Is Obama
serious about a Palestinian state?
The phrase “two-state solution”
didn’t cross the lips of Israeli Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, at his
press conference with President Barack Obama in the White House on 18 May
2009. Netanyahu did express “the desire
to move the peace process forward” and went as far as to say that he wants
Palestinians to “govern themselves”, telling Obama:
“I share with you very
much the desire to move the peace process forward. And I want to start
peace negotiations with the Palestinians immediately. I would like to
broaden the circle of peace to include others in the Arab world … .
”I want to make it clear that we don’t want to govern the Palestinians.
We want to live in peace with them. We want them to govern themselves,
absent a handful of powers that could endanger the state of Israel.” [1]
The final clause contains the rub –
he wants Palestinians to govern themselves, except in areas where, on the
grounds of “security”, Israel deems it necessary to govern them. Not that this is much different from previous
Israeli Governments, which never left much doubt that any Palestinian “state”
would be effectively under Israeli control.
In
US national security interests
Obama made it clear at the press
conference that achieving a “two-state solution” was now a US foreign policy
objective. He said:
“I have said before and I
will repeat again that it is I believe in the interest not only of the
Palestinians, but also the Israelis and the United States and the international
community to achieve a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians
are living side by side in peace and security.”
He later repeated the view that “pursuing
Israeli-Palestinian peace” is in “the United States’ national security
interests”.
A corollary of this is that, should
the Israeli Government refuse to pursue a two-state solution, then US national
security interests would diverge from those of Israel, with the implied threat
that the US would then have to pursue its own interests.
George Mitchell, Obama’s Special
Envoy for Middle East Peace, has had very little to say in public about his
mission, but he has used a similar formulation repeatedly, at the stops on his
travels around the Middle East, so the formulation has obviously been carefully
prepared. For example, in Jerusalem on
16 April 2009, he said:
“Policy of the United
States under President Obama is clear. Beyond any doubt it is in the United
States national interest that there be a comprehensive peace settlement in the
middle east which would include settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
with a two-state solution involving a Palestinian state living side by side
alongside the Jewish state of Israel in peace and hopefully stability and
prosperity.” [2]
As far as I am aware, the US has not
used this formulation before.
Freeman
on US interests
Obama has not spelt out in what
sense a two-state solution is in the national interests of the United States,
apart from a vague implication that achieving it, or at least working
even-handedly towards it, is necessary to improve US relations with the Muslim
world.
When I came across Obama’s use of
this formulation, it reminded me of remarks by Charles W Freeman, whom Obama
appointed as Chairman of the US National Intelligence Council last February,
but who later resigned, having come under attack from the Israeli lobby in the
US (see [3]).
Over several years, Freeman has dared
to state the obvious about US-Israel relations, namely, that Israel’s oppression
of Palestinians, and America’s continual and uncritical support for Israel, is
a generator of anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world and a recruiting
sergeant for al-Qaeda. For example, in a
speech on 24 May 2007, he urged the US to act in its own interests, which, he
asserted, were not the same as Israel’s:
“There will be no
negotiation between Israelis and Palestinians, no peace, and no reconciliation
between them – and there will be no reduction in anti-American terrorism –
until we have the courage to act on our interests. These are not the same as
those of any party in the region, including Israel, and we must talk with all
parties, whatever we think of them or their means of struggle.
“Refusal to reason with
those whose actions threaten injury to oneself, one's friends, and one's
interests is foolish, feckless, and self-defeating. That is why it is past time
for an active and honest discussion with both Israel and the government
Palestinians have elected, which – in an irony that escapes few abroad – is the
only democratically elected government in the Arab world.
“But to restore our
reputation in the region and the world, given all that has happened, and to
eliminate terrorism against Americans, it is no longer enough just to go through
the motions of trying to make peace between Israelis and Arabs. We must succeed
in actually doing so. Nothing should be a more urgent task for American
diplomacy.” [4]
So, according to Freeman, it is in the
US national interest to bring about a settlement between Israelis and Arabs in
Palestine – not least because it would make the US safer by removing a ground
for generating anti-US sentiment, and al-Qaeda recruits, in the Muslim world.
