initiative. Those agreements recognized the Palestinian "right of return" in principle, but presented "modalities" for actualizing this right through resettlement in the Palestinian state and financial compensation. No Palestinian leader can come away from a negotiation without this principle being recognized; to abandon the right of return is something like denying the suffering of Palestinian refugees since 1948; indeed, the agreement of PA people to fulfill this right without returning to Haifa, Jaffa, and Acco was a major concession. For his part, Olmert once told me that he will never accept the right of return, since it implies that Israel was born in a great act of cruelty. But being cruel does not always make one wrong, and having a right does not mean actualizing it without regard to other rights. The Arab League Plan states that there must be an "agreed" solution for the refugees. It is time that all sides adopted the Taba and Geneva formulation as a way of meeting the conditions of the Plan, which Olmert did not.)
4. Jerusalem: Jewish neighborhoods would remain under Israeli sovereignty and Arab neighborhoods would be transferred to Palestinian sovereignty. This would resolve all points of contention except for the disposition of the Old City, the so-called "holy basin." The latter would be subject to a trusteeship of four countries: Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia and the United States.
(Note: Of all of Olmert's reported offers, this seems to me the most creative and morally intelligent. The old city is, in effect, an international museum. The question of sovereignty is really a question of custodianship. It seems unimaginable that the mosques on the Noble Sanctuary (Temple Mount) would ever be removed from the administration of the Muslim Waqf (religious administration). Nor would the Church of the Holy Sepulcher be removed from the administration of the various churches that have negotiated custodianship over generations. Nor would the Wailing Wall be removed from custodianship of the Israeli government. Making access open to all, and sovereignty something more international, is merely calling the grass green. And what would redeem our religions more than an all-sided willingness to share rather than to war? Finally, Saudi presence in the city's custodianship would not only establish a presence for the Arab League, but invite further Saudi investment in Jerusalem tourism, which will be Palestine's leading "export" sector for a generation.)
Olmert, it is true, cannot now make policy any more the leaders of the Geneva Initiative could. Out of power is out of power. But his offer provides yet another confirmation of the utilitarian calculus upon which any deal can be based.
Then again, the fate of his offer, and the political constraints surrounding it, prove once again that the time has passed for more negotiations. The time has come, rather, for the U.S. to fully embrace the Arab League Plan, fill in its blanks with derivatives from this calculus, rally Europe and the UN Security Council to its version of the Plan, and present it to Israel and the Palestinian Authority in a comprehensive package (international forces in Jerusalem, defense pact with Israel, investment plan for Palestine, etc.). The Plan should then be put to a referendum in both Israel and Palestine. Is it not obvious that this (and only this) can work, and that every day we do not install the Plan is another we drift toward Balkan style civil war and ethnic cleansing?
If this is the best Israel can offer, a two-state solution is very far away. Dividing the Palestinian state into four little cantons separated by settler communities (plus a fifth canton in Gaza) is ludicrous and a recipe only for more strife. What do the Palestinians get in return for agreeing to such a deal? A small part of Jerusalem, the return of 30,000, and parcel in the desert to make up for the settlements annexed by Israel.
This isn't a deal. These are terms of surrender.
May 4, 2009 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
A secret offer that was never put into writing. Revealed after Olmert left office.
Sigh.
Sounds like fiction to me.
May 4, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not at all. The outlines have been widely reported for some time and Abbas has publicly rejected it, stating on more than one occasion that any agreement that does not provide a right of return for the 48 refugees and their descendants is not acceptable. Any search of the news services will turn this up. Seems you'd rather spend your time scoring rhetorical points than following the news.
May 4, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me a running theme among militant Zionists is that "You Just Can't Deal with Arabs" which is also part of the "It's a Tough Neighborhood" justification for all acts.
From what I've read Israeli leaders have a long history of sabotaging peace deals with totally unrealistic offers made to Palestinians, which are then predictably rejected, to which the Israeli leaders default to the running narratives.
Democracy Now has a great debate between Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami and Norman Finkelstein where Ben Ami is forced to admit they offered Arafat an unacceptable deal where Palestine would have been carved into cantons broken by settlements. Even Ben Ami admits "If I were a Palestinian, I Would Have Rejected Camp David”.
Highly recommended debate that establishes factually what concessions each side was willing to make and who walked away and for what reason:
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/14/fmr_israeli_foreign_minister_if_i
May 4, 2009 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, please look at the map to which Bernard links. It is out of date--it's from 2002--so it doesn't reflect seven years of settlement expansion since then. But even in 2002 you can see that the blue areas (which, according to the key, are controlled by the settlements) are so completely intermixed with the Palestinian areas that no separation is possible. More than anything, this map is an argument for why a one-state solution is really now the only possible solution, short of ethnic cleansing.
Israel and its supporters need to wake up to reality. The Arabs are there too--some 5 million of them. It's time to figure out some fair way to live with them and not keep offering them "deals" that essentially cement all of Israel's gains and leave the Arabs with nothing but a few impoverished Bantustans hemmed in by various Israeli security zones and settler communities.
May 4, 2009 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Prologue: Sources say there was never a document, formal or informal, presented to Abbas. Everything offered by Olmert was offered orally and provisionally, and with the specific proviso that Olmert's ideas were not endorsed either by Foreign Minister Livni or Defense Minister Barak.
Well, the first thing that needs to be noted, apart from the specifics of the plan itself, is this: no leader anywhere is going to commit to a plan proposed by an outgoing Prime Minister that is not endorsed by his Foreign Minister or Defense Minister, certainly not a leader as weak as Abbas.
This is especially true given that at the time, both Livni and Barak were running to succeed Olmert. And the remaining two major candidates was known to be even more rejectionist.
So this was just too old guys shooting the breeze. That doesn't mean it isn't constructive for them to talk, and possibly lay some tracks for more substantive talks later. But if Olmert really expected to produce something that could and should be signed, he just doesn't understand the nature of political reality.
As for the plan itself:
It is a plus that the plan adhered to the framework that Barak and Clinton rejected at Camp David, and that I believe the Palestinians called "the principle of exchange of territories": hat is, the pre-1967 border should be used as a baseline, and subsequent territorial negotiations preserving territorial percentages based on that border. Adhering to that principle prevents the agreement from being turned into a Palestinian surrender accord, and keeps it on the level of something that can be seen as an overdue implementation of UN 242, and that Palestinians can accept with dignity.
The proposal for full Israeli sovereignty over all of Jerusalem - if that indeed is what was in the proposal - would make it a non-starter. Let's recall that Obama gave a campaign speech at Aipac in which he ill-advisedly said "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." He then walked the statement back the next day and said he only meant that it shouldn't be physically divided by barriers and whatnot. But the damage might have been done. Jerusalem maximalism might now be something the Israelis think they can get away with.
