A credible peace plan, at last - By Caroline B. Glick - http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Column-One-A-credible-peace-plan-at-last-516997
Monday, The New York Times published the Palestinian response to an alleged Saudi peace plan. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman reportedly presented it to PLO chief and Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas last month.
According to the Times' report, Mohammed told Abbas he has two months to either accept the Saudi proposal or leave office to make way for a new Palestinian leader who will accept it.
The Palestinians and their European supporters are up in arms about the content of Mohammed's plan. It reportedly proposes the establishment of limited Palestinian sovereignty over small portions of Judea and Samaria. The Gaza Strip, over which the Palestinians have had full sovereignty since Israel pulled its military forces and civilians out in 2005, would be expanded into the northern Sinai, thus providing economic and territorial viability to the envisioned Palestinian state. While the Palestinians would not receive sovereignty over Jerusalem, they would be able to establish their capital in the Jerusalem suburb of Abu Dis.
There are several aspects of the alleged Saudi peace plan that are notable. First, the Palestinians and their many allies insist that it is a nonstarter. No Palestinian leader could ever accept the offer and survive in power, they told the Times. The same Palestinian leaders from Hamas and Fatah, and their allies, also noted that the Saudi plan as reported strongly resembles past Israeli proposals.
Another aspect of the report that is notable is that the Saudis did not acknowledge that Mohammed presented the plan to Abbas.
Unlike the situation in 2002 when Times columnist Thomas Friedman presented what he claimed was then Saudi king Abdullah's peace plan, the Saudi regime has not admitted that the characterization of their peace plan by the Times reflects their thinking.
It makes sense that the Palestinians and their Lebanese and European allies are upset at the alleged contents of the new Saudi plan. It is also reasonable that the Saudis are not willing today to publicly present the plan laid out in the Times.
The fact is that the alleged Saudi peace plan represents a radical break with the all the peace plans presented by the Arabs, the Europeans and the US for the past 40 years.
Unlike all of the previous plans, the contours of the plan reported by the Times guarantee that Israel will remain a strong, viable state in an era of peace with the Palestinians. All the previous plans required Israel to accept indefensible borders that would have invited aggression both from the Palestinians and from its Arab neighbors east of the Jordan River.
The purported Saudi plan is the first peace plan that foresees two viable states living in peace. All the other plans were based on transforming Israel into a non-viable state with a non-viable Palestinian state in its heartland.
While the Times report cites Western sources claiming that Egypt has rejected the prospect of merging Gaza with the northern Sinai under Palestinian sovereignty, there is no reason to assume that the option is dead. To the contrary, in the aftermath of last week's massacre of 305 Muslim worshipers in a mosque in the northern Sinai, it is arguably more relevant now than at any previous time.
The mosque massacre makes clear that the Egyptian regime is incapable of defeating the Islamic State (ISIS) insurgency in Sinai on its own. Egypt's incapacity is as much a function of economic priorities as military capabilities. With Egypt constantly on the brink of economic collapse and in need of constant support from the World Bank, the US and the Gulf States, it is hard to make the argument for preferring economic investment in Sinai to economic investment west of the Suez Canal. And in the absence of significant economic support for developing the Sinai, it is hard to see an end to the ISIS insurgency.
If the Europeans, Americans and Arab League member states chose to develop the northern Sinai for a Palestinian state with half the enthusiasm they have devoted to building a non-viable Palestinian state in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria that would render Israel indefensible and enfeebled, the Palestinians would have a viable, developed state in short order.
And the Egyptians in turn would have the international support they need both economically and militarily to defeat ISIS completely and to rebuild their national economy. Indeed, as advocates of the plan note, by yielding control over the northern Sinai to the Palestinians, and so enabling a viable Palestinian state to form, Egypt would become again the indisputable leader of the Arab world. With the good will of the Europeans and Americans, Sisi would secure Egypt's position indefinitely.
