Elliott Abrams

Pressure Points

Abrams gives his take on U.S. foreign policy, with special focus on the Middle East and democracy and human rights issues.

Print Print Email Email Share Share Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close

loading...

Israeli and Palestinians: What If They Get to the Table?

by Elliott Abrams
July 1, 2013

Secretary of State Kerry has dedicated enormous amounts of time to getting the Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table.  The last serious negotiations took place toward the end of the Bush administration, and failed when the PLO rejected a remarkable offer from then-prime minister Ehud Olmert. An attempt to get negotiations started was made by the Obama administration on September 1st, 2010, but after a round of talks in Washington things broke down very quickly.

The problem has in my view been the imposition of preconditions by the Palestinian side, including a demand for a total construction freeze in settlements and in Jerusalem. Here the Obama administration deserves mention as well, for its adoption of the demand for a total freeze put PLO chairman and PA president Mahmoud Abbas in a corner: he could not demand less than the Americans, at that point led by George Mitchell and Hillary Clinton, were demanding.

Because neither the Israelis or Palestinians want to get blamed by Mr. Kerry or the United States for blocking talks, Kerry may well “succeed:” that is, he may get talks started. This may not happen at the top level of Abbas and Netanyahu, but serious talks can be held a level or two down.

I put quotation marks around “succeed” because the goal, after all, is not getting them to the table; it is getting an agreement. Some good is done by getting a negotiation started, of course: it may calm the situation in the West Bank for a while–if, and only if, it is accompanied by moves that make life easier there. Here the Kerry efforts on the economic side are a very good adjunct to his diplomatic activities. If talks continue for several months we may get through the UN General Assembly this Fall without a huge Palestinian diplomatic effort against Israel at the UN and other international bodies–especially in UN agencies whose admission of “Palestine” to membership would trigger a freeze on American payments (as has happened in UNESCO).

On the down side, a collapse of talks could create additional tensions. Presumably both sides, and Secretary Kerry, know this and would seek to avoid a sudden collapse if talks do begin.

But what has been and remains mysterious to me is why Mr. Kerry thinks progress will be made on final status issues if and when he manages to get talks started. What’s new here that would lead to optimism? All that is new in the region–from tensions between Hamas and Fatah that make concessions tougher for Abbas to troubles inside Likud that pressure Netanyahu against concessions, to the situations in Lebanon and Jordan, the amazing levels of violence in Syria, and the current instability on Egypt–suggests that making peace will be harder, not easier, than in the past when attempts after all failed.

There is a viewpoint that the two sides are “an inch apart” and just a bit of serious negotiating will bridge the gap, but that has always seemed nonsense to me (and I discuss this in detail in my recent book, Tested By Zion: The Bush Administration and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict). An inch apart on the many Israeli security demands, such as control of the Palestinian air space and electro-magnetic spectrum and of the Jordan Valley? An inch apart on Jerusalem itself, which great numbers of Israelis do not wish to see divided ever again but which most Palestinians demand at least significant parts of as their capital? An inch apart on the “refugee” issue–when Palestinian leaders have never told their own people that there will be no “right of return” and that Palestinian “refugees” will never go to Israel? To the extent that “everyone knows what an agreement would look like,” both Israeli and Palestinian leaders and populations have for decades rejected those terms.

One can be an optimist about whether Kerry will be able to get talks started and a pessimist about whether those talks will go anywhere. And that’s my view.

 

 

Post a Comment 5 Comments

  • Posted by EthanP

    Above all else, what promises can the Palestinians ever make that Israel could ever believe and thus accept. The Palestinians, indeed most Arabs, say again and again that any agreements with the hated ‘Zionist’ entity is nothing more than taqiyya. Dissimulation to lul an enemy to think they are safe. Thus, first show peace. Then and only then can Israel make a real peace.

  • Posted by Bea

    The Arab Peace Initiative belies the notion that Arabs do not want a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Indeed, it is Netanyahu that has dismissed this offer. Given that the Likud Charter rejects a sovereign Palestinian state, the Kerry shuttle may lead to only air miles points, unless the Obama administration is ready to put some pressure on the Likud government. Anything else will be futile.

  • Posted by Roberta

    Bea, the so-called Arab Peace Initiative calls for the “right of return” ie the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state. And that is after Israel goes back to the pre-67 Auschwitz borders. So it is essentially a two state solution in which both states are Arab/Muslim. That is why Netanyahu dismissed it.

  • Posted by G. Khadra

    The write claims to be an expert on foreign policy but then shows a dangerous ignorance of the fact that the end to the settlement enterprise is an item in the Roadmap for peace (which was approved by both the Palestinians and the Israeli gov’t of Ariel Sharon).

    So, no, Abbas – or Obama for the matter – didn’t bring the settlement freeze out of their hats, Mr. Abrams.

  • Posted by Mikail

    Abrams is no expert on the Middle East. Those who truly have a grasp on the complex issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict know that this person has been and still is a cheer leader for Israeli expansionist policies. Is he so stupid not to know that Israeli settlement building is the one major impediment preventing the peace process ever moving forward. Demanding a halt to Israeli settlement activity is not a precondition, it is a necessity and must be put in place now – not later. Otherwise there will be little land left for the Palestinians to have their own state! Abrams – read the Mitchell Report…

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required

Pingbacks