The issue of contiguity is difficult and troubling. The West Bank-Gaza land bridge would divide Israel; the land bridges in the West Bank would divide Palestine. Does it help to propose tunnels as opposed to surface roads, with contiguous sovereignty on the surface?
I agree with the approach outlined in Bernard's concluding paragraph, except I think there should be no referendums. The plan should be proposed as an implementation of UN 242. International law is international law, and it's time to impose the rule of law on the Israelis and Palestinians. It's not up for a vote.
Referendums can also more easily manipulated by lies, manipulation and outside mischief. And if the plan were to fail electorally on either side, that would kill peace efforts - probably forever.
There are many Israelis and Palestinians who are emotionally and reputationally invested in maximalism and opposition. It will be easier for them to acquiesce in the plan if they can tell their neighbors that they have no choice, because the plan is being imposed on them - not by their enemies on the other side, but by the international community. It will be hard enough getting buy-in a few dozen key leaders on each side. Trying to get the same thing from millions of people seems hopeless.
May 4, 2009 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
These discussions about who offerred what at any particular time are important, but ultimately beg the salient issue of whether an agreement remains possible. Negotiations are never completed until they are done. Negotiations with respect to Israel and Palestine are anything but done and, in the meantime, the parameters within which a deal has to be considered keeps changing.
One can look at the bright side of things if one wishes too. Here's what I see, and I'm just a humble professional union negotiator with far less knowledge about the intricacies of the Middle East bargaining table, but I think I have come to know how to smell a deal over the last twenty-plus years. I see a new American president with credibility on all sides who is willing to engage before he starts thinking about his legacy in his second term of office. I see an Israel genuinely concerned about threats to its east in the form of Iran ultimately seeing advantages to peace with both Syria and the Palestinians as a counterweight. And, finally, the contours of an ultimate settlement are very clear, and they are found in the so-called Clinton parameters that form the basis for what is supported by organizations from J-Street and, yes, perhaps even AIPAC, which is lobbying for a two-state solution this week in Washington:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710853298&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
I assume for the purposes of this discussion that the Palestinians crave a deal, and I ignore for the purposes of this discussion the gulf between Hamas and Fatah, and what Hamas says on paper. The focus so often around here is the intransigence of the Israelis and so I focus there. In any event, the gulf between the Clinton Parameters and what has been proposed by the Arab League, I submit, are anything but insurmountable.
So stay tuned. After all, natterin' nabbobin of negatavisms and two bucks get you on the subway. Indeed, I have sat at many negotiaitions in which everyone said a deal was going to be absolutely impossible; and everyone was right, until they were wrong and a deal was effected. Snapshots and negotiations don't mesh.
Bruce S. Levine
New York, New York
May 4, 2009 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you ever negotiated a deal for a completely powerless entity, which relied entirely on the generosity of a supremely powerful and messianic entity?
How did that go? Did the supremely powerful entity just create a widely dispersed that an amazing offer was turned down?
Maybe this time that will happen. Let's just keep standing by.
May 4, 2009 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Walker:
In fact, I have been negotiating union contracts in an era when unions have not exactly been on an upswing, and I cannot tell you how many times I have negotiated collective bargaining agreements from a position of relative economic powerlessness, in industries that have been decimated by non-union and international competition. Assuming, for the purposes of argument, that the Palestinians are at a bargaining table without any power, e.g. they sit without the backing of the Arab world and much of the international community, then they will negotiate with their circumstantial strengths as their guide. As I wrote above, for example, Israel's concern about Iran creates more of an incentive for Israel to make peace with Syria, which is made easier by making peace with the Palestinians. This is not rocket science; this is surveying the way things are.
May 4, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce, as always a thoughtful and gentlemanly post. I appreciate your optimism, but here's where I can't help but remain skeptical:
I'm frustrated with the whole dialogue. It probably comes through in my posts. But I think we're moving to a new era in Israel where Zionism needs to find a way to fairly incorporate its Arab population as equal citizens with Jews. Some will see this as an end of Zionism. I see it as a way for Zionism to become better and more mature. I'd like to see more liberal Jews see it this way too. But, sadly, I see an anachronistic clinging to ethnocractic views that seem to contradict everything liberal Jews have so long stood for when it comes to fighting for the civil rights and equality of oppressed people everywhere.
May 4, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever level of skepticism is applied to a possible two-state solution -and it admittedly cannot be a low level in any realistic assessment- the level must be many times higher when applied to a one-state solution. From an American standpoint, the sensible criteria here have to be based not what people in the region fantasize about or "crave" (e.g. Palestinians all moving to Egypt or Jordan, OR to pre-1967 Israel) but what they will accept, under strong pressure (if it finally comes) from an international community that has put up with their barbaric and very destablizing selfish stubbornness for far too long. Millions of Israelis and millions of Palestinians are evidently willing to fight until death or close to it rather than leave the land they legally occupy under the pre-1967 borders. So any one-sided one-state solution is an utter non-starter. Thus it would have to be a compromise one-state solution. But what kind of snowball's chance in hell is there of two peoples who cannot agree to live peacefully side by side -as the vast majority of the world's countries have done for most of lives of most of the world's people- living as fellow citizens of ONE country?
Most Israelis and Palestinians are apparently willing, however reluctantly, to accept a two-state solution. The world has long been on record endorsing it. A U.S. effort with some teeth is the missing ingredient. If we can, despite massive blunders and flagrant violation of international agreements and American traditions, impose regime change on Iraq, we can surely (at a small fraction of the cost and with larger tangible benefits) support the international community by imposing a modicum of common sense on the Holy Land.
May 4, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: We discussed some of this recently on my blog about the recent polling data indicating that majorities on both sides appear willing to at least tolerate a two-state solution, although their views of what such a solution entails differ radically and are, in key respects, seemingly irreconcilable and incompatible with two states. http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/nycdefender/2009/04/poll-shows-most-israelis-and-p.php#comments
I don't think it's accurate to say that statehood is a secondary concern among Palestinians - at least as far as the polling data shows. Asked to identify the most significant issues, 97% of Palestinians polled, the highest number, indicated that establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state was "very significant"; 95% rated the rights of refugees "very significant."
When it comes to the actual nitty gritty of establishing a state, however, among Palestinians the rights of the refugees are paramount. 92% said the right of return with compensation for 1948 refugees was "essenial" (87%) or "desirable" (5%). Asked whether "[t]he number of refugees returning to Israel should be limited to family members and numbers agreed between Israel and Palestine/the Palestinians," 75% found that option "unacceptable." On the slightly brighter side, the option of "Israeli recognition of the suffering of the Palestinian refugees, while most refugees return to the West bank or Gaza and some return to Israel (1948)" was "unacceptable" only to 23%.
I have not engaged you on the subject of the one-State solution as I haven't the time or the inclination. However, a few thoughts.
Most importantly, among all the parties to the conflict, this concept is the least favored option by significant margins: 66% of both Israelis and Palestinians found the "shared" state unacceptable.
