Annapolis and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

[Jedburgh]

International Security, Fall 07: "Muting the Alarm over the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict"
The New York Times versus Haaretz, 2000-06

...the prevailing view in the United States is that the Palestinians are overwhelmingly responsible for the continuing violence and political deadlock, and therefore there is little reason or justification for significant changes in the long-standing U.S. policy of nearly unconditional support of Israel.

This article argues that a major explanation for this widespread but erroneous U.S. consensus is the largely uninformed and uncritical mainstream and even elite media coverage in the United States of Israeli policies, a consequence of which is that alarm bells that should be sounded loudly and clearly are muted. In contrast, the debate in Israel is much more far-ranging, and includes a substantial body of dissenting opinion—especially among the elites—arguing that Israel bears a considerable share of the responsibility for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Although this is still a minority view, candid criticisms of Israeli policy appear regularly in the Israeli press and news magazines, as well as in public statements by leading scholars, writers, retired military officers, intelligence officials, and even some politicians.

Because public discourse in Israel is often self-critical and vigorous, there is at least the possibility of change in the policies that have thwarted a comprehensive peace settlement with the Palestinians. Even so, most Israeli critics take for granted that the prospect for substantial change in Israeli policies would be greatly enhanced if demanded by the U.S. government and accompanied by serious and sustained pressures. So long as U.S. public discourse about Israel and its policies toward the Palestinians remains so one-sided, however, this is unlikely to occur—no matter who the president is or who controls Congress—because on this issue, there is no discernible difference between the Republican and Democratic Parties or their leading presidential candidates....

Complete 37 page paper at the link.

[Tom Odom]

Good article. The overall conclusion of the final paragraph is unfortunately true.

There are few indications that the leaders of either the Republican or Democratic Parties understand the necessity for policy changes. The combination of U.S. public and governmental ignorance, domestic politics, fundamentalist Christian ideology, right-wing Jewish inºuence, and a commendable but simplistic overall U.S. moral commitment to Israel has produced an astonishing immobilism in U.S. policy, in reckless disregard for the easily observable and plainly disastrous consequences for the Israelis and the Palestinians, as well as for critical U.S. national interests. Yet, without a reeducation of U.S. officials and the public at large, it is unlikely that there will be serious changes in U.S. policies—at least not before a catastrophe occurs, and maybe not eventhen. Acrucial place to begin this process of reeducation would be in the pages of the New York Times.

[Jedburgh]

WINEP, Dec 08: Security First: U.S. Priorities in Israeli-Palestinian Peacemaking

.....Earlier this year, when Annapolis-related efforts were in high gear, the Bush administration had no less than three U.S. generals operating in the Israeli-Palestinian arena, tasked with supervising the implementation of past commitments, overseeing Palestinian security training, and devising a security concept for future regional peacemaking. This unique initiative prompted The Washington Institute to take a closer look at the security aspect of diplomacy that is attracting such intensive U.S. focus. To that end, we invited three well respected former U.S. officials—security experts J. D. Crouch II, Walter B. Slocombe, and Gen. Montgomery C. Meigs (Ret.)—to comprise an Israeli-Palestinian security assessment project charged with undertaking an independent analysis of the U.S. role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process with specific reference to the question of security.

At the time, we believed that their findings would be useful to U.S. officials planning for a possible breakthrough in negotiations for a final-status agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Such a breakthrough did not occur, however, and this study has evolved accordingly. Instead of focusing on the appropriate U.S. contribution to the security aspects of an ultimate Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, the assessment team focused instead on security as a precondition for the achievement of mutual confidence and trust—both of which are required for the parties to resume serious negotiations and later implement an agreement in the event of a breakthrough.

The team reached three main conclusions: (1) the peace process can only succeed once the Palestinian Authority fields security forces willing and able to fight terrorism, giving Israel confidence to draw down its own forces in the West Bank; (2) U.S. efforts to promote peace should therefore include a substantial investment in the training and equipping of such Palestinian forces; and (3) no deployment of third-party troops, including NATO forces, will relieve the Palestinians from the requirement of securing their own territory. The team’s specific recommendations for implementing these principles are sober, practical, and born of the political realities of the Middle East.....

[skiguy]

"Muting the Alarm over the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict"

One thing I was hoping this article would reveal is the historical significance and legitimacy of the Palestinian people and their right to the land. This seems to be one of the, if not the, major problem for the religious right and other neocons to accept, and the information out there is scant or difficult (for me) to find. Are there any good academic sources/books that explain this well?
Preferably not Wikipedia, as that is a "problem" for the professors at AMU. Any sources you guys may give will be greatly appreciated and I'm sure will be used in my future Middle Eastern Studies courses.

-----
I have read Rashid Khalidi's "Palestinian Identity", but of course I'm accused of Leftist, Pro-Palestinian bias whenever I bring it up in conversation.

