Freezing the Peace Process

Having spent most of the past year dealing with intransigence from the Palestinian side caused by a demand made in his Cairo speech that Israel halt construction in “settlements” and then suffering from damage from the fallout from the Ides of March implosion over an announcement about plans to construct housing in a suburb of Jerusalem (remember the whole Biden-Clinton reaction to Yishai?), the President recently went before the UN hoping to preserve peace talks by stating that Israel must extend a freeze that did nothing to promote talks in the first place! Not only that, in fact, the demand that it enact such a freeze resulted in a freeze in negotiations and the first preconditions to talks since 1993. For 17 years, talks occurred without preconditions. Beyond this incongruity in thought and action is the fact that there is a profound disagreement as to what constituted the “freeze” to begin with. Israel never included the environs of Jerusalem, nor did it wish to include the major “settlement blocs” which it believes will be part of Israel after any agreement with agreed upon territorial exchanges. Included in the “freeze” as far as Israel was concerned, at least this is my understanding, were those settlements and outposts that would likely be on the PA side after an agreement. The PA wants to see ALL of the pre-1967 West Bank frozen, including Jerusalem. Israel cannot possibly freeze all construction in Jerusalem.

So what exactly is the US insisting upon? Without specification, the demand for an extension of the “freeze” is simply going to cause problems without helping at all. Those who wish to see Israel in breech of a promise will be able to do so, while the peace process languishes. If you oppose the peace process, you might like this situation. But it makes no sense for an administration that seems bent on promoting negotiations. Worse, as Barry Rubin recently pointed out, the administration is seeking an extension only through the US election! One might ask whether or not it benefits this administration to appear to be pressuring Israel right before the election when polls overwhelmingly support the opposite position, especially among Israel conscious Jewish Democratic voters who are frustrated, angry, and disillusioned to no little degree. This will not help the prospects for Democrats in the upcoming elections, so if indeed the demand for an extension of the freeze is timed to the elections, it would appear to be ill conceived.

Meanwhile there are continued calls for Avigdor Lieberman to resign so that Israel will be able to negotiate more effectively. I look at it this way, the primary goal of Kadima seems (seemed?) to be promotion of the peace process. If Kadima entered the government, instead of sitting in opposition while actually supporting the Netanyahu government’s promotion of negotiations anyway, Tzipi Livni would be leading the negotiations, not Lieberman. Those who would like to see Lieberman out, should be upset that Kadima has chosen to remain on the sidelines rather than entering the government and helping to marginalize those who would make an agreement difficult. Kadima is not helping to promote peace by remaining in the opposition. Just my two cents.