- Home
- About
- General Issues
- Maps
-
Position Statements
- 2011 >
-
2012
>
- Time to Negotiate the Northern and Southern Sectors of the Israeli-West Bank Border
- President Peres and Dr. Ashrawi: Thank You for Staying on Track
- Playing the Victim Card Will Not Bring Peace
- Negotiations By the Parties
- The World Should Help the Palestinian Hunger Striker
- ...and only afterwards move to discuss the topic of Jerusalem
- A Question of Accountability
- Israel Twisting in the Wind
- Netanyahu: Too Big for His Britches
- Netanyahu's "Israeli Comfort"
- How Shaul Mofaz Can Jump-Start the Peace Process
- Netanyahu on the Brink
- Time for Taking Stock
- Israel in Wonderland
- Whatever Happened to the Quartet?
- The Palestinians Want to Negotiate
- A Time for Hope and a Call for Restraint
- Israel Can Win in Gaza, But Not Now
- Congratulations to the New State of Palestine!
- Security and Borders: Both Required for Peace
-
2013
>
- It Is Up to Israel to Restart Peace Negotiations
- Israel and Palestine: Changing the Terms of Agreement
- The Knesset Bill to Increase the Number of Women that Elect the Chief Rabbis Is Important for Jewish Women
- Proposal on Governance of the Holy Basin
- Time for Netanyahu to Reach Across the Aisle
- Tzipi Livni's Challenge
- Women Should Be Free to Pray at the Wailing Wall
- Proposed Highway through the Jordan Valley Will Backfire on Israel
- 2014 >
-
2015
>
- We Should Applaud Herzog and Livni for Reclaiming Zionism
- The Next Israeli Government
- West Bank Citizenry and Receipt of Individuals of Palestinian Origin
- What Next for Israel?
- Palestinian statehood
- Mischief in the Trade Legislation would Hinder Progress
- What Next for America?
- Could American Firms Choose to Gradually Disinvest from Israel?
- Boycotting Israel is not anti-Semitism
- 2016 >
- 2017 >
- 2019 >
- 2020 >
- 2023 >
- 2024
- Resources
- About the Authors
It Is Up to Israel to Restart Peace Negotiations
February 22, 2013
When President Obama visits the Middle East next month, he will no doubt be cautious about whether to invest the energy of his administration into resuming the peace process. The failure of his efforts in 2009, at the start of his first term, remains an object lesson. There are many other areas of the world where American involvement could be lead to more fruitful results than a Middle East where both sides remain mired in fear and mistrust.
It will be primarily up to Israel to make the first move. Throughout Palestine’s efforts to achieve recognition as a state at the UN General Assembly, the United States has stood at Israel’s side in affirming its position that although a Palestinian state is a desirable goal, no such state can exist without a negotiated agreement. Israel has positioned itself as wishing to enter into negotiations that it will pursue with good faith. President Obama will now be testing Israel to determine if its position is sincerely held.
While the final shape of Israel’s government remains to be determined as of this writing, the appointment of Tzipi Livni to be Israel’s negotiator with the Palestinians is a positive sign. Livni is the politician most vocal in her wish to achieve a two-state solution that gives the Palestinians a viable state. If the current estrangement of Prime Minister Netanyahu from Naftali Bennett and the Jewish Home party continues, Netanyahu will be positioned where he is not beholden to the settlers. This will give him the political room he needs to engineer Israel’s withdrawal from those settlements that become part of Palestine.
Israel will negotiate because it understands that resolving the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is in its national interests. Chief among them are (a) the demographic threat that a large Arab population poses to Israel’s future as a Jewish democratic state and (b) Israel’s growing international isolation, which damages its strategic position vis-à-vis Iran.
First, if Israel does not disengage from Palestine, there will soon be more Arabs than Jews living in land under Israeli sovereignty. If it is to remain a democracy, sooner or later Israel will have to give its Arab population equal rights or face being labeled an Apartheid state; yet in doing so, Israel would cease to be a Jewish state. Israel has no way out of that dilemma except to disengage from Palestine.
Second, Israel needs diplomatic and military support to deal with Iran and its nuclear threat. Yet Israel’s continued occupation of the West Bank has created its diplomatic isolation. The vote in the UN General Assembly on recognizing Palestinian statehood, with 138 in favor and only 9 opposed, shocked Israel’s foreign ministry. Meanwhile, Europeans express their displeasure over the occupation by taking measures to restrict trade on Israeli goods manufactured in the West Bank. All this is not good for Israel’s strategic position in dealing with Iran, because Israel does not have the military capability to deal with Iran without the support of the United States and Europe. As well, Israel’s security relationships with Syria, Egypt and Lebanon could significantly deteriorate if its international isolation continues to worsen on account of the Palestinian issue.