[Jedburgh]

ICG, 20 Jul 09: Israel's Religious Right and the Question of Settlements

Benjamin Netanyahu is in a bind. Israel is facing arguably unprecedented pressure to halt all settlement activity, led by a new and surprisingly determined U.S. administration. But the prime minister also heads a distinctly right-wing coalition and faces intense domestic pressure from settlers and their allies. However important, what will emerge from current discussions between Washington and Jerusalem will only be step one in a long process designed to achieve a settlement freeze, settlement evacuation and a genuine peace agreement with the Palestinians. Understanding how Israel might deal with these challenges requires understanding a key yet often ignored constituency – its growing and increasingly powerful religious right.....

[Air-On]

Before joining SWJ, I had never heard of these Annapolis conferences on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Their conclusions, pointing to the need of "reeducating" the politicians, apparently succeeded although "under wraps", once Obama's current positions towards Israel are in contradiction to his campaign promises. Nonetheless, what had begun still during the Bush administration – the US backed training of PA/ Fatah security forces, supposedly to strengthen Mohamed Abbas as a "Peace Partner" vis-à-vis Israel, has resulted in a backhanded blackmail move against her, paid up by US tax money, and played up by her once "staunch" ally… The text below was published both in the Jerusalem Post and in Caroline Glick's blog on May 28, 2009. Given such picture, this week's threat by the PA of unilaterally proclaiming a "Palestinian State" within two years, inevitably smells like "US sponsored".

http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2009/...s-of-eil-2.php
"America's Betrayal of Israel" or "Israel and the Axis of Evil"
…Beyond Obama's timeline, over the past week, two other developments made it apparent that regardless of what Iran does, the Obama administration will not revise its policy of placing its Middle East emphasis on weakening Israel rather than on stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. First, last Friday, Yediot Aharonot reported that at a recent lecture in Washington, US Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton, who is responsible for training Palestinian military forces in Jordan, indicated that if Israel does not surrender Judea and Samaria within two years, the Palestinian forces he and his fellow American officers are now training at a cost of more than $300 million could begin killing Israelis.
Assuming the veracity of Yediot's report, even more unsettling than Dayton's certainty that within a short period of time these US-trained forces could commence murdering Israelis, is his seeming equanimity in the face of the known consequences of his actions. The prospect of US-trained Palestinian military forces slaughtering Jews does not cause Dayton to have a second thought about the wisdom of the US's commitment to building and training a Palestinian army.
Dayton's statement laid bare the disturbing fact that even though the administration is fully aware of the costs of its approach to the Palestinian conflict with Israel, it is still unwilling to reconsider it. Defense Secretary Robert Gates just extended Dayton's tour of duty for an additional two years and gave him the added responsibility of serving as Obama's Middle East mediator George Mitchell's deputy.
FOUR DAYS after Dayton's remarks were published, senior American and Israeli officials met in London. The reported purpose of the high-level meeting was to discuss how Israel will abide by the administration's demand that it prohibit all construction inside Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria.
What was most notable about the meeting was its timing. By holding the meeting the day after North Korea tested its bomb and after Iran's announcement that it rejects the US's offer to negotiate about its nuclear program, the administration demonstrated that regardless of what Iran does, Washington's commitment to putting the screws on Israel is not subject to change. All of this of course is music to the mullahs' ears. Between America's impotence against their North Korean allies and its unshakable commitment to keeping Israel on the hot seat, the Iranians know that they have no reason to worry about Uncle Sam.
As for Israel, it is a good thing that the IDF has scheduled the largest civil defense drill in the country's history for next week. Between North Korea's nuclear test, Iran's brazen bellicosity and America's betrayal, it is clear that the government can do nothing to impact Washington's policies toward Iran. No destruction of Jewish communities will convince Obama to act against Iran.
Today Israel stands alone against the mullahs and their bomb. And this, like the US's decision to stand down against the Axis of Evil, is not subject to change.

[jmm99]

as David stated elsewhere, fixed lines tend to dominate matters Israeli and Palestinian. So, he who is in the middle tends to be shelled.

LTG Keith Dayton's 7 May 2009 Soref address contains nothing like what was reported on the Caroline Glick blog - unless my eyes blinked at the wrong time.

Nor, do the "blogged" comments (alleged to Dayton) appear in two Israel Policy Forum (IPF) reports in May:

Keith Dayton Reports on Palestinian Security Capability, and the Need for Palestinian Statehood (20 May 2009).

Profile: Yediot Acharonoth on Lt.Gen. Keith Dayton (22 May 2009).

As noted above, I may have missed something (no problem in being proved wrong); but I would like to see the original documentation of LTG Dayton's text - not what someone alleges he says.

I will start believing in a US pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel conspiracy when Rahm Emmanuel resigns as WH CoS in protest against it.

[Rex Brynen]

Before joining SWJ, I had never heard of these Annapolis conferences on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Their conclusions, pointing to the need of "reeducating" the politicians, apparently succeeded although "under wraps", once Obama's current positions towards Israel are in contradiction to his campaign promises.

