What it took to get Israelis and Palestinians to agree to talks
By David Ignatius
The Washington Post
August 20, 2010; 1:38 PM ET
The Israeli-Palestinian direct peace talks planned to open next month in Washington have been framed, of necessity, with ambiguity about what guidelines, if any, will shape the negotiating process.
The Palestinian side agreed Friday to come to the talks based on a statement of principles that was issued by the Quartet, a group of nations that includes the U.S., Russia and the members of the European Union. That document calls on the parties “to resolve all final status issues,” such as Jerusalem and refugees. It also affirms the goal of “a just, lasting and comprehensive regional peace as envisaged in the Madrid terms of reference, Security Council resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative.”
Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, however, has not affirmed these Quartet principles in agreeing to join the Washington talks. He is responding to the invitation issued by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, without endorsing any terms of reference. Indeed, Netanyahu is said to have explicitly rejected the language of the Quartet statement as a framing document.
It’s a classic piece of diplomacy: One side is responding to one letter of invitation; the other is responding to a subtly different request. It’s a finesse that has succeeded in getting both to the table, but it also highlights the huge differences that exist between the two sides -- and could scuttle the talks.
The Obama administration is also finessing the question of whether the moratorium on Israeli settlement-building, which is set to expire in late September, will be extended. Administration officials had hoped Netanyahu he would agree to an extension as a confidence-building measure before the talks started. But he hasn’t given any formal assurance. Now, American officials are evidently hoping that once talks are rolling, the Israeli prime minister won’t want to blow them up by resuming settlement activity -- and won’t want the political onus of being seen as having undermined the U.S.-led peace effort.
The Arab side has feared that Netanyahu would drag out negotiations without delivering major concessions. In a nod to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Friday’s announcement said there would be a one-year time limit on the talks.
After opening meetings in Washington on Sept. 1 and 2, U.S. officials plan to move the talks to a venue where the parties can bargain without intrusion. Camp David in Maryland and the Wye Plantation on the Eastern Shore have provided such hideaway meeting places in the past. This time U.S. officials have looked at a range of sites, from White Oak in Florida to retreats in the Middleburg area of Virginia. The final location hasn’t been set, but senior officials favor a spot that’s relatively close to Washington.
The opening of direct Israeli-Palestinian peace talks will be a milestone for President Obama, who came to office with high hopes that he could achieve a breakthrough but quickly discovered the pitfalls of peacemaking. It’s the culmination of a process that included unusual outreach to the Arab world, including his speech in Cairo last year. It also follows the withdrawal of the last official U.S. combat troops from Iraq and Obama’s defense of the right of Muslims to build a mosque in the neighborhood of “ground zero” in lower Manhattan -- all steps aimed in part at engaging Arab and Muslim critics of the U.S.
From the first, the administration has been divided over the question of whether the talks should be framed by an opening statement of principles (as the Arabs wanted) or be open-ended (as the Israelis insisted). In the end, they appear to have had it both ways.
But if it was this hard to get people to agree to come to the table, that surely doesn’t bode well for the larger issues that need to be resolved.
The Washington Post
August 20, 2010; 1:38 PM ET
The Israeli-Palestinian direct peace talks planned to open next month in Washington have been framed, of necessity, with ambiguity about what guidelines, if any, will shape the negotiating process.
The Palestinian side agreed Friday to come to the talks based on a statement of principles that was issued by the Quartet, a group of nations that includes the U.S., Russia and the members of the European Union. That document calls on the parties “to resolve all final status issues,” such as Jerusalem and refugees. It also affirms the goal of “a just, lasting and comprehensive regional peace as envisaged in the Madrid terms of reference, Security Council resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative.”
Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, however, has not affirmed these Quartet principles in agreeing to join the Washington talks. He is responding to the invitation issued by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, without endorsing any terms of reference. Indeed, Netanyahu is said to have explicitly rejected the language of the Quartet statement as a framing document.
It’s a classic piece of diplomacy: One side is responding to one letter of invitation; the other is responding to a subtly different request. It’s a finesse that has succeeded in getting both to the table, but it also highlights the huge differences that exist between the two sides -- and could scuttle the talks.
The Obama administration is also finessing the question of whether the moratorium on Israeli settlement-building, which is set to expire in late September, will be extended. Administration officials had hoped Netanyahu he would agree to an extension as a confidence-building measure before the talks started. But he hasn’t given any formal assurance. Now, American officials are evidently hoping that once talks are rolling, the Israeli prime minister won’t want to blow them up by resuming settlement activity -- and won’t want the political onus of being seen as having undermined the U.S.-led peace effort.
The Arab side has feared that Netanyahu would drag out negotiations without delivering major concessions. In a nod to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Friday’s announcement said there would be a one-year time limit on the talks.
After opening meetings in Washington on Sept. 1 and 2, U.S. officials plan to move the talks to a venue where the parties can bargain without intrusion. Camp David in Maryland and the Wye Plantation on the Eastern Shore have provided such hideaway meeting places in the past. This time U.S. officials have looked at a range of sites, from White Oak in Florida to retreats in the Middleburg area of Virginia. The final location hasn’t been set, but senior officials favor a spot that’s relatively close to Washington.
The opening of direct Israeli-Palestinian peace talks will be a milestone for President Obama, who came to office with high hopes that he could achieve a breakthrough but quickly discovered the pitfalls of peacemaking. It’s the culmination of a process that included unusual outreach to the Arab world, including his speech in Cairo last year. It also follows the withdrawal of the last official U.S. combat troops from Iraq and Obama’s defense of the right of Muslims to build a mosque in the neighborhood of “ground zero” in lower Manhattan -- all steps aimed in part at engaging Arab and Muslim critics of the U.S.
From the first, the administration has been divided over the question of whether the talks should be framed by an opening statement of principles (as the Arabs wanted) or be open-ended (as the Israelis insisted). In the end, they appear to have had it both ways.
But if it was this hard to get people to agree to come to the table, that surely doesn’t bode well for the larger issues that need to be resolved.
posted by Hanan Elbadry at 9:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home