Scowcroft
& Brzezinski on US interests
The present US administration has
not deployed this argument. But, people
close to Obama are doing so. Listen to
this:
“Osama Bin
Laden did not commission attacks in New York and Washington, DC to ‘free
Palestine’. Yet tens of millions of young men and women in the Arab world and
the Muslim world beyond – the products of demographic ‘youth bulges’ in challenged
economies – are targeted for recruitment by al-Qaeda and its affiliates partly on
the basis of ongoing defeat, injustice and humiliation in the Arab-Israeli
context. Some of these recruits have found their way to Iraq. Others no doubt
await opportunities to strike at American interests and persons … .
“ … it is
essential that the incoming administration make Arab-Israeli peace a high
national security priority from the beginning. A comprehensive Arab-Israel
peace will not erase al-Qaeda. Yet it would help drain the swamp in
which the disease thrives and mutates.”
This is from a document, entitled A
Bipartisan Statement on U.S. Middle East Peacemaking [5],
containing recommendations to the Obama administration from a bipartisan
group of ten former senior government officials, including Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew
Brzezinski, who were National Security Advisers to, respectively, President
George HW Bush and President Jimmy Carter.
Brzezinski was a foreign policy adviser to Obama during his election
campaign.
Since 9/11, Israel has attempted to portray
its oppression of Palestinians as a part of the US “war on terror” against
al-Qaeda, even though Israel has rarely if ever been an al-Qaeda target. Under the previous US administration, this ludicrous
portrayal was never questioned. Now,
Scowcroft, Brzezinski et al are stating the obvious – that the “ongoing defeat,
injustice and humiliation” of Palestinians by Israel, and US backing of Israel,
is a recruiting sergeant for al-Qaeda.
Since 9/11, protecting the US homeland,
and US interests abroad, from al-Qaeda has been an obsession in US
politics. So, if bringing about a
settlement in the Middle East comes to be seen as a means of reducing the
threat from al-Qaeda, then even the famed power of the Israeli lobby in the US
would have difficulty resisting a determined attempt by the US administration
to force Israel into allowing a Palestinian state to be set up.
Determined
attempt?
This begs several rather large questions. First, will Obama really make a determined
attempt to establish a Palestinian state?
Second, is there the remotest chance of a state that could reasonably be
described as viable and independent being established?. To do so would require the US to apply enormous
and unprecedented pressure on Israel. Or
will Obama end up pressurising Palestinians – by far the weaker party – to
accept an entity that is neither viable nor independent? A factor working against the latter is that
the outcome has to serve the US purpose of making its peace with the Muslim
world and helping reduce the threat from al-Qaeda.
The signs are that Obama is going to
make a determined attempt. This is not
going to be a rerun of Annapolis, in which the US was a disinterested bystander
in a process embarked upon by a lame duck president with only twelve months of
his presidency left. In those
circumstances, it was very easy for Israel to spin the process out to an
unsuccessful conclusion.
This time, a president with at least
four, and maybe eight, years in the White House ahead of him has declared that establishment
of a Palestinian state is in the US national security interest. This time, the US is not going to be a
disinterested bystander. This time, all Israel’s
talents for
prevarication and obstruction will have to be deployed in an
attempt to spin the process out to an unsuccessful conclusion.
“Big
trouble”, if Israel attacks Iran
The prevarication and obstruction
has begun. In advance of his visit to
Washington, it looked as if Netanyahu would try to put negotiations with
Palestinians on the long finger by focussing attention on the (alleged) threat
to Israel’s existence from Iran’s nuclear activities.
But, Obama saw that one off by arguing
that a settlement in Palestine would make it easier to get international
co-operation for dealing with Iran. He
put it this way at the press conference:
“To the extent that we
can make peace … between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then I actually
think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with a
potential Iranian threat.”
This cannot be denied, so Netanyahu
will have to give the appearance of being willing to negotiate with
Palestinians, while Obama pursues negotiations with Iran.
Meanwhile, Obama sent CIA Director, Leon
Panetta, to Israel in late April to meet Netanyahu and warn him not to attack Iran’s
nuclear facilities. See Jerusalem Post article, entitled CIA head: Jerusalem
knows not to attack Iran, published on 20 May 2009 [6],
which quotes Panetta as saying:
“Yes, the Israelis are
obviously concerned about Iran and focused on it. But [Netanyahu] understands
that if Israel goes it alone, it will mean big trouble. He knows that for the
sake of Israeli security, they have to work together with others.”
