For some time there has been a debate over whether President Obama will, or should, release his own ideas about the content of an Israeli-Palestinian permanent status agreement (PSA). Now, as there appears to be a renewed push underway to launch Israeli-Palestinian permanent status talks, there is again discussion of whether it is time for President Obama to lay down some clear US ideas about those talks.
Interestingly, the Obama Administration has already gone a good way in this direction. The fact is, with little fanfare and nobody really noticing, the Obama Administration has - in speeches and other statements of President Obama and his top officials - been gradually laying out some clear premises upon which it believes any permanent status talks will be based. While these statements fall short of directly stating US expectations for the content of a PSA, they very clearly communicate US policy on some of the key permanent status issues, and it is no great leap to infer from them some clear US expectations about the shape and content of a PSA.
Transforming these discrete policy utterances into a cohesive set of premises about peace could arguably be very helpful in energizing President Obama's Middle East peace effort, reasserting US leadership and confidence in the Middle East policy arena. Doing so could also reassure Israelis and Palestinians - as well as key allies in the region whom the US needs help from in launching talks - that the US recognizes and validates their core concerns. Moreover, were the US to release a formal policy statement of some kind, along the lines discussed below, it would be very difficult for Israel or the Palestinians to attack the content, since it genuinely includes nothing that has not already been said.
Interestingly, the Obama Administration has already gone a good way in this direction. The fact is, with little fanfare and nobody really noticing, the Obama Administration has - in speeches and other statements of President Obama and his top officials - been gradually laying out some clear premises upon which it believes any permanent status talks will be based. While these statements fall short of directly stating US expectations for the content of a PSA, they very clearly communicate US policy on some of the key permanent status issues, and it is no great leap to infer from them some clear US expectations about the shape and content of a PSA.
Transforming these discrete policy utterances into a cohesive set of premises about peace could arguably be very helpful in energizing President Obama's Middle East peace effort, reasserting US leadership and confidence in the Middle East policy arena. Doing so could also reassure Israelis and Palestinians - as well as key allies in the region whom the US needs help from in launching talks - that the US recognizes and validates their core concerns. Moreover, were the US to release a formal policy statement of some kind, along the lines discussed below, it would be very difficult for Israel or the Palestinians to attack the content, since it genuinely includes nothing that has not already been said.
So what are we talking about? Drawing from various statements
delivered by President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and White
House Spokesman Gibbs from September 2009 to the present, one can
cobble together the following framework statement for re-starting final
status talks (this is just one arrangement of quotes - others are
possible. No words have been changed in any of the quotes).
A first inference is that the Obama Administration supports the establishment of a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. The Obama Administration has emphasized that it believes an agreement is possible that realizes the aspirations of both parties for Jerusalem. The core aspiration of the Palestinians in Jerusalem is clear: a capital in East Jerusalem. The core aspiration of Israel is less clear - politically, any talk of sharing or dividing Jerusalem is politically divisive, but since Camp David (where the Israeli side accepted the idea of a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem), no Israeli can seriously claim that holding on to every inch of East Jerusalem is a core Israeli aspiration. The US statements opposing Israeli settlement construction and home demolitions in East Jerusalem bolster this inference.
A second inference is that the Obama Administration believes that borders, and border negotiations, should be based on the 1967 lines. The Obama Administration has not directly recognized the 1967 border as the starting point for negotiations, but it has done so implicitly by referencing the Palestinian aspiration for "an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines with agreed swaps" and the US goal of an agreement "that ends the occupation that began in 1967."
A third inference is that, consistent with what has been established in past negotiations, the Obama Administration assumes that Israel will keep some West Bank territory beyond the 1967 border, and that the Palestinians will be compensated through mutually agreed-on land swaps. In contrast to the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration has neither explicitly nor implicitly accepted the Israeli position that certain settlement "blocs" are not up for negotiations. However, by referencing the Palestinian aspiration for a state based on the 1967 line "with agreed swaps" alongside the Israeli aspiration for "recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements," the implication is that the US expects a PSA to include mutually agreed-upon land swaps that will address Israeli core equities (some settlements) and Palestinian core equities (contiguity, one-to-one ratio). Moreover, the US reference to the goal of "a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory" would seem to rule out US support for Israeli plans to try to retain settlements located deep inside the West Bank (through "fingers"). Similarly, the reference to a PSA "that ends the occupation that began in 1967" would seem to rule out US support for Israeli efforts to retain control of the Jordan Valley.
A fourth and final inference (and perhaps a weaker one) is that the Obama Administration does not accept the Israeli demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, but does agree to Israel's right to define itself however it wishes. The formula invoked by the Obama Administration references "the Israeli goal of a Jewish state." It notably does not say "the Israeli goal of Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state."
The United States is committed to a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East. That includes a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that results in two states, Israel and Palestine, in which both the Israeli people and the Palestinian people can live in peace and security and realize their aspirations for a better life for their children (link).As noted earlier, it is no great leap to infer from the foregoing some clear US expectations about the shape and content of a permanent status agreement. For anyone familiar with the content of the Camp David negotiations, the Taba talks, or the Geneva Accord, these points all seem obvious - but that does not detract from the importance of a US position that references them, even inferentially.
Negotiations: The time has come to re-launch negotiations, without preconditions, that address the permanent status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians, borders, refugees, and Jerusalem (link).
Security: The U.S. commitment to Israel's security is and will remain unshakeable. It can best be achieved through comprehensive peace in the region, including a two-state solution with a Palestinian state living side by side in peace with Israel (link).