When Obama visits Israel, he should make it clear to Netanyahu that the future of negotiations is entirely in Israel’s hands. What Israel has to do to get the talks moving is to freeze settlement construction and release Palestinian prisoners held under administrative detention. Then the Palestinians will be obligated to negotiate.
Netanyahu has repeatedly said that he is for negotiations without preconditions, and he blames the Palestinians for making demands, notably a freeze on settlement construction, before it will enter into formal talks. Nonetheless, the onus is on Israel to make an effective and substantial gesture. This is because in the context of bilateral talks, Israel holds most of the cards. Israel can build walls, settlements, and change the “facts on the ground” with impunity. It has done so repeatedly, and in ways that evidently contradict Israel’s stated intention to offer the Palestinians a viable state. The international community has belatedly come to understand this, particularly in reference to Israel’s announced plans to build in the E-1 zone.
It is important for Israel and the Obama administration to understand from the Palestinian point of view the reasons for their reluctance to enter into negotiations without preconditions. Mistrust of Israel and the asymmetry of power are real concerns.
The Palestinians have not forgotten the lesson of the Oslo Accords. Signed in 1993, the Oslo Accords divided the West Bank into Areas A, B, and C. According to the agreement, Israel would withdraw from Area A (urban population centers) immediately, and five years later there would be final-status negotiations leading to withdrawal from Area B and Area C. However, twenty years later, in 2013, Israel remains firmly planted in Area C. Israel’s ostensible reason for holding on to Area C was as a security zone. Yet for twenty years, it has been building settlements there as if to solidify its permanent sovereignty over most of the West Bank. The Palestinians are not about to be lured into another round of negotiations like the Oslo Accords where, from their point of view, they were snookered into relinquishing territory by an Israel that was acting in bad faith.
The Palestinians are not blameless in this outcome. The violence of two intifadas traumatized Israeli society and ratcheted up Israeli fears, and the missile attacks after Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza led many Israelis to question Palestinian intentions as to whether they would ever accede to peace with Israel. That said, under the administration of President Mahmoud Abbas the Palestinians of the West Bank have been behaving with remarkable restraint, choosing nonviolent resistance and diplomacy as paths to pursue their goals. While formerly the Palestinians could be labeled as terrorists because of their use of violence, their current restraint and persistence in seeking a peaceful solution to their plight has won them admiration and respect the world over.
It is time for Israel to step up and demonstrate leadership for peace. A complete and unconditional settlement freeze would demonstrate to the Palestinians, and the world, that Israel is ready to negotiate and is sincere in seeking a two-state solution.
Some might argue that Israel could get away with a partial freeze in all settlements outside the major settlement blocs, because it will inevitably retain the Jerusalem suburbs that it has carved out for itself. Yet aggressive settlement construction in disputed areas such as the Jerusalem suburb of Givat Hamatos has made it unlikely that Palestine would accept a partial freeze on Israeli terms. We believe the maps of the Citizens Proposal provide a good indicator of which areas of settlement should be part of the freeze.
Furthermore, we believe that Israel needs to indicate quietly that it will no longer use security concerns as a reason not to withdraw from Area C. This issue was the stumbling-block to fulfilling the Oslo Accords. In this age of long-range missiles, land no longer has the strategic value that it had twenty years ago. It is time for Israel to indicate that it is willing to work out a security arrangement with Palestine that will permit its withdrawal from the Jordan Valley. As an opening gambit for talks, such a move will indicate to the Palestinians that this time Israel is serious about delivering a state.
When President Obama visits the Middle East next month, he will no doubt be cautious about whether to invest the energy of his administration into resuming the peace process. The failure of his efforts in 2009, at the start of his first term, remains an object lesson. There are many other areas of the world where American involvement could be lead to more fruitful results than a Middle East where both sides remain mired in fear and mistrust.
It will be primarily up to Israel to make the first move. Throughout Palestine’s efforts to achieve recognition as a state at the UN General Assembly, the United States has stood at Israel’s side in affirming its position that although a Palestinian state is a desirable goal, no such state can exist without a negotiated agreement. Israel has positioned itself as wishing to enter into negotiations that it will pursue with good faith. President Obama will now be testing Israel to determine if its position is sincerely held.
While the final shape of Israel’s government remains to be determined as of this writing, the appointment of Tzipi Livni to be Israel’s negotiator with the Palestinians is a positive sign. Livni is the politician most vocal in her wish to achieve a two-state solution that gives the Palestinians a viable state. If the current estrangement of Prime Minister Netanyahu from Naftali Bennett and the Jewish Home party continues, Netanyahu will be positioned where he is not beholden to the settlers. This will give him the political room he needs to engineer Israel’s withdrawal from those settlements that become part of Palestine.