Israel’s political
leaders are almost unanimous in saying that Iran is, or is about to become, a threat
to Israel’s existence. Now, Obama has
forbidden Israel to take the action that many of them say is essential to
counter the threat. That is an
extraordinary thing for him to do, and it is even more extraordinary for him to
make public the fact that he has done it.
Recognise
Israel as a Jewish state?
Netanyahu did attempt to lay down a
pre-condition for negotiations, namely, that Palestinians “will have to
recognize Israel as a Jewish state”. The
Olmert Government made the same demand prior to the Annapolis conference in
November 2007, but President Abbas, as PLO Chairman, rejected it and there was
no mention of “a Jewish state” in the Joint Understanding between Olmert and
Abbas on that occasion [7]. Abbas has rejected it again this time and it
is unlikely that the US will allow Netanyahu to halt the process before it
begins over this issue.
It is worth noting that, when the
PLO recognised Israel’s right to exist at the time of the Oslo Agreement, the
character of the state was not defined.
PLO Chairman, Yasser Arafat’s letter to Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak
Rabin, merely said:
"The
PLO recognizes the right of the State of
Israel to exist in peace and security." (see, for example, [8])
Palestinian leaders have always
rejected out of hand demands that they recognise Israel as a Jewish state – for
good reasons.
First, accepting that Israel is a
Jewish state would be tantamount to giving up the right of Palestinians to
return to Israel. After all, why should
non-Jews be allowed to return to live in what is acknowledged to be a Jewish
state?
Second, accepting that Israel is a
Jewish state would compromise the status of the nearly 1.5 million Palestinians
living in Israel now. It would call into
question whether they as non-Jews should have the same rights as Jews in
Israel, or even whether should they be allowed to remain in Israel.
The
Roadmap
In April 2003, the US published a
document setting out a framework for negotiations between Israel and the PLO, called
is A
performance-based roadmap to a permanent two-state solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict
[9]. Obama seems to be determined that this Roadmap
will form the basis for future negotiations – and that this time, unlike
Annapolis, Israel will have to fulfil the pre-conditions contained in it.
Phase I of the Roadmap requires
Israel to take the following steps:
(a)
“Israeli leadership issues unequivocal statement affirming
its commitment to the two-state vision of an independent, viable, sovereign
Palestinian state”
(b)
“GOI [Government of Israel] immediately dismantles
settlement outposts erected since March 2001”, and
(c)
“Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI [Government of
Israel] freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of
settlements)”.
At the time, the Israeli Government,
headed by Ariel Sharon, approved the Roadmap by 12 votes to 7, but entered 14
reservations [10]. However, these reservations did not relate to
points (a), (b) or (c).
Netanyahu, Sharon’s
successor as leader of Likud and Prime Minister, hasn’t specifically repudiated
the Roadmap, mindful perhaps of the fact that Israel (and the US) is forever
demanding that Palestinians stick to past agreements. However, he is not prepared to commit to the objective
of it, that is, a two-state solution to
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Freeze settlement activity
Nor is he
prepared to abide by the pre-condition to “freeze all settlement activity”. Obama said at the press conference:
“I shared with the Prime
Minister the fact that under the roadmap and under Annapolis that there’s a
clear understanding that we have to make progress on settlements. Settlements have to be stopped in order for
us to move forward. That’s a difficult issue. I recognize that, but
it’s an important one and it has to be addressed.”
That’s not very precise, but in an
interview with Al Jazeera the next day, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton,
was more precise:
“… we want to see a stop
to settlement construction, additions, natural growth – any kind of settlement
activity.” [11]
She was even more precise, and
insistent, on 27 May 2009 after a meeting with Egyptian Foreign Minister, Ahmed
Ali Aboul Gheit:
“With respect to
settlements, the President was very clear when Prime Minister Netanyahu was
here. He wants to see a stop to settlements – not some settlements, not
outposts, not natural growth exceptions. We think it is in the best interests
of the effort that we are engaged in that settlement expansion cease. That is
our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly, not only to the
Israelis but to the Palestinians and others. And we intend to press that point.”
