July 30, 2013: “Our objective
will be to achieve a final status agreement over the course of the next nine
months” – John Kerry, US Secretary of State.
December 7,
2013: “It is possible over the next
several months to arrive at a framework that does not address every single
detail but gets us to a point where everybody recognizes it’s better to move
forward than go backwards.” – Barack Obama, US President.
The aspirational target announced by Kerry back in July, at the start of
the current round of peace talks between Israel Middle East by Kerry, 24 rounds of
talks between the principal negotiators – and yet a final status agreement
remains way beyond reach.
Is US
“Rather than declare failure,” observes political analyst Herb Keinon, “what Kerry and US President Barack Obama
have done is to change the name of the game.”
So what is now being sought is “not an agreement, but a basis to allow
continued negotiations toward an agreement.”
In short, they shifted the goalposts – and in so doing, they redefined
the criteria by which “success” is to be judged. The desired outcome is now no longer a “final
status agreement”, but what has been dubbed a “framework agreement”, defined as
a
critical first step towards a comprehensive Middle East
peace accord. Kerry is currently heavily engaged in trying to win the
concurrence of the two negotiating teams to a document encapsulating this
framework. The statement will seek to
achieve enough of a convergence on core issues to allow the two sides to
proceed later, in a so-far unspecified time frame extending well beyond the
original nine months, towards a formal peace agreement whose final outcome is to
be a sovereign Palestinian state.
Informed sources indicate that the so-called “framework agreement” – which, rumour
has it, is to be issued within the next few weeks –
will be a short document, perhaps fewer than a dozen pages and without detailed
annexes. It would not be signed by Israeli and Palestinian leaders, and would
most likely take note of reservations that the two sides have about some
elements.
The mere prospect
of this framework accord – to say nothing of a final status agreement, if or when
it finally appears – is beginning to
produce political ructions in both Jerusalem Israel Washington
The substance of
the negotiations undertaken during those twenty-four, no doubt wearisome,
sessions has not been revealed. The
blanket of secrecy imposed by Kerry at the very start of the process has, by
and large, been successfully maintained. A few self-styled “informed” leaks
there have been, but how valid they are is anyone’s guess. Kerry insisted – and with some justification –
that it was vital for the parties to be able to negotiate freely, and without
the political and media pressure that would undoubtedly have built up if
regular progress reports had been issued.
But there is an
obverse to that particular coin. The
absence of hard information provides a breeding ground in both camps for rumour,
and for fear of where the talks are headed and what vital matters are being
conceded. Even worse, with no indication
of whether the negotiations are indeed leading the parties towards agreement,
neither Israeli nor Palestinian public opinion is being prepared for a
successful outcome. This is particularly
obvious on the Palestinian side, where traditional anti-Israel,
“anti-normalization”, demonstrations continue unabated. and where Kerry was met
by hostile and vociferous protesters on his latest visit to Ramallah. Inside Israel
In short, while
more extreme voices on both sides continue to express profound lack of
confidence in the negotiations and in those undertaking them, any sort of
countervailing body of opinion pushing for a successful outcome, organizing pro-agreement
demonstrations, urging the leaders to reach an accord, preparing the public for
peace, has so far been notably absent in both the Palestinian territories and Israel, although - a hopeful sign?- one such demonstration actually took place in Israel on January 17. Nevertheless it is pretty clear that neither side is yet ready to embrace the concept of peaceful
co-existence, and that, following the framework agreement, substantive discussions are likely to extend well beyond
April 2014 into an indefinite future, with no assurance of a successful outcome.
The situation leaves a bitter taste
in the mouth. A horrid suspicion persists that, at the end of the day, the mountain
will have laboured mightily and brought forth a mouse. If current reports are to be believed, the framework
agreement will have been signed by neither of the prime movers - Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu or PA President Abbas. It will be, reports suggest, an American
statement, setting out what the peace discussions have so far achieved, but
also apparently detailing areas of remaining disagreement. A statement, in short, of the obvious. The reaction on all sides might well be: “Tell
us something we don’t know.” If this is
to be claimed by Washington
as success, and a result commensurate with John Kerry’s intensive efforts to
bring the parties to an agreement, then the shifting of the original goalposts
will scarcely have been justified.
Published in the Jerusalem Post on-line, 20 January 2014:
http://www.jpost.com/Experts/Moving-the-goalposts-338781?prmusr=n65mevlw3aN8qJ2fLtNirqpM3PrFge8Qag0i3ghJAcRDRqCYgbHOrKXrtWa7YUuq
Published in the Eurasia Review, 19 January 2014:
No comments:
Post a Comment