- 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
The Palestinians Want to Negotiate
October 10, 2012
In a remarkable sequence of diplomatic developments over the past two weeks, the Palestinian leadership has signaled new flexibility in negotiating with Israel, most notably its willingness to drop its longstanding demand that Israel freeze settlement construction as a precondition to peace talks. Once the General Assembly has passed the resolution granting Palestine observer state status at the UN and defining its borders, the Palestinians will be ready to negotiate a deal with Israel.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his leadership team are to be commended for their new realism. Instead of the bluster of last year’s divisive gesture at the Security Council, the Palestinians are engaging in sober discussions with the Europeans and other potential partners with the aim of gaining broad-based international support for productive negotiations with Israel. Then, by dropping the demand that Israel freeze settlement construction as a precondition, they will have removed a sticking point that for the last four years has stood in the way of peace talks.
Signs of this new realism were first seen on September 25, when Abbas met with a group of Jewish leaders in New York, including Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, and indicated that he would accept the formula Dershowitz first proposed in June: that the Palestinians agree to begin negotiations as long as Israel freezes settlements once the talks have begun. This formula would take a freeze as a precondition for talks off the table—something Israel has long insisted upon—while testing Israel’s good faith to halt settlement construction during the talks. It would address Israel’s complaint that when Israel last froze settlement construction for ten months in 2009 at the behest of President Obama, the Palestinians took advantage of the situation by dithering and then claiming they wanted to negotiate just as the freeze was about to expire. Dershowitz said that he came away from his discussion with Abbas convinced that “if Abbas and Bibi Netanyahu sit down and have serious talks, they will find their positions much closer than is widely believed.”
The tone of realism was reinforced by Abbas’s September 27 speech on before the UN General Assembly, where after reciting the usual litany of Israeli violations, he announced his intent to be conciliatory: “We do not seek to delegitimize an existing state —that is, Israel—but to assert the state that must be realized—that is, Palestine.”
Then, on October 9 at a meeting with European diplomats in Ramallah, Abbas signaled that once the UN resolution is passed he will back away from his longstanding demand for Israel to halt West Bank settlement construction before peace talks resume. The UN resolution, currently being drafted in a process that includes participation by European nations, will include definitions of the boundaries and the right to East Jerusalem as the capital city, according to PA executive committee member Hanan Ashrawi. Those specifications will give the Palestinians sufficient international support to push for a Palestinian state with acceptable borders in bilateral talks with Israel. Thus, once the UN passes that resolution in a vote slated for November 29, Abbas will have a stronger hand to negotiate with Israel, regardless of the settlements.
What the Palestinians will not do in any negotiation is to permit Israel to dictate terms, which, with its military muscle, strong economy, and ability to establish “facts on the ground,” it would be in a position to do. In the past, their demand for a settlement freeze was a way to assert that they, too, could establish facts on the ground, and thus create some degree of parity. Unfortunately, they overplayed that hand in 2009, and Israel is not willing to let them do it again. Now, with the upcoming UN resolution granting Palestine observer state status and specifying its border at the Green Line, the Palestinians believe they will have gained enough parity with Israel that they can afford to give up their demand for a freeze. They are taking down their roadblock to talks, having found in the UN an alternative path to the same purpose.
The Palestinians are behaving pragmatically and constructively. They are opening the door to negotiations that could begin as soon as December. This development is leading the Quartet (the U.S., EU, Russia, and the UN) to think beyond their plans of last year, when they could not manage to bring the parties together according to a time-line that had envisioned reaching a settlement by year’s end. Thus UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Robert Serry expressed the Secretary General’s hope that the Quartet partners, in consultation with the parties, would chart a “new, credible political way ahead” in the coming months.
It remains to be seen how Israel will respond. Prime Minister Netanyahu has immersed himself in politicking for the just-announced elections slated to take place early next year. If he plays to his settler base, he will not want to negotiate. Yet elections are a time of great fluidity in Israeli politics, and he might calculate that he would do better to move to the center. Entering into negotiations with the Palestinians would rejigger the Israeli political map, creating opportunities for another center–right alliance, as was attempted with Shaul Mofaz last spring. Domestic political considerations will weigh heavily on Netanyahu’s thinking, and in that regard there are more reasons than just the Palestinian situation why a center–right alliance may be attractive.
We will also be watching how the United States handles these developments. Come late November, President Obama will either be a lame duck or have been re-elected to a second term in office. Either way, he will have great flexibility to craft a constructive American response without the worry of domestic politics. The current American stance at the UN, where its officials are reportedly attempting behind the scenes to scuttle the UN resolution, is not helpful. Let us hope the United States quickly realizes that the UN observer state resolution on Palestine is not just another unilateral move in the tit-for-tat diplomatic game; rather, the Palestinians intend it to be a constructive avenue forward to peace talks.
Peace talks between Israel and Palestine that lead to a two-state solution are in America’s national interest. It will not do for the United States to continue parroting the time-worn Israeli line that makes concern for Israel’s security a cipher for discounting the Palestinians’ national aspirations. This time, the Palestinian UN initiative is a strategic move that will serve the cause of peace and our national interests at the same time.
The Palestinian offer to drop its precondition of a settlement freeze in tandem with achievement of UN observer state status indicates that they are making preparations on the world stage to enter into negotiations with Israel—if Israel is willing. A crucial opportunity for peace is in the offing, and it will be a shame to see it wasted for lack of resolute American leadership. America needs to step up to its historic role as an honest broker for peace by pressing Israel to take this Palestinian initiative with utmost seriousness.