Israel will negotiate because it understands that resolving the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is in its national interests. Chief among them are (a) the demographic threat that a large Arab population poses to Israel’s future as a Jewish democratic state and (b) Israel’s growing international isolation, which damages its strategic position vis-à-vis Iran.
First, if Israel does not disengage from Palestine, there will soon be more Arabs than Jews living in land under Israeli sovereignty. If it is to remain a democracy, sooner or later Israel will have to give its Arab population equal rights or face being labeled an Apartheid state; yet in doing so, Israel would cease to be a Jewish state. Israel has no way out of that dilemma except to disengage from Palestine.
Second, Israel needs diplomatic and military support to deal with Iran and its nuclear threat. Yet Israel’s continued occupation of the West Bank has created its diplomatic isolation. The vote in the UN General Assembly on recognizing Palestinian statehood, with 138 in favor and only 9 opposed, shocked Israel’s foreign ministry. Meanwhile, Europeans express their displeasure over the occupation by taking measures to restrict trade on Israeli goods manufactured in the West Bank. All this is not good for Israel’s strategic position in dealing with Iran, because Israel does not have the military capability to deal with Iran without the support of the United States and Europe. As well, Israel’s security relationships with Syria, Egypt and Lebanon could significantly deteriorate if its international isolation continues to worsen on account of the Palestinian issue.
When Obama visits Israel, he should make it clear to Netanyahu that the future of negotiations is entirely in Israel’s hands. What Israel has to do to get the talks moving is to freeze settlement construction and release Palestinian prisoners held under administrative detention. Then the Palestinians will be obligated to negotiate.
Netanyahu has repeatedly said that he is for negotiations without preconditions, and he blames the Palestinians for making demands, notably a freeze on settlement construction, before it will enter into formal talks. Nonetheless, the onus is on Israel to make an effective and substantial gesture. This is because in the context of bilateral talks, Israel holds most of the cards. Israel can build walls, settlements, and change the “facts on the ground” with impunity. It has done so repeatedly, and in ways that evidently contradict Israel’s stated intention to offer the Palestinians a viable state. The international community has belatedly come to understand this, particularly in reference to Israel’s announced plans to build in the E-1 zone.
It is important for Israel and the Obama administration to understand from the Palestinian point of view the reasons for their reluctance to enter into negotiations without preconditions. Mistrust of Israel and the asymmetry of power are real concerns.
The Palestinians have not forgotten the lesson of the Oslo Accords. Signed in 1993, the Oslo Accords divided the West Bank into Areas A, B, and C. According to the agreement, Israel would withdraw from Area A (urban population centers) immediately, and five years later there would be final-status negotiations leading to withdrawal from Area B and Area C. However, twenty years later, in 2013, Israel remains firmly planted in Area C. Israel’s ostensible reason for holding on to Area C was as a security zone. Yet for twenty years, it has been building settlements there as if to solidify its permanent sovereignty over most of the West Bank. The Palestinians are not about to be lured into another round of negotiations like the Oslo Accords where, from their point of view, they were snookered into relinquishing territory by an Israel that was acting in bad faith.
The Palestinians are not blameless in this outcome. The violence of two intifadas traumatized Israeli society and ratcheted up Israeli fears, and the missile attacks after Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza led many Israelis to question Palestinian intentions as to whether they would ever accede to peace with Israel. That said, under the administration of President Mahmoud Abbas the Palestinians of the West Bank have been behaving with remarkable restraint, choosing nonviolent resistance and diplomacy as paths to pursue their goals. While formerly the Palestinians could be labeled as terrorists because of their use of violence, their current restraint and persistence in seeking a peaceful solution to their plight has won them admiration and respect the world over.
It is time for Israel to step up and demonstrate leadership for peace. A complete and unconditional settlement freeze would demonstrate to the Palestinians, and the world, that Israel is ready to negotiate and is sincere in seeking a two-state solution.
Some might argue that Israel could get away with a partial freeze in all settlements outside the major settlement blocs, because it will inevitably retain the Jerusalem suburbs that it has carved out for itself. Yet aggressive settlement construction in disputed areas such as the Jerusalem suburb of Givat Hamatos has made it unlikely that Palestine would accept a partial freeze on Israeli terms. We believe the maps of the Citizens Proposal provide a good indicator of which areas of settlement should be part of the freeze.
Furthermore, we believe that Israel needs to indicate quietly that it will no longer use security concerns as a reason not to withdraw from Area C. This issue was the stumbling-block to fulfilling the Oslo Accords. In this age of long-range missiles, land no longer has the strategic value that it had twenty years ago. It is time for Israel to indicate that it is willing to work out a security arrangement with Palestine that will permit its withdrawal from the Jordan Valley. As an opening gambit for talks, such a move will indicate to the Palestinians that this time Israel is serious about delivering a state.