The Annapolis process was the series of peace negotiations between the then Olmert government in Israel and the PA, started under US auspices (but with little subsequent direct US involvement) in November 2007. The negotiations were reported on pretty much daily in the Israeli press throughout the period, albeit with little detail.

There seems to be a widespread consensus in the Obama Administration that a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in the interests of the US, Israel, and the Palestinians alike--a view still shared by many, and likely most, Israelis and Palestinians. Recent polls show that while many Israelis (40%) think Obama's policies lean towards the Palestinians, but an even larger proportion of Palestinians (61%) thinks it leans towards the Israelis.

Sadly, there is slippage on both sides in the degree of public support for the most likely (Clinton Parameters / Geneva Accord -type) solution. I suspect that this is because of the lack of mutual confidence between the two sides, and it doesn't make the process any easier.

As for the PA security forces, it seems self-evident that the PA needs paramilitary capabilities if it is to contain violent threats to Israel. The gradual but now significant relaxation of IDF checkpoints in the West Bank is clear evidence that the Israeli security establishment has some confidence that this is paying off. The improvements in domestic policing/rule of law also have some political benefits for the Abbas and Fayyad, although this is counterbalanced to some extent by the popular perception that the PA has become a gendarmerie protecting Israeli interests.

[Air-On]

Respected Members,
I stand corrected.
First, I mistakenly referred to the so called "Annapolis Process", instead of the particular news (to me) about the work of the three former U.S. officials—security experts J. D. Crouch II, Walter B. Slocombe, and Gen. Montgomery C. Meigs (Ret.) mentioned in Jedburgh's post:

.....Earlier this year, when Annapolis-related efforts were in high gear…. The Washington Institute to take a closer look at the security aspect of diplomacy that is attracting such intensive U.S. focus. To that end, we invited three well respected former U.S. officials—security experts J. D. Crouch II, Walter B. Slocombe, and Gen. Montgomery C. Meigs (Ret.)—to comprise an Israeli-Palestinian security assessment project charged with undertaking an independent analysis of the U.S. role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process with specific reference to the question of security.
At the time, we believed that their findings would be useful to U.S. officials planning for a possible breakthrough in negotiations for a final-status agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Such a breakthrough did not occur,

Then Jmm99 wrote:

LTG Keith Dayton's 7 May 2009 Soref address contains nothing like what was reported on the Caroline Glick blog - unless my eyes blinked at the wrong time.

True, I read it through, and I agree that it contains nothing of the kind. However, Caroline Glick's article indicates her source as the respected Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot from a few days before May 18, the date of her posting:

last Friday, Yediot Aharonot reported that at a recent lecture in Washington, US Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton, who is responsible for training Palestinian military forces in Jordan, indicated that if Israel does not surrender Judea and Samaria within two years, the Palestinian forces he and his fellow American officers are now training at a cost of more than $300 million could begin killing Israelis.

I could track Caroline's information down, but I will not, because I am here to learn and educate myself, and not to stir "one lined" polemics (thank you for the hint, Daniel and Jedburgh). Reading Jedburgh's link to General Dayton's speech was enough for me to decide to double my daily ration of salt grains .

All the above notwithstanding, I remind you all about the outcome of last weeks fatah's convention. That may be all due to internal politics, and the facts on the ground may also be as promising as General Dayton reports, but you will all agree that "them's fighting words", won't you?

[William F. Owen]

All the above notwithstanding, I remind you all about the outcome of last weeks fatah's convention. That may be all due to internal politics, and the facts on the ground may also be as promising as General Dayton reports, but you will all agree that "them's fighting words", won't you?

...and when will that not be the case? Palestinians and Arab regimes are always big on fiery rhetoric, which is why their actions are far more important than their words.
All the Palestinian politics is defined by their struggle. They can't give up the image that easily, without paving the way for the real lunatics and looking like "sell outs."

Something 95% of the "white folks" seem to completely miss (exceptions being the very few guys like Rex) is that creating two states is and almost always has been far from impossible. The basics of any near future agreement will look very like what was proposed to the Jordanians, as far back as 1971. The real problem is grounding the new Palestinian state in some form of internal political stability, so as it does not instantaneously become a failed state like Gaza actually is.

[jmm99]

or Ms Glick too much, but IPF ran Yediot Acharonoth's profile on LTG Dayton (the 22 May link in my prior post). The last paragraph in that quote from YA does read (which is a comment by the journalist, not LTG Dayton):

Israel can no longer continue to exist in a state of multiple personalities. Either it flows with the American policy that leads to a Palestinian state, or it ceases cooperation with Dayton. You can't have it both ways. This is the perfect example of lack of any planning on the part of the prime minister or those surrounding him. If you don't want to go with the American flow, and their regional policy is unsuited for you, why wait for the battalions to form into an army which will eventually turn its weapons against you?

It is entirely possible that other parts of the YA article (or a comment to it) contained the "Judea-Samaria 2-year" language as an expansion on this last sentence by the journalist.

My point was that I could not find language by LTG Dayton to that effect.

Glad to see you are in the middle.