In a remarkable sequence of diplomatic developments over the past two weeks, the Palestinian leadership has signaled new flexibility in negotiating with Israel, most notably its willingness to drop its longstanding demand that Israel freeze settlement construction as a precondition to peace talks. Once the General Assembly has passed the resolution granting Palestine observer state status at the UN and defining its borders, the Palestinians will be ready to negotiate a deal with Israel.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his leadership team are to be commended for their new realism. Instead of the bluster of last year’s divisive gesture at the Security Council, the Palestinians are engaging in sober discussions with the Europeans and other potential partners with the aim of gaining broad-based international support for productive negotiations with Israel. Then, by dropping the demand that Israel freeze settlement construction as a precondition, they will have removed a sticking point that for the last four years has stood in the way of peace talks.
Signs of this new realism were first seen on September 25, when Abbas met with a group of Jewish leaders in New York, including Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, and indicated that he would accept the formula Dershowitz first proposed in June: that the Palestinians agree to begin negotiations as long as Israel freezes settlements once the talks have begun. This formula would take a freeze as a precondition for talks off the table—something Israel has long insisted upon—while testing Israel’s good faith to halt settlement construction during the talks. It would address Israel’s complaint that when Israel last froze settlement construction for ten months in 2009 at the behest of President Obama, the Palestinians took advantage of the situation by dithering and then claiming they wanted to negotiate just as the freeze was about to expire. Dershowitz said that he came away from his discussion with Abbas convinced that “if Abbas and Bibi Netanyahu sit down and have serious talks, they will find their positions much closer than is widely believed.”
The tone of realism was reinforced by Abbas’s September 27 speech on before the UN General Assembly, where after reciting the usual litany of Israeli violations, he announced his intent to be conciliatory: “We do not seek to delegitimize an existing state —that is, Israel—but to assert the state that must be realized—that is, Palestine.”
Then, on October 9 at a meeting with European diplomats in Ramallah, Abbas signaled that once the UN resolution is passed he will back away from his longstanding demand for Israel to halt West Bank settlement construction before peace talks resume. The UN resolution, currently being drafted in a process that includes participation by European nations, will include definitions of the boundaries and the right to East Jerusalem as the capital city, according to PA executive committee member Hanan Ashrawi. Those specifications will give the Palestinians sufficient international support to push for a Palestinian state with acceptable borders in bilateral talks with Israel. Thus, once the UN passes that resolution in a vote slated for November 29, Abbas will have a stronger hand to negotiate with Israel, regardless of the settlements.
What the Palestinians will not do in any negotiation is to permit Israel to dictate terms, which, with its military muscle, strong economy, and ability to establish “facts on the ground,” it would be in a position to do. In the past, their demand for a settlement freeze was a way to assert that they, too, could establish facts on the ground, and thus create some degree of parity. Unfortunately, they overplayed that hand in 2009, and Israel is not willing to let them do it again. Now, with the upcoming UN resolution granting Palestine observer state status and specifying its border at the Green Line, the Palestinians believe they will have gained enough parity with Israel that they can afford to give up their demand for a freeze. They are taking down their roadblock to talks, having found in the UN an alternative path to the same purpose.
The Palestinians are behaving pragmatically and constructively. They are opening the door to negotiations that could begin as soon as December. This development is leading the Quartet (the U.S., EU, Russia, and the UN) to think beyond their plans of last year, when they could not manage to bring the parties together according to a time-line that had envisioned reaching a settlement by year’s end. Thus UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Robert Serry expressed the Secretary General’s hope that the Quartet partners, in consultation with the parties, would chart a “new, credible political way ahead” in the coming months.
It remains to be seen how Israel will respond. Prime Minister Netanyahu has immersed himself in politicking for the just-announced elections slated to take place early next year. If he plays to his settler base, he will not want to negotiate. Yet elections are a time of great fluidity in Israeli politics, and he might calculate that he would do better to move to the center. Entering into negotiations with the Palestinians would rejigger the Israeli political map, creating opportunities for another center–right alliance, as was attempted with Shaul Mofaz last spring. Domestic political considerations will weigh heavily on Netanyahu’s thinking, and in that regard there are more reasons than just the Palestinian situation why a center–right alliance may be attractive.
We will also be watching how the United States handles these developments. Come late November, President Obama will either be a lame duck or have been re-elected to a second term in office. Either way, he will have great flexibility to craft a constructive American response without the worry of domestic politics. The current American stance at the UN, where its officials are reportedly attempting behind the scenes to scuttle the UN resolution, is not helpful. Let us hope the United States quickly realizes that the UN observer state resolution on Palestine is not just another unilateral move in the tit-for-tat diplomatic game; rather, the Palestinians intend it to be a constructive avenue forward to peace talks.
Peace talks between Israel and Palestine that lead to a two-state solution are in America’s national interest. It will not do for the United States to continue parroting the time-worn Israeli line that makes concern for Israel’s security a cipher for discounting the Palestinians’ national aspirations. This time, the Palestinian UN initiative is a strategic move that will serve the cause of peace and our national interests at the same time.
The Palestinian offer to drop its precondition of a settlement freeze in tandem with achievement of UN observer state status indicates that they are making preparations on the world stage to enter into negotiations with Israel—if Israel is willing. A crucial opportunity for peace is in the offing, and it will be a shame to see it wasted for lack of resolute American leadership. America needs to step up to its historic role as an honest broker for peace by pressing Israel to take this Palestinian initiative with utmost seriousness.