I disagree with your premise that "ethnocracy" inevitably leads to ethnic cleansing, war, oppression, etc. (I don't necessarily agree to the use of the term "ethnocracy," preferring instead "self-determination," which, while perhaps somewhat quaint in the age of universalism, is nonetheless recognized and invoked as a legitimate right.) Other than the United States, I'd like to know what countries are not ethnocracies? More specifically, what examples are there in the Arab world are there of non-ethnocratic regimes? You are essentially asking Israelis to relinquish their sovereignty in favor of some kind of bi-national state in which they would become a minority in a region where the concept of minority rights is virtually unheard of and where a significant portion of the majority group (Palestinian Arabs) not only disputes their very legitimacy in the land, but has and continues to make genocidal threats against them. In contrast, it seems to me that among the countries of the region, Israel is the farthest from an "ethnocracy." While its Arab minority indeed suffers discrimination and integration has been halting, at best, their political and economic rights are better protected than in any other Arab nation. Indeed, Israeli Arabs have consistently expressed a strong preference of remaining in Israel rather than joining a nascent Palestinian state. When the idea was floated that Israel exchange portions of the Galil populated predominantly by Israeli Arab villages for some of the settlement blocks, it was strongly condemned... by the Israeli Arabs.
One thing any American visitor to Israel is struck by is the "Jewish" character of the State. As one raised in the US on the values of separation of church and state, equal opportunity, etc., this is a jarring, to say the least. However, it is important to recognize that we are not dealing with Texas and New Mexico, or even Texas and Vermont. These are distinct peoples with different languages, religions and cultures laying claim to the same piece of land. Much as one might hope for a shared state based upon democratic principles, in this context, at this time, it's a complete non-starter (Tony Judt notwithstanding).
May 4, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would agree that it is not an "ethnocracy" - it is a theocracy and there are plenty of examples of that in the Middle East.
May 4, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I rarely go this far, but your comment betrays shocking ignorance. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
If you do care to educate yourself even a little, start by considering this poll among Israeli Arabs, 51% of whom described their personal status as "very good," two-thirds of whom said that the nation's achievements are "good" or "fairly good," and a similar percentage of whom expressed optimism as to the nation's future.
Oh, and an overwhelming majority – 94% – said they want to keep living in Israel.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3708086,00.html
May 4, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon me? Israel is a theocracy, whether the people are happy there or not is not in contention.
May 4, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel is certainly not a theocracy since it is governed by civil law, not by rabbinic law (halacha); and that is interpreted by an independent judiciary, not any rabbinic authority.
May 4, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think "ethnocracy" is more accurate than "theocracy", Bev D. Political Zionism has theistic strains and offshoots, but its central theme is to create a state of the Jewish people that privileges the Jewish people and serves as their national home. The ancient monotheistic religion of the Jews is of secondary significance, and there are many ardent Zionists who are not notaby religious.
My understanding is that Yisrael Beiteinu, for example, is dominated by secularized Russian Jews, and is quite hostile to some of the religious parties.
May 4, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
To present a more complete picture:
Among Israeli Arabs, 67% believe in the Supreme Court, 55% have faith in the media, 40% trust the Knesset, 33% trust the police, and 31% believe in the government and the political parties; however, only 22% trust the IDF.
May 4, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
AG, I'm not sure I'm much inclined to engage you either in a debate on a one-state solution. Quite frankly, I like you too much to want to get into an argument . . . and I'm a bit tired of all this endless quibbling about Israel anyway.
A few points I will throw out, not to argue, but just for consideration. Maybe we can take them up some other time when both of us have more time and energy.
(Excuse the sloppy writing, I'm too tired . . . off too bed)
May 4, 2009 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd agree with what you said right up to the last paragraph and I'll leave it at that.
BTW, I don't believe a Jewish-majority state fulfills some cosmic objective. I would have no problem with a Jeffersonian democracy in all of Palestine/Israel if it were possible. I don't think it is. Not in mine or my children's lifetime (well, I only have one child at the moment, so...). I do believe two states, painful and difficult though it has proven, to be the only hope for a peaceful solution. Not much at the moment, but things can always change.
May 5, 2009 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
A comment here to your several contributions , all thoughtful.
It's understandable when either side is described as intransigent. That characterization is understandable because accurate. How not?
It's an appropriate response to reality.
It's pointless to criticize two drowning men struggling for one life preserver. Or to expect them to negotiate ownership. Throw them another one.
Israel's leadership will never agree to gamble on its existence. Nor should they. But equally , neither Arafat nor Abbass could ever write off the inhabitants of the camps, condemn them and their children to a life in perpetuity in the Arab Gulag, however convenient as a negotiating tactic. Nor should they have.
Israel must be invulnerable against being overrun or attacked with a wpm. And the Palestinian camps must be emptied.
Bernard suggests a defense pact. My version of a defense pact is the 4th Infantry Division garrisoned in the Negev.As in South Korea.For a hundred years. The Brits stayed in India longer than that, we could stay in Israel.
As to Palestiniana in the diaspora, two things are true: they can't possibly stay where they are.Or move to Israel. It's meaningless to debate whether 30,000 or 90,000 should return to Israel rather than where 4 million of them go. And go they must. Any agreement which leaves them in the camps condemn them to a deprived life , and Israel and us to the permanent hostility of a properly affronted Islamic world.
May 5, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
West bank settler tools and dupes infesting the U.S. media and halls of Congress will no doubt seize on these revelations as one more fig leaf in support of their incessant idiocy that Israelis can never do anything wrong, nor Arabs do anything right.
A more important conclusion, hinted at by Mr. Avishai, is that Olmert wants to position his image as a more dedicated and creative deal-maker than Netanyahu.
There are two great elephants in this peace process room, however:
1. As Avishai's notes to Point 2 above clearly indicate, most of the West Bank settlements will have to be abandoned. The only legitimate reason for ever building any Israeli settlements at all, on land occupied from 1967 on, was in order to eventually bargain them away for peace. That most of these hideously ugly fortresses were actually built as deliberate roadblocks to a deal has to be owned up to, and America will have to squarely confront and defeat the settler lobbyists in Congress and finally fight back against their endless perversity, hypocrisy and immorality.
2. An active campaign of dismantling the most odious and peace-torpedoing settlements, even before any peace agreement, needs to proceed together with ongoing pressure to clamp down hard on terrorists. That means, at a minimum, Israelis policing their settlers, and Palestinian authorities -of whatever stripe- actively confronting their terrorists. BUT, there must be an ironclad commitment -from leaders in Israel, Palestine, and the US- that acts of terrorism will not be allowed to undermine the peace process or hold it hostage as they have successfully done for the past 15 years.
The chances for a successfully concluded and lasting deal will be massively smaller if government leaders continue to deny and to avoid fighting off the chokehold of extremists on both sides working in tandem to prevent such a deal.