This then brings us to the third notable aspect of the purported Saudi plan. The backlash against the plan, like the backlash against Mohammed, has been furious. Abbas has reportedly been calling every international leader he can think of to oppose the deal. The Europeans reportedly also oppose it. French President Emmanuel Macron's adviser reportedly contacted the Americans to make clear that the French are not on board with the proposal.
And whereas the opposition to Mohammed's purported proposal has been largely behind the scenes, since Mohammed did not make it public, the Palestinians and their international supporters have been grabbing every available microphone to condemn US President Donald Trump's reported plan to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and perhaps begin taking concrete steps to move the US embassy to Jerusalem.
With or without a public announcement of his alleged peace plan, Mohammed has become a hated figure in wide circles of the foreign policy establishment in the West due to his trenchant opposition to Iran's rise as a hegemonic power in the region. The Times portrayed him as a serial bungler in its article about his alleged peace plan.
As Lee Smith revealed in a recent article in Tablet magazine, the voices leading the charge against Mohammed are the same ones that developed the media echo chamber in pursuit of then president Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran.
As Smith explained, the onslaught against Mohammed is "an information campaign designed to protect the pro-Iran policies of the Obama administration."
As these operatives see it, Smith argues, Obama's nuclear deal with Iran is the foundation of Obama's foreign policy legacy in the Middle East. "If Trump pulls the plug, then Obama's 'legacy' in the Middle East collapses."
Trump's visits to Israel and Saudi Arabia in May made clear that renewing US alliances with Saudi Arabia and Israel, and using them as a means to scale back Iranian power in the region, is in fact the central plank of his Middle East policy. Trump's subsequent moves in support of Mohammed and Israel have reinforced this conclusion.
And so the backlash against Mohammed by the likes of former US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro and Robert Malley, Obama's former adviser for the Middle East on his national security council makes sense. If they can discredit him, and pretend that an Iranian-controlled Lebanon and Syria are better than the alternatives, then they can force Trump to maintain faith with Obama's policies.
It's a hard sell though. Mohammed's peace plan is the first peace plan that has ever offered the Palestinians a chance at a real state. It's the first plan that ever envisioned a situation where the Palestinians have a state that doesn't imperil Israel. People who actually care about the Palestinians and Israel should welcome and support his position.
People who oppose it have to explain why they insist on remaining faithful to a peace paradigm that has brought only war and instability. Why do they prefer to retain Abbas's authoritarian regime over a non-sovereign kleptocracy in Judea and Samaria with a Hamas terrorist state in Gaza to an alternative without either? Why doesn't Abbas support it if his chief aspiration is the establishment of a viable Palestinian state and actually wants peace with Israel?
The New York Times article may or may not be an accurate portrayal of a real plan presented by the actual crown prince of Saudi Arabia. But if it isn't his plan, it should be. Or it should be Trump's plan.
Because it is the first peace plan anyone has ever put forward that makes sense. Not only does it secure the future of both Israel and the Palestinians, it enables Arab states like Saudi Arabia to work openly with Israel to defeat their joint Iranian enemy, while ensuring that Israel can survive and remain a credible ally to its Arab neighbors for decades to come.
Why It's Precisely the Right Time for Trump to Recognize Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel
Ahead of his expected recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital on Wednesday, US President Donald Trump has faced a virtual torrent of criticism.
He should pay the critics no heed. The move is not only morally the right thing to do, it's also a political masterstroke. Let me explain.
Generally, the critics can be divided into two categories.
The first group - among them the Ramallah-headquartered Palestinian Authority and Gaza Strip-ruling terror organization Hamas (along with various Arab and Muslim states, and even the US State Department) - has made the case against recognition as being vital to prevent the inevitable violence and outrage that will follow as a result.
But Arab blackmail doesn't feel like a compelling argument against implementing American law and doing what's right - certainly for the United States. In addition, neither of these entities has much of a track record in furthering the cause of peace.
The second group, who are generally supportive of the move, have questioned the timing - ahead of the expected unveiling of a White House peace initiative in the coming weeks.