[12]
Netanyahu didn’t have the courage to
say anything about settlements at his press conference with Obama. However, when he returned to Israel, he declared
that settlement activity would not be frozen, saying on 24 May 2009:
"We do not intend to
build any new settlements, but it wouldn't be fair to ban construction to meet
the needs of natural growth or for there to be an outright construction ban.” [13]
In an attempt to mollify the US
about refusing to freeze settlement activity, it looks as if Israel is going to
make a show of dismantling a few outposts, which, if past experience is
anything to go by, will be reconstructed within hours. According to a Ha’aretz report [14], Defense
Minister, Ehud Barack, the person responsible for dismantling outposts, says he
is going to dismantle 22 (out of well over a hundred).
(However, according to the same
report, Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, says that “Israel should only
evacuate outposts as part of a comprehensive peace plan”.
He also said that the Roadmap was “the
only valid peace process for Israel” and that Israel “was not bound by
commitments it made at the 2007 Annapolis peace conference to pursue the creation
of a Palestinian state”.
Could the Israeli Foreign Minister be
ignorant of the fact that the Roadmap commits Israel (a) to pursue the creation
of a Palestinian state, (b) to immediately dismantle all settlement outposts
erected since 2001, and (c) to freeze all settlement activity?)
Jerusalem
undivided
On 21 May 2009, just after he got
home from Washington, Netanyahu spoke at a Jerusalem Day ceremony – and ruled
out Israel relinquishing any part of Jerusalem.
He said:
“United Jerusalem is the
capital of Israel. Jerusalem has always been - and always will be - ours. It
will never again be divided or cut in half. Jerusalem will remain only under
Israel's sovereignty.” [15]
The US State Department responded,
saying:
“Jerusalem is
a final status issue. Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to resolve its
status during negotiations. We will support their efforts to reach agreements
on all final status issues.” [16]
Jerusalem is one of the final status
issues specified in the Roadmap – the others are borders, refugees and
settlements.
PLO
pre-conditions
The Palestinian position on
negotiations with the Israeli Government was set out in a statement by Saeb Erakat for the PLO on 5
May 2009 [17]. He was responding to Netanyahu’s speech to
AIPAC when he called for a “fresh approach” to peace between Palestinians and
Israelis. Erakat replied:
“Successive Israeli
governments have failed to implement their obligations under existing
agreements. When Netanyahu speaks of a fresh approach to peace, implementing
Israel’s obligations under existing agreements is precisely the fresh approach
that Palestinians and the international community expect of his government.
“This includes an
immediate freeze on all settlement activity, particularly in and around
occupied East Jerusalem, and lifting all restrictions on freedom of movement
and access for Palestinians both in and out of, as well as within, the occupied
Palestinian territory, including an immediate end to the siege on Gaza.
“And Netanyahu must
explicitly endorse the establishment of an independent, viable and sovereign
Palestinian state, which remains the cornerstone of the two-state solution.
Negotiations for their own sake, without a clearly defined end goal, are no
substitute for a just and lasting peace.
“A commitment to past
agreements, and implementation of Israel’s existing obligations, will create
the environment needed to rebuild the legitimacy and credibility of the peace
process, and send a message that the Palestinians have a partner for peace.”
Erakat said that economic prosperity
for Palestinians rested on Israel ending its occupation:
“Economic development is
a right to which Palestinians are entitled, but which they have been denied as
a result of Israel’s occupation.
“Israel’s regime of
checkpoints, road blocks, permits, settlements and the construction of Israel’s
Wall, which fragment the occupied Palestinian territory into isolated cantons
and strangle all freedom of movement for goods and people, remains the major
obstacle to economic development for Palestinians.
“Without a political
settlement, meaning an end to Israel’s occupation and the establishment of an
independent and viable Palestinian state, talk of economic peace will be seen
for what it is, namely an attempt to normalize and better manage the
occupation.”
In an interview with Akiva Eldar of
Ha’aretz on 26 May 2009, PLO negotiator, Ahmed Qureia said:
“There
will be no negotiations without an evacuation of the outposts established since
2001.” [18].
The PLO position appears to be that
there will be no negotiations with Israel unless the Israeli leadership
(a)
issues an unequivocal statement affirming its commitment to
the two-state vision of an independent, viable, sovereign Palestinian state
(b)
dismantles the settlement outposts established since 2001
(c)
freezes all settlement activity
(d)
lifts all restrictions on freedom of movement and access for
Palestinians both in and out of, as well as within, the occupied Palestinian
territory
(e)
ends the siege of Gaza
The PLO has solid grounds for setting
down these pre-conditions. Points (a),
(b) and (c) are explicitly stated in the Roadmap. Points (d) and (e) are part of the Agreement
on Movement & Access, which Israel signed in November 2005 and has signally
failed to honour since.