May 4, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. Sure. Olmert's offer is another junk-bond pledge, little more than a strategic chimera with which to beat the Palestineans over the head. A proposal is made, filled with promises and loopholes, and one which the Israelis never intend to honor, anyway. As expected, the Palestineans demur, and, by default, inherit the blame for the "tragically" failed negotiations. "We offered them the world - yet again - and they walked away." On and on and on.
Here's an idea: Start any new talks with a pinch of honesty. The Israelis want the Palestineans out of the region altogether. That's why the IDF periodically raids and destroys their infrastructure, conducts terror killings, and why the Israeli government reduces the status of these latter-day Helots to that just below sewer rats. On the other hand, the Palestineans want to stay and eventually dominate; from all indications, they intend to smash the Israeli state, and possibly the Israelis along with it. After 60-plus years, we damn-sure know there's no love lost in this chronically bleeding domain.
Take all the self-aggrandizing subterfuge off the table. Try some naked, brutal truth for a change. At least try something other than the same old, disspiriting game for a change.
May 4, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Alright, DAMMIT, Palestinians!
May 4, 2009 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since you think everything should be out in the open lets have the names of your sources and how they got this information. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.
After reading your notes I see you're the worst sort of apologist, completely on par with Rosenberg.
I should have known.
May 4, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
There has not been a year that's gone by where one Israeli or another claims that the Palestinians were offered an unprecedented deal and refused to sign it.
May 4, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is false. Israel and its supporters NEVER claimed that Arafat should have signed the deal offered by Ehud Barak in 2000. What Barak - and Bill Clinton - claimed was that the Palestinians were not even engaged in the process. They didn't respond with a counteroffer. They didn't approach this as a negotiation.
To the best of my knowledge, the Palestinians have never proposed a peace plan of their own. They have only ever reacted to something proposed by Israel or, in the case of the Arab League plan, by outsiders. To my mind, this is because to put forth a peace plan would mean that they are serious about peace. My impression is that Palestinians who are serious about peace - actual peace - rapidly lose support. And Abbas, like Arafat before him, doesn't want that to happen.
May 4, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
BradtheDad, just to be clear, the Palestinians at Taba agreed to a plan very much like Geneva, and then Arafat accepted it with qualifications; but Sharon, once elected, took it off the table, claiming Arafat had precipitated violence (and denying that his visit to the Temple Mount had anything to do with it).
May 4, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a yet another instance of the tired old run-of-the-mill fable that all blame always lies on the Palestinians. Who with half an ounce of thoughtfulness and fairness could ever possibly believe such one-sided silliness? The Hatfields were always saints and the McCoys always devils?
If only Israelis ever want to negotiate, why did Clinton even try to broker a deal? Or if it was only apparent to him afterwards, why haven't he or his team said so themselves?
The boringly repetitive settler-loyalist mythology about the 2000 negotiations suffers from the practical difficulty that a lot of people still remember what they were reading in the newspapers then, and it bears hardly any resemblance to the myth. Rather than confront the settler nuts (as Sharon DID!), Barak tried to outflank them by gambling on a quick outside-of-the-parliamentary-authorized-bounds deal. At least he was willing to gamble, one might claim, whereas Arafat was not. But, it is lame -to say the least- to claim that Arafat was beholden to his public in the semi-democracy of the occupied and harassed Palestinians but that Barak was not similarly constrained by the more developed and less broken, if still not very effectively working- system of government on the Israeli side.
May 4, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well from what I understand of the 2000 talks, there was never really any deal on the table - the Clinton parameters was an agreement to decide which issues would be negotiated in preparation towards an agreement. From what I have read the sticking point for the Palestinians was the reluctance of the Israelis to recognize the right to return as part of reparations towards the Palestinians. They weren't demanding the right to return but they were demanding recognition. Then of course is the water rights issue - the Palestinians will always be at the mercy of Israel as long the Israelis control the natural resources, portage and distribution systems.
May 4, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe, as Mr. Avishai's comment above implies, that the two sides came closer at the 2001 Taba talks than at any previous time. The breakdown in negotiation came not in 2000 because Arafat "refused to make a counteroffer" to Barak, but in 2001, and at the hands of (1) Arafat who was apparently both unable and unwilling to rein in a new wave of intifada violence, of (2) Sharon, who never liked to to deviate from unilateralism even vis-a-vis Israelis, and of (3) George AWOL Bush who was an eight year door mat to Sharon and his successors. The Taba talks started the day after Bush replaced Clinton and ceased the day Sharon replaced Barak.
But, I do not insist on this precise reading of the recent history. My point is that it's high time to stop dodging and start directly and vigorously confronting and repelling the asinine Big Lie tactics of West Bank settlers, their tools in Jerusalem and Washington, and their dupes elsewhere. This utter crap about how there was a golden opportunity in 2000 and it was all Arafat's fault the great moment wasn't seized has been tolerated for far too long.
There is much truth to the accusation that the Palestinians "never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity" but someone far removed from the settler mouthpieces should be rubbing the Palestinians' noses in that. As Americans whose country largely did those settlers bidding under Bush & Cheney, our higher priority should be to liberate our national legislature and nationwide press from the deceit-laden traps of brutal West Bank fanatics whose busy-as-bees propagandists never miss an opportunity to lie, cheat, and commit character assassination against any national figure in America who confronts their treachery, bigoted hypocrisy and vicious amorality (Howard Dean, Jimmy Carter, Charles Freeman, etc. etc.)
May 4, 2009 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
This notion that anyone who isn't buying the peacenik line on what has happened and what should happen in Israel is a "settler fanatic" is starting to drive me nuts.
The fact is that while the West Bank settlers do indeed have disproportionate power in Israeli politics, they do not retain the support of most Israelis or most supporters of Israel. Most of us would tell them to kiss off in second. Most of us would be willing to do whatever it took to get them out of the way if a real peace were in the offing.
But there is no prospect of real peace any time soon. Not even if every last settler where forceably removed and their houses bulldozed. That's not a reason to kowtow to the settlers. But it is a reason not to place the blame for the current state of affairs exclusively on them, which seems to be the knee-jerk position of much of the left.
The settlers are an irritant that exacerbates an already existing problem, which is Palestinian rejection of accomodation with Israel.
May 4, 2009 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell your settler buddies to get their cowardly and greedy behinds off the land they have stolen and their lying agents and dupes the hell out of OUR Congress, and THEN...MAYBE...we can begin to consider the possibility that a disproportionate share (not the 100% you constantly pretend) of the blame for the mess in the Mideast might be assignable to the Palestinians. You say the settlers are an irritant. Okay (we agree then on at least one thing) remove the irritant instead of denying it. And while I am making my wish list here kindly cut the juvenile regurgitation about "the left". I have two hands, left and right, and they are both American and I will use either or both to get my Congress back.