The timing, however, appears to be very well considered. It's highly appropriate to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel at the outset of a peace push for the following reason:
When Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt, whom Trump has tasked with the Mideast peace brief, embarked on their "listening tour" soon after the president took office, they were advised by at least one regional actor that, in the words of Albert Einstein, one can't keep doing the same thing and expect different results. In many ways, it seems that this word of advice - frankly, a matter of common sense - has served as a guiding principle in the nascent peace efforts.
From what we have seen so far, the peacemaking team has sought to implement new approaches on at least four fronts.
Firstly, there's the "regional approach" concept, which was mentioned by both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump in their first White House meeting. The practical manifestation of this alignment between Israel and the Sunni Arab states has yet to be clearly presented, but remains a constant subject of peace discussions.
Second is the commitment to push the parties to the table without imposing a predetermined outcome. "We're trying to find a solution that comes from the region, not to impose," Kushner told attendees at the Saban Forum over the weekend.
Third, there's the focus on "bottom up" actions, seeking to build cooperation between the Palestinian and Israel people themselves by appealing to interests. This "economic peace" concept was behind the US-facilitated landmark water deal inked in July by Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is the administration's willingness to apply pressure on the Palestinian Authority. Whereas some past presidents have handled PA leaders with kid gloves, Trump has taken a far more forthright approach, bringing up prickly issues like PA payments to terrorists without thinking twice.
This is vital because, as has been very well documented, the greatest obstacle to progress in the region has been Palestinian intransigence. The Israelis have shown - perhaps mistakenly - an incredible capacity to offer painful concessions for the cause of peace, including land transfers, prisoner releases and dangerous security arrangements, often at great political risk. Time and again, these gestures were rebuffed, and the Palestinians were excused as being the weaker, aggrieved, more delicate party.
The Palestinians first introduced the Trump administration to their duplicitous strategies when PA President Mahmoud Abbas told Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in June that they were ending the terror payments, only to recommit themselves to the sponsorship shortly afterwards.
But now we have a White House that favors results over process, and understands that presenting the Palestinians with real, permanent and painful costs for their rejectionism may provide the best opportunity for progress. Both carrots and sticks are necessary, and the White House appears to be preparing one hell of a stick.
There's the ever present threat to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; the threat to shut down the PA office in DC; the specter of White House support for the Taylor Force Act, which will see significant cuts to US financial aid to the Palestinians; Trump's unwillingness to specify the two-state solution as the only solution to the conflict; and even the threat to withhold funds from international bodies that give the PA and the PLO full membership, which was circulated in the administration's early days. In addition, the Palestinians will not be quick to forget that it was a matter of months before they were even able to establish contact with Trump's team. They should not be taking that access for granted.
The Israelis have long been concerned - with due reason - that the Palestinians have never intended to pursue a genuine peace and that the peace process is seen as a tactic to secure more land from which to launch continued attacks on the Jewish state. Leaders of the PA have paid lip service to the peace initiatives over the years, but the statements in the PA's founding and guiding documents, its glorification of terrorists, the curriculum taught in its schools and its constant incitement on social media, among other things, have all long-told another story.
Here we have an administration that for the first time seems prepared to call the Palestinians' bluff. The recognition of Jerusalem at the onset of a peace initiative - and the lining up of further potential repercussions - shows the Palestinians and the international community just how serious the president is.
It's a thoroughly worthwhile and commendable move.
PLEASE VISIT MY WIFE'S WEBSITE. SHE RUNS "YOUNG LIVING" WHICH PROVIDES ALL NATURAL OILS THAT CAN BE USED INTERNALLY AND EXTERNALLY INCLUDING A DIFFUSER WHICH PUTS AN AMAZING ODOR IN THE AIR. THIS PRODUCT IS SO AMAZING AND KNOW THAT YOU WILL GET YEARS OF ENJOYMENT FROM IT. GO TO HTTP://WWW.YOUNGLIVING.ORG/CDROSES
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.