US
position
It remains to be seen if the PLO
will get US backing for maintaining these pre-conditions. In theory, the US agrees with them. Speaking at a special Security Council
meeting on 11 May 2009, called by Russia to discuss “the situation in the
Middle East, including the Palestinian question”, Susan Rice, the US Ambassador
to the UN, set out the US position on these points as follows:
“This meeting of the
Council underscores the priority that the international community places on
achieving a secure, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East. That
must include a two-State solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with
Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security. …
“For its part, Israel
must halt settlement activity and dismantle outposts erected since March 2001.
Israel must also allow the Palestinians freedom of movement, increased security
responsibilities and access to economic opportunities. …
“We strongly support
reopening Gaza’s border crossings in a controlled, sustained and continuous
manner with an appropriate monitoring regime involving international and
Palestinian Authority participation.” [19]
The meeting was virtually unanimous
on these points. Remarks by David
Miliband for the UK and by Bernard Kouchner for France were unusually
forthright about Israel’s obligations.
Since the meeting was to deal with
issues of interest to Israel, it could have asked to participate. However, it chose not to. Reading the proceedings of the meeting, one
can see why: if it had turned up, it would have been in a minority of one on
all these points.
Ban Ki-Moon
position
The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon,
gave a report to the meeting, which contained blistering criticism of Israel’s
behaviour. Here’s a sample:
“Palestinians continue to
see unacceptable unilateral actions in East Jerusalem and the remainder of the
West Bank — house demolitions, intensified settlement activity, settler
violence and oppressive movement restrictions due to permits, checkpoints and
the barrier, which are intimately connected to settlements. The time has come
for Israel to fundamentally change its policies in this regard, as it has
repeatedly promised to do but has not yet done. Action on the ground, together
with a genuine readiness to negotiate on all core issues, including Jerusalem,
borders and refugees, based on Israel’s existing commitments, will be the true
tests of Israel’s commitment to the two-State solution.”
“I am convinced that the
policy of continued closure of the Gaza Strip does not weaken Israel’s adversaries
in Gaza, but does untold damage to the fabric of civilian life. Nearly four
months after the conflict, in which 3,800 houses and two health-care centres
were destroyed, and 34,000 homes, 15 hospitals, 41 health-care centres and 282
schools sustained varying degrees of damage, we cannot get anything beyond food
and medicine into Gaza to assist a population that had been in the midst of a
war zone. This is completely unacceptable.
“I call on Israel to
respond positively to repeated calls to allow glass, cement and building
materials into Gaza. In the aftermath of the war and given the level of human
suffering now evident on the ground, I seek the support of all members of this
Council and the Quartet for the United Nations efforts in Gaza. We are ready to
work with local businessmen to help start action to repair and rebuild houses,
schools and clinics. I can assure all Council members that we will continue to
ensure the full integrity of programmes and projects.” [19]
UN Secretary Generals are normally
very circumspect in what they says about member states, particularly states that
are allies of the US. It is a sign of
the times that Ban Ki-Moon felt able to deliver that. He knew the US wouldn’t disapprove.
David
Morrison
29 May 2009
www.david-morrison.org.uk
References:
[1] www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-President-Obama-and-Israeli-Prime-Minister-Netanyahu-in-press-availability/
[2] www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/2009/121832.htm
[3] www.david-morrison.org.uk/us/freeman-unseated.htm
[4] www.mepc.org/whats/usleadership.asp
[5] www.usmep.us/usmep/wp-content/uploads/official-a-last-chance-for-a-two-state-israel-palestine-agreement-11.pdf
[6]
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212421175&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle
%2FShowFull
[7] www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/928652.html
[8] www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212406828&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle
%2FShowFull
[9] news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2989783.stm
[10] www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=297230
[11] www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/05/123671.htm
[12] www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/05/124009.htm
[13] www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1087368.html
[14] www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1087368.html
[15] www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Speeches+by+Israeli+leaders/2009/
Address_PM_Netanyahu_Jerusalem_Day_21-May-2009.htm
[16] www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/05/123833.htm
[17] www.nad-plo.org/inner.php?view=news-updates_050509
[18] www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1088237.html
[19] www.david-morrison.org.uk/scps/20090511.pdf