May 4, 2009 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are a Jewish American, please quit bitching from the sidelines and get involved in a substantive way with organizations like J Street, Brit Tzedek, Ameinu or APN, so that we may overthrow the machers who presume to lead or otherwise speak for the American-Jewish community as a whole.
May 5, 2009 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not Jewish, though I am American, but if my comments "from the sidelines" help in any small way to encourage a serious movement of American Jews towards getting more "involved in a substantive way with organizations like J Street, Brit Tzedek, Ameinu or APN" and if such entities (which I can only hope) start actively liberating their community from the charlatans and fear-mongers who too often pretend to speak for it, my main response would be: "At last!" I can recall thirty years ago when there were vigorous public discussions and debates amongst Jewish-American intellectuals about war and peace in the Mideast. I still wonder what happened to all those voices, circa 2001-06. Sharon, who was persona non grata IN ISRAEL in the '80s, when the Cold War was still on and Israel HAD legitimate security concerns, being given carte blanche by the Bush Administration to bulldoze, bomb and slaughter civilians at will and without limit, and hardly more than a timid peep from anyone in America except for a few pacifists and the hardcore "Palestinians are always right" cadres who are as steadfastly tiresome and full of baloney, though thankfully much less powerful in the U.S., than their Israeli counterparts. I have a generally quite favorable impression of contributors such as Mr. Avishai to this website, and hope they continue their solid, and I think well-intentioned and hope fruitful, efforts.
May 5, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's false? The fact that every year one Israeli or another claims that the Palestinians were offered the best deal (evah!!) and refused to sign it is perfectly true.
The Clinton parameters weren't a "deal" - they were conditions upon which they could have agreed to agree to negotiate and of course that was spun as the best agreement in the history of unprecedented deal making.
Neither side wants a negotiated peace treaty - they want things to remain just as they are.
May 4, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Palestinian state would be demilitarized.
And who would defend the Palestinians the next time Israel attacked? Indeed, given the history of Israel aggression towards the Palestinians enforced demilitarization of the Palestinian state is an unconscionable idea.
An enforced demilitarization of the Palestinian state would have to be paralleled by an automatic and veto-proof war crimes indictment of the Israeli cabinet by the International Criminal Court in the event of an Israeli attack.
May 4, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Olmert is still offering the Palestinians Swiss cheese. What makes holes in the Swiss cheese? The holes are due to bacteria passing gas. No wonder Abbas rejected the cheese. The Zionist bacteria must have been passing gas with a real foul odor.
May 4, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rarely pointed but what should be obvious to anyone who has some understanding of the value of farm land is that the 1:1 land transfer proposal is a massive swindle of Madoffian proportions. The Palestinians live in primarily a farmer (some herder) culture. The value of land is in its productivity. Israel seized prime farm land (by ME standards) and they offer in exchange parts of the Negev desert. It is totally absurd and any Palestinian leader who accepted such a trade would be a traitor to his people.
May 4, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me most Palestinians effectively did accept such a trade by foolishly acquiescing in the divide and conquer tactics of Sharon, who pulled out of Gaza in order to better cripple and hobble future possibilities for a withdrawal from the occupied West Bank. Also seems to me that most Palestinians live not in a farmer or herder culture but in a tenement handout culture that fantasizes about being a farmer-herder culture. Farmer-herders who live on crowded marginal land with questionable water availability and those who dream of joining them on even more crowded land, internationally recognized as part of another country, and who have 6 children each generation after generation are not putting the long-run interests of their culture foremost. I am all in favor of finally giving the Palestinians their state, 60 years after the Israelis got theirs, but it would be preferable if they would lift a finger once in a while to show they have a clue about how to operate one.
May 4, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can prisoners operate a state?
May 4, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously people cannot operate a state that doesn't exist. But they can choose not to have six children who will only live on charity, they can chose not to glorify the murder of other children, and their relatives in America and Europe can do something besides sit on their hands while rationalizing every idiotically useless rocket attack and counterproductive suicide bombing. In other words, one can act with a sense of far-sighted responsibility which is at least a helpful trait for future statecraft. Ever wonder why Israelis get away with unending flagrant hypocrisy and arrogance? Palestinians too often seem to do their damnedest to be even more shrill, arrogant and hypocritical. This mess is not going to be solved until both sides take responsibility to seriously combat the maniacs in their midst. The fact that the rubber-stamp Bush administration pretended stupidly and to the great detriment of America, that only side had such a problem, does not mean the only the other did and does. Palestinians standing up for mass of their people and against the terrorists among them are actually at even greater risk of retributive violence from their own people than are Israelis who protest the settlers and their atrocities. All the more reason to have a sustainable number of boys and girls encouraged to learn, be tolerant, and look forward to things other than throwing rocks, blowing things up and making babies. Lately the notion has been floated of Israel joining the European Union. A silly fantasy to be sure, but if a Palestinian state were created today, the Israelis would be many decades closer to realizing such a fantasy than the Palestinians, and not just because of earlier statehood or greater contacts to Europe.
May 4, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But they can choose not to have six children who will only live on charity." Easy for you to say.
The relationship between poverty and large families is well known. Here you have dispossession, poverty, population growth, and a brutal occupation.
The Israel blockade-oppression-apartheid causes physical-mental poverty causes population growth causes poverty causes hopelessness. After a few thousand rotations of this cycle you get violence.
In terms of population growth the main factor is poverty. In terms of violence the main factor is apartheid.
Put any group of people in this toxic mix and you will pretty much get the same reaction. There is nothing unique about the Palestinians.
May 4, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I realize that statistics are imperfect, but according to UN and Population Reference Bureau counts and estimates, Palestinians are better off economically than most of the developing world, but have a much higher birth rate than average.
Palestine has several times the GDP per capita of India and China and about double the birth rate. South Africa has about the same GDP per head as the Palestine territories, but a birth rate of under 2% versus 2.5% for the West Bank and 4% for Gaza. Nigeria also has a 4% birth rate, but 1/10th the GDP of Palestine. In other words, there is indeed a correlation as you suggest, but the Palestinians are way off the curve. Uneven data quality and inconsistent measurement might well explain some of the divergence. I doubt it explains most of it. How many Planned Parenthood offices does Hamas support, compared to idiot-rocket shops?
There are in fact plenty of things unique to the Palestinians. No other people is as often blamed for causing Israel's most severe problems, for example. I am not trying justify the inhumane and unsustainable occupation here, I'm only trying (if you read back up the thread and in my other posts) to quash ridiculous fables such as Palestine being some kind of pristine and prosperous pastoral society if only Israel would give them all the water in the region, or that Jews and Arabs would be living in integrated peace and everlasting brotherhood if only Arafat hadn't refused Barak's great generosity.