Jerusalem: The United States recognizes that Jerusalem is a deeply important issue for Israelis and Palestinians, and for Jews, Muslims, and Christians (link). We believe that through good faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome that realizes the aspirations of both parties for Jerusalem, and safeguards its status for people around the world (link). Neither party should engage in efforts or take actions that could unilaterally pre-empt, or appear to pre-empt, negotiations (link). The United States opposes new Israeli construction in East Jerusalem (link). The U.S. objects to Israeli practices in Jerusalem related to housing, including the continuing pattern of evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes (link).
Settlements: Continued settlement activity is inconsistent with Israel's commitment under the Roadmap. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement expansion and we urge that it stop (link).
Borders/land swaps: Through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements (link). The goal is clear: a Jewish state of Israel with true security for all Israelis; a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967 (link).
A first inference is that the Obama Administration supports the establishment of a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. The Obama Administration has emphasized that it believes an agreement is possible that realizes the aspirations of both parties for Jerusalem. The core aspiration of the Palestinians in Jerusalem is clear: a capital in East Jerusalem. The core aspiration of Israel is less clear - politically, any talk of sharing or dividing Jerusalem is politically divisive, but since Camp David (where the Israeli side accepted the idea of a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem), no Israeli can seriously claim that holding on to every inch of East Jerusalem is a core Israeli aspiration. The US statements opposing Israeli settlement construction and home demolitions in East Jerusalem bolster this inference.
A second inference is that the Obama Administration believes that borders, and border negotiations, should be based on the 1967 lines. The Obama Administration has not directly recognized the 1967 border as the starting point for negotiations, but it has done so implicitly by referencing the Palestinian aspiration for "an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines with agreed swaps" and the US goal of an agreement "that ends the occupation that began in 1967."
A third inference is that, consistent with what has been established in past negotiations, the Obama Administration assumes that Israel will keep some West Bank territory beyond the 1967 border, and that the Palestinians will be compensated through mutually agreed-on land swaps. In contrast to the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration has neither explicitly nor implicitly accepted the Israeli position that certain settlement "blocs" are not up for negotiations. However, by referencing the Palestinian aspiration for a state based on the 1967 line "with agreed swaps" alongside the Israeli aspiration for "recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements," the implication is that the US expects a PSA to include mutually agreed-upon land swaps that will address Israeli core equities (some settlements) and Palestinian core equities (contiguity, one-to-one ratio). Moreover, the US reference to the goal of "a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory" would seem to rule out US support for Israeli plans to try to retain settlements located deep inside the West Bank (through "fingers"). Similarly, the reference to a PSA "that ends the occupation that began in 1967" would seem to rule out US support for Israeli efforts to retain control of the Jordan Valley.
A fourth and final inference (and perhaps a weaker one) is that the Obama Administration does not accept the Israeli demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, but does agree to Israel's right to define itself however it wishes. The formula invoked by the Obama Administration references "the Israeli goal of a Jewish state." It notably does not say "the Israeli goal of Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state."
Tweet
Email a friend
feed
twitter
facebook
Thank you Lara, this is very helpful. I worry that the Administration is not standing firmly enough on any of this, though, not even on advancing the ideas themselves in the public discourse. I continue to hope that Obama and Clinton are, in Lincolnian fashion, waiting to be led from behind on this by the American Jewish public -- but even if that's the case, with an apparent new war brewing in Gaza, I don't know that anyone has time for it.
Lara
I agree that the Obama Administration is pushing to restart talks, and you have skillfully outlined the boundaries the Administration is setting out. But these talks will not lead anywhere unless the Administration takes additional steps. I will start with some comments on your inferences.
Your first inference is that “the Obama Administration supports the establishment of a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem.” No doubt. But how does the Administration expect that to happen with Netanyahu and his ministers making statements that Israel will never divide Jerusalem and will never give-up any of Jerusalem and an intensive Israeli program of Palestinian evictions and demolitions and new building new and expanded settlements? Obviously the American and Israeli governments are on different pages.
I see no prospect of the present, or any future, Israeli government changing its Jerusalem policy as long as the United States continues to give Israel unconditional diplomatic, financial, and military support. This uncritical U.S. support is basically rewarding Israel for acting as it does – namely ethnically cleansing Jerusalem.
For the Obama Administration to get Israel to be a real partner for peace, the U.S. has to get Israel to change its behavior. The only way I see that happening is for the U.A. to make its support conditional on real progress towards peace.
There is talk that if the U.S. sets out a detailed peace plan, both parties will accept it. Nonsense. In 2009 the U.S. set out the idea that freezing settlement growth is a necessary step for peace. The Netanyahu government refused to comply. And then the U.S. rewarded Israel by stopping the Goldstone report from moving forward in the U.N. Security Council.
Any detailed plan “imposed” on the parties will be resented by both sides. Putting out a detailed plan is not the way forward. The way forward is for the U.S. to make clear to Israel, by action and not just talk, that U.S. diplomatic, financial, and military support is conditional on real progress towards peace. That will be a game-changer that will trigger Israel to change its behavior.
Thank you Laura
This is the only way to peace.
Having lived as a child through the Geman occupation---every occupation is violence.
It does violence to the occupied and the occupier.
The sooner the occupation ends the better for Israel.
Every day the humiliations of the Palestinians goes on, more hatred against Israel is created.
It basically looks like the Clinton parameters from Dec. 2000 plus the recognition that there will be equal swaps of territory. Unfortunately, neither side is ready to accept these conditions at present. So massive pressure would be necessary in order to get them to agree. We can probably expect the conflict to continue as many on both sides have a vested interest in its continuation.