May 4, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
PTroub,
Your per capita GDP figures don't match the CIA's, which can be found here:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html
The occupied territories have an estimated per capita GDP of $2,900 according to the CIA. This compares with $10,000 for South Africa, $6,000 for China, $2,800 for India, and $2,300 for Nigeria.
Also according to the CIA, births per 1000 are roughly 20 for South Africa, 14 for China (aided by some pretty harsh government policies), 37 in Nigeria, and 22 in India. These compare with 37 in the Gaza strip and 25 in the West Bank.
Maybe you should be applying your arguments to the people of Niger? They have a birthrate of nearly 52 per thousand on a per capita GDP of just $700.
As we all know, these "breed like rabbit" arguments have a long history with racists of all sorts. I'd be careful heading down this path . . .
May 4, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I care almost as little about racist-phobia in population issues as about asinine fixations with Zionism being racist. I will check my GNP numbers. I was using readily dug up data from 2003-2005 and there has probably been a downward divergence for Palestine since then. It's not only birth rates, however, it is also and even more so, population density, e.g. not breeding like rabbits so much as squeezed in like rats. But let's not forget the broader context here. My key point is that no amount of quibbling about land swaps involving a few square-miles of desert is going remotely address the economic and demographic problems of the region, whereas a comprehensive and internationally-supported peace deal would almost surely result in a marked improvement of living-standards, most especially for Palestinians.
May 4, 2009 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
This seems over the top to me--it's like blaming all Israelis for the idiocies of the most militant among them, and as for "acquiescing" in divide and conquer tactics, there are specific Palestinians who did that, not the entire people. And number one on that list would be Dahlan, who was the darling of the US when our government was planning to topple Hamas.
I agree that one should not fantasize about a situation where one side is pure good and the other is pure evil, and I agree that Palestinians should stop supporting terrorism in any form, but this lecturing of yours seems more than a little arrogant, coming from a citizen of the country which has been arming the side that's been oppressing them. It's hard to know how Americans would react in the situation of Palestinians, but I'm not convinced we'd do better. (Or that we'd do better in the shoes of the Israelis, for that matter.)
May 4, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
My main point, in this set of comments, and in many others on TPM, is and has long been to argue -as an American- for the liberation of American Mideast policy from effectively though indirectly serving the fanatical wing of one side of a stupid and dangerous foreign conflict. I don't see how that obligates me to close my eyes to the policy failures or moral failings of those foreigners directly involved in that conflict. Whether Americans would behave much differently than Israelis or Palestinians if they were in those others shoes is a hypothetical question. My interest in seeing some tangible progress towards a more rational role for the U.S., which I think is going to unavoidably involve putting some pressure on people who are otherwise likely to feud for the next thousand years.
May 4, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Basically the Israelis are offering land that is basically worthless for some of the most prime real estate in Palestine. If they want to do an equitable land swap, the ratio should not be 1:1 (in hectares) but probably 100:1.
May 4, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is perfectly plain that the Palestinians have been getting the short end of the stick in the Holy Land for about the past 60 years if not much longer than that. Whose fault is that? If you want to say that the Israelis are 100% to blame, excuse me, but I've heard less idiotic things from the mouths of West Bank fanatics (along with MORE idiotic things). Clearly in all the negotiations going back to the 1980s, this has always been about a package deal, involving combinations and permutations of land for peace. I see little point in nitpicking one small slice or the over-stuffed poorboy sandwich and claiming inequity. The monstrously and demonstrably huge inequity is in the world's failure to bring to end a most asinine feud over a tiny area that under any realistic future climate scenario is essentially various degrees of desert. The key objective of the small swap that has you excited appears (from Clinton "parameters") to be that of minimizing the population transfers that another poster considers so daunting in any case that we must therefore leap somehow to a utopian one-state solution.
In hard-headed reality, Israelis would be MUCH better off than now if they gave 100% of the occupied land to the Palestinians immediately without preconditions and paid 10% of their GDP for the next 20 years to compensate for the 1948 displacement. Palestinians would be MUCH better off than today if they gave up all claims to a right of return for zero compensation and gave Israel all of Gaza in return for them getting 90% of the West Bank in a contiguous economically viable lump with partial water rights. The USA would be MUCH better off with a Congress that acted to promote AMERICA's interests in the Mideast (which are to reach SOME kind of reasonable compromise ASAP) and not the interests of nihilistic West Bank settlers pretending to be representative of Israelis pretending to be representative of Jewish-American voters.
May 4, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your suggestion is very reasonable. But unfortunately Israel will never accept it. They insist on 1:1 land swaps. That is just another swindle. Anyone who accepts their negotiating points are dooming the negotiations. Let us put on the table 100 hectares of Israeli desert for each acre of prime Palestinian land. What I am pointing out is that given that the Israelis refuse to do the right thing in the first place, please do not come back and insist that their offers are more than another land theft.
May 4, 2009 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure there is land theft and attempted land theft going on, and violent revenge for past land theft, and violent revenge for violent revenge for past land theft, and violent land theft in return for violent revenge for violent revenge for past land left, etc. etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum, ad insanitum.
We can spend the next 1000 years trying, and failing, to unravel the Mount-Sinai-sized tangle of who stole and revenged whom all the way back to the dawn of time, and finally determine that we will never know whether Israelis as a whole are slightly more directly descended from Cain than Palestinians are, OR we can call halt the madness now: divide up the resources in such a way that two territorially viable statelets are possible, compensate the side that has ended up losing most of the land, for its people who were forced to move.
Olmert's offer (remember that, the subject of the page at the top?) was not in my opinion fundamentally an attempt at a land grab, or even an attempt to propose an end to the fight over land, water, and who is allowed to walk where and when in Jerusalem. It was an attempt to look like far-sighted peacemaker rather than the bungler of the Lebanon rampage.
Both sides are guilty of theft and murder in the nth degree. Avishai's ultimate point seems to be that the peace offers have also been going around in circles for too long. Time for the big boys to blow the whistle and push the two warring sides apart and eventually out of their hell on earth.
May 5, 2009 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
As to the 1:1 demurrer. It is a mistake to think about a future Palestine as an agricultural economy. Palestine will be a city-state like Israel. But, also, it is a mistake to think of Israel and Palestine outside the context of some future federation and common market with Jordan and, God willing, Turkey and the EU. Not only water and security, but telecom, currency, migration, health (and more) are all jurisdictions neither state will be able to exercise without the other. (I argue this in detail in "The Hebrew Republic.")
May 5, 2009 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are talking about a probable future, but you are not acknowledging the average Palestinian's bond to their land or the cultural reasons for it. Offering them worthless desert in return for prime farm land is not reasonable. After all, you demand of them to give up their claims to the coastal farming regions that they lost in 1948 and now you think they must accept some worthless desert in exchange for the remainder of their lands in the west bank. I agree, that an agrarian life will not support the current Palestinian population, but that is not a dream they will abandon because of Israeli demands -- we should let economic reality teach them that lesson. You have a choice -- they can be failed farmers or antiIsraeli warriors.
May 5, 2009 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bernard . . . the federation idea (starting with a federated Israel-Palestine, which allows citizens of both states to live and work throughout both states) may be the best path to peace. It preserves the idea of two separate states but solves the otherwise intractable refugee and population transfer problems and also provides the best hope for an economically viable Palestine.
A looser federation (or at least economic union) between Israel, Palestine, Jordan and maybe Lebanonon or, even eventually, Syria) is a wonderful idea for the future. It's still a long way off, though, since peace between the Israelis and Palestinians must come first.
May 5, 2009 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Hebrew Republic" sounds like a potentially very worthwhile book, especially in light of recently changed governments in Israel and the U.S. Are there sample pieces from it or related articles available on-line somewhere?
May 5, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well we can be certain of one thing. Nothing like this could get done with Bibi in power.
May 4, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the outline of the Clinton Parameters taken right off of the J Street website. So this is at least where the American government was in late December of 2000, at or about the time immediately preceding Taba. The issue of the land to be traded is referred to in terms of percentages, but not with precision as to the specific territory to be swapped. In short, this was, as far as this American government was concerned, a subject of negotiations. On territory, the minutes reflect President Clinton stating the following:
"Based on what I heard, I believe that the solution should be in the mid-90%'s, between 94-96% of the West Bank territory of the Palestinian State.
The land annexed by Israel should be compensated by a land swap of 1-3% in addition to territorial arrangements such as a permanent safe passage.
The Parties also should consider the swap of leased land to meet their respective needs. There are creative ways of doing this that should address Palestinian and Israeli needs and concerns.
The Parties should develop a map consistent with the following criteria:
* 80% of settlers in blocks.
* Contiguity.
* Minimize annexed areas.
* Minimize the number of Palestinian affected."
On the "right of return", the minutes reflect the following statement by President Clinton:
"I sense that the differences are more relating to formulations and less to what will happen on a practical level.
I believe that Israel is prepared to acknowledge the moral and material suffering caused to the Palestinian people as a result of the 1948 war and the need to assist the international community in addressing the problem.
An international commission should be established to implement all the aspects that flow from your agreement: compensation, resettlement, rehabilitation, etc.
The US is prepared to lead an international effort to help the refugees.
The fundamental gap is on how to handle the concept of the right of return. I know the history of the issue and how hard it will be for the Palestinian leadership to appear to be abandoning this principle.
The Israeli side could not accept any reference to a right of return that would imply a right to immigrate to Israel in defiance of Israel's sovereign policies and admission or that would threaten the Jewish character of the state.
Any solution must address both needs.
The solution will have to be consistent with the two-state approach that both sides have accepted as a way to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict: the state of Palestine as the homeland of the Palestinian people and the state of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.
Under the two-state solution, the guiding principle should be that the Palestinian state would be the focal point for Palestinians who choose to return to the area without ruling out that Israel will accept some of these refugees.
I believe that we need to adopt a formulation on the right of return that will make clear that there is no specific right of return to Israel itself but that does not negate the aspiration of the Palestinian people to return to the area.
In light of the above, I propose two alternatives:
1- Both sides recognize the right of Palestinian refugees to return to historic Palestine, or,
2- Both sides recognize the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland.
The agreement will define the implementation of this general right in a way that is consistent with the two-state solution. It would list the five possible homes for the refugees:
1- The state of Palestine.
2- Areas in Israel being transferred to Palestine in the land swap.
3- Rehabilitation in host country.
4- Resettlement in third country.
5- Admission to Israel.
In listing these options, the agreement will make clear that the return to the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and areas acquired in the land swap would be the right of all Palestinian refugees, while rehabilitation in host countries, resettlement in third countries and absorption into Israel will depend upon the policies of those countries.
Israel could indicate in the agreement that it intends to establish a policy so that some of the refugees would be absorbed into Israel consistent with Israel's sovereign decision.
I believe that priority should be given to the refugee population in Lebanon.
The parties would agree that this implements resolution 194."
http://www.peacelobby.org/clinton_parameters.htm
May 4, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Way back in March of 2007, Zionista a/k/a Bar Kafka, wrote a blogpost (link below) responding to a now-deleted blogpost by MJ Rosenberg addressing Clay Swisher's contention that Arafat did not reject the Clinton Parameters. Zionista cites authority for the proposition that Mr. Swisher did not consider the PLO's official response to the Parameters. I own Swisher's book (at MJ's recommendation fwiw :)) and if I recall correctly there is, in fact, no reference to the official response of the PLO. I highly recommend the blogpost to anyone interested in the who said what and when about the Clinton Parameters. Of course, as I wrote in a comment back then, none of this mattered once Sharon became prime minister.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/zionista/2007/03/a-fly-on-the-wall.php
May 4, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hadn't been able to access any of my old Zionista stuff in site searches and gave it up for dead long ago. Nice to know there has possibly been a Cafe restoration I had missed. Thanks Bruce!
May 5, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is what I get when I search the site for "zionista":
May 5, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
BK:
I googled! Enjoy the stroll down memory lane.
Bruce
May 5, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I feel like I used to be smarter. WTF!
May 5, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate Mr. Avishai's thoughtful and detailed post as well as the discussion thread - a refreshing change from the moustachio'd ex-lobbyist guy who shares time on this site.
While offering a detailed look at Mr. Olmert's offer, Mr. Avishai curiously omits Mr. Abbas' public demurrals. On more than one occasion, Abbas rejected as insufficient any offer that did not provide for the full right of return for all 1948 refugees and their descendants. This has been a constant position of the Palestinian leadership since the start of the peace process. Of course, this would mean the end of a Jewish majority state and as such is in effect a rejection of the two-state solution.
To be sure, the Israelis have their share of intransigent leaders who have dealt brutally with the Palestinian national movement. Since the 1930s, however, a number of Israeli leaders - Olmert being the latest - have accepted or proposed partition plans that would involve a measure of sacrifice on the part of Israelis. Whatever one's position on the merits of the various proposals, Camp David, Taba, Olmert's plan reported here, each would establish sovereignty for the Palestinians and an end, or at least drastic curtailment, of the settlement enterprise. Had the Palestinian leadership embraced any of these proposals, they would be celebrating their 10th year of statehood today. Their leaders' refusal to even constructively engage on the subject is disheartening indeed and leads one to question their willingness to accept the existence of a Jewish majority state in the Middle East.
One longs for leaders on both sides willing to confront their sacred myths and for once get ahead of their people once and for all declaring their willingness to live side-by-side in peace and security.
May 4, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
AG - The biggest problem with figuring out the various peace proposals that have been floated has been the lack of transperancy. Without understanding the fine print there is no way of determining what gotchas and loopholes exist. It's hard to discuss a book when all you have seen is the cover.
The Geneva Plan is the only one that clearly lays out the details and my guess is the Palestinians would grab it in a heartbeat. Before I give Olmert any kudo's for his "most favorable offer", I need to understand the specific differences with Geneva(even though Geneva was not an official offer).
May 4, 2009 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alas, one would think that it would not be that difficult to bring the Geneva Accords, or something like it, to a popular vote. Check THIS out.
May 5, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this constitutes modest progress:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/world/middleeast/05meshal.html?_r=1&hp
May 4, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
FROM BERNARD AVISHAI: "Is it not obvious that this (and only this) can work, and that every day we do not install the Plan is another we drift toward Balkan style civil war and ethnic cleansing?"
MY COMMENT: Apparently this is not obvious to Elliot Abrams!
FROM ELLIOT ABRAMS: "The Settlement Freeze Fallacy", 04/08/09
(EXCERPT)"...Ten years ago, in the Camp David talks, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat approximately 94 percent of the West Bank, with a land swap to make up half of the 6 percent Israel would keep. According to news reports, just three months ago, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered 93 percent, with a one-to-one land swap. In the end, under the January 2009 offer, Palestinians would have received an area equal to 98 to 98.5 percent of the West Bank (depending on which press report you read), while 10 years ago they were offered 97 percent. Ten years of settlement activity would have resulted in a larger area for the Palestinian state..."
SOURCE - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/07/AR2009040703379.html
PS. Elliot Abrams, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, was the deputy national security adviser overseeing Near East and North African affairs in the George W. Bush administration.
May 4, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
My apologies to Mr. Abrams. Apparently the correct spelling of his name is 'Elliott'. I can never seem to get that right.
PS. In my humble opinion, Elliott Abrams is 'evil incarnate'!
May 4, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what is not mentioned is that this 1:1 land swap is for prime Palestinian land for desert lands in the Negev desert The former land has valuable water aquifers, the latter has none. The former lands support productive farms, the latter are barron.
And if the Palestinians turn down this trade of land they become unreasonable, and the entire world will hear how unreasonable they are: "they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity", "there is no one to talk to" or whatever.
I fully expect the zionists and their supporters to propagate this nonsense, what does not make sense is that neither the Palestinians nor their backers point out this fraud.
May 5, 2009 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
All these generous figures (94%, 96%) ignore the fact that the Palestinians--the majority of the population of Palestine at the time of partition (in fact, a 2 to 1 majority), are currently left with just 20% of the land. All these "generous" proposals are really, in the Palestinian view, no more than the Israelis promising to refrain from stealing absolutely all of the Palestinian land if the Palestinians let them to steal just a little bit more. It's seen as a twist of the knife to take an extra ounce along with the pound already removed. (I use that last analogy hesitantly knowing full well its anti-semitic overtones, but it does capture very well the emotions of the Palestinians when presented with these deals--maybe even including a certain amount of anti-semitism.)
May 5, 2009 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll just add that I sometimes think in these deals there's a subconscious desire on the part of the Israelis to humiliate the Palestinians. I've heard far too many pro-Israeli commentators express the desire to hear the Palestinians "cry uncle." The sort of mocking disdain toward Palestinians frequently expressed by certain pro-Israeli commentators (an attitude captured by the oft-repeated "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity" joke among other things) suggests a desire among some on the Israeli side to rub the Palestinians' noses in the dirt. I'm not sure this is exactly a very helpful--or very attractive--attitude.
May 5, 2009 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS: the percentages are not real. Both Israel and Palestine are interlocking city-states covering about the same territory; both will depend more on elevators and trains than land--and probably water from Turkey, the way LA depends on the Colorado. We have to graduate from these 1930s complaints.
May 6, 2009 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interlocking city states is a good analogy--and it explains why the two can never be fully seperated. I think the sooner we come to the realization that "two states side by side" isn't really a possibility, we will start to make progress toward a solution. I'd push for a federation, with free movement of the citizens of both states between the two states. I think that's the best hope for peace now. No settlers need to be removed, no Palestinians kept out of any part of the territory of Israel-Palestine. It will have to be a very carefully, slowly managed transition, but ultimately it comes closest to giving everybody everything they want.
May 6, 2009 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a pleasure to read a debate on this issue. A hard-hitting debate to be sure but at least not a string of insults.
David
May 6, 2009 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The sad part, no, one of the many sad parts is that the geo-political viewpoint is disregarded.
Bernard Lewis in Foreign Affairs March/April puts Israel/Palestine into the context of Pan-Islamic power plays and the manipulation of the conflict by a diverse bunch of Middle Eastern regimes that use decoys to stay in, or enhance their power. Of this order of paly, Israel/Palestine has been there from the beginning.
Inter alia, Lewis writes:
"Another major problem for the region is the Palestinian issue. The current situation is the direct result of the policy, endorsed by the League of Nations and later by the United Nations, to create a Jewish national home in Palestine . With rare exceptions, the Arabs of Palestine and the leading Arab regimes resisted this policy from the start. A succession of offers for a Palestinian state in Palestine were made--by the British mandate government in 1937, by the United Nations in 1947--but each time Palestinian leaders and Arab regimes refused the offer because it would have meant recognizing the existence of a Jewish state next door. The struggle between the new state of Israel and the Palestinians has continued for over six decades....
The modern peace process began when President Anwar al-Sadat, of Egypt , fearing that the growing Soviet presence in the region was a greater threat to Arab independence than Israel could ever constitute, made peace with Israel in 1979. He was followed in 1994 by King Hussein of Jordan and, less formally, by other Arab states that developed some commercial and quasi-diplomatic contacts with Israel . Dialogue between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization led to some measure of formal mutual recognition and, more significant, to a withdrawal of Israeli forces from parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and the establishment of more or less autonomous Palestinian authorities in these places.
But the conflict continues. Important sections of the Palestinian movement have refused to recognize the negotiations or any agreements and are continuing the armed struggle. Even some of those who have signed agreements--notably Yasir Arafat--have later shown a curious ambivalence toward their implementation. From the international discourse in English and other European languages, it would seem that most of the Arab states and some members of the Palestinian leadership have resigned themselves to accepting Israel as a state. But the discourse in Arabic--in broadcasts, sermons, speeches, and school textbooks--is far less conciliatory, portraying Israel as an illegitimate invader that must be destroyed. If the conflict is about the size of Israel, then long and difficult negotiations can eventually resolve the problem. But if the conflict is about the existence of Israel, then serious negotiation is impossible. There is no compromise position between existence and nonexistence...."
My sceptical mind believes that no side wants a solution: The Palestinian and Islamic Middle east because a non-Islamist state in their midst is and has always been anathema, and Israel because it realises that peace is a demographic time-bomb.
Ironically, if corrupt and fanatical Arab leaders alike were to have accepted the peace option, israel would have been well on the way to becoming an historical foot note.
May 7, 2009 5:09 AM | Reply | Permalink