What the Palestinians and Arabs Think of Kerry's New Ideas
It is hard to see how Abbas would be able to retract his position now that the Arab League has also rejected Kerry's ideas. Kerry will now have to launch a new diplomatic campaign to convince the Arab League to change its position. And for the Arab countries to do that really would take a miracle.
The Palestinian Authority does not like U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's latest ideas for peace between the Palestinians and Israelis.
The Palestinians especially do not like Kerry's proposal that Israel maintain a military presence in the Jordan Valley if and when a Palestinian state is established next to Israel.
Kerry, however, does not seem to be impressed with the Palestinians' rejection of his ideas. He appears convinced that immense pressure on the Palestinians will eventually force them to succumb.
Palestinian Authority officials complained this week that Kerry is obviously not taking them seriously. "Although the Palestinian Authority leadership has turned down his ideas, Kerry continues to exert heavy pressure on us because he thinks he can impose his will on us," remarked a senior Palestinian official in Ramallah. "Of course, Kerry is living in an illusion if he thinks we would change our position."
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who briefed Arab foreign ministers in Cairo on December 21, repeated his opposition to Kerry's ideas. Before that, Abbas sent a letter to President Barack Obama expressing reservations about Kerry's proposals.
Abbas has even won the backing of the Arab League for his stance. So it is not only the Palestinians who are now saying no to Kerry, but the Arab countries too. "The U.S. proposals achieved Israeli expansionist demands, and guaranteed [Israel's] continued control of [the Jordan Valley] on the security pretext," said a statement released by the Arab League.
Arab League Secretary-General Nabil al-Araby said that not one Israeli soldier could stay in the West Bank.
The Arab League's position is a severe blow to Kerry's ongoing efforts to persuade the Palestinian Authority to accept his ideas. Having won the backing of the Arab countries, Abbas now feels more confident to say no to Kerry and his proposals.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry sits with PA President Mahmoud Abbas in Amman, Jordan, on June 28, 2013. (Image source: U.S. State Department)
When Kerry next returns to the region, Abbas will once again tell him that he doesn't accept his ideas, particularly in the wake of the Arab League's having also rejected them.
Abbas, however, seems to have a problem not only with the idea of maintaining an Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley.
A Palestinian official, who also said that Abbas had won backing from the Arab countries for his stance, revealed that Abbas continues to stick to his positions on a variety of issues pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- positions that openly contadict most of the Israeli and American demands.
The official summed up Abbas's position as follows:
- No to a demilitarized Palestinian state;
- No to recognizing Israel as a Jewish state;
- No to a solution that does not include all of east Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state;
- No to another interim agreement with Israel and, of course,
- No to the presence of any Israeli soldiers in the Jordan Valley.
The only two things that Abbas and the Arab League are prepared to accept is a timetable for an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines that does not exceed three years, and an exchange of land "equal in size and value" with Israel in cases where Israel retains any land beyond the pre-1967 lines.
Until recently, the Palestinian rejection of Kerry's ideas was expressed in a rather polite manner.
In the past few days, however, senior Palestinian Authority officials have begun launching a scathing attack on Kerry, with some accusing him of "endorsing" Israel's position on most issues related to the conflict with Israel.
PLO Secretary-General Yasser Abed Rabbo said that Kerry's proposals on security will lead to the "total failure" of the peace talks with Israel. Kerry's ideas, he added, have provoked a "real crisis." Abed Rabbo said that Kerry "only wants to win over the Israelis and [allow] settlement expansion at our expense."
In an interview with Voice of Palestine radio, Abed Rabbo continued his unprecedented criticism of both Kerry and his proposals. "Washington does not have the right to determine where our borders would be," he declared. "We won't allow Israel to slice off any parts of our land. If the Americans want, they can give Israel parts of California and Washington. This land belongs to the Palestinians."
The Arab League's rejection of Kerry's ideas not only complicates his efforts to achieve a deal between Palestinians and Israelis, but also ties Abbas's hands. It is hard to see how Abbas would be able to retract his position now that the Arab League has also rejected Kerry's ideas.
Kerry will now have to launch a new diplomatic campaign to convince the Arab League to change its position. And for the Arab countries to do that really would take a miracle.
Reader comments on this item
|What further confirmation is needed that there can never be peace? [61 words]||Gordon Ross||Dec 30, 2013 14:10|
|Middle East Policy [12 words]||Norm||Dec 28, 2013 09:28|
|↔ You have to want it "fixed" for it to be "fixed" [82 words]||Ann Stacy||Jan 2, 2014 06:34|
|Kerry's plans against Al Shari'iah [60 words]||Bart Benschop||Dec 27, 2013 21:27|
|Palestinians will not take yes for an answer [123 words]||Jossef||Dec 27, 2013 15:42|
|Who speaks for all Arabs? [75 words]||Shai||Dec 27, 2013 10:29|
Comment on this item
by Khaled Abu Toameh
The "Arab Spring" did not erupt as a result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Rather, it was the outcome of decades of tyranny and corruption in the Arab world. The Tunisians, Egyptians, Libyans and Yemenis who removed their dictators from power did not do so because of the lack of a "two-state solution." This is the last thing they had in mind.
The thousands of Muslims who are volunteering to join the Islamic State [IS] are not doing so because they are frustrated with the lack of progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
The only solution the Islamic State believes in is a Sunni Islamic Caliphate where the surviving non-Muslims who are not massacred would be subject to sharia law.
What Kerry perhaps does not know is that the Islamic State is not interested in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at all. Unlike Kerry, Sunni scholars fully understand that the Islamic State has more to do with Islam and terrorism than with any other conflict.
by Steven J. Rosen
Palestinian officials have generally been silent about security cooperation with Israel. They are loath to acknowledge how important it is for the survival of the Palestinian Authority [PA], and fear that critics, especially Hamas, will consider it "collaboration with the enemy."
"You smuggle weapons, explosives and cash to the West Bank, not for the fight with Israel, but for a coup against the Palestinian Authority. The Israeli intelligence chief visited me two weeks ago and told me about the [Hamas] group they arrested that was planning for a coup... We have a national unity government and you are thinking about a coup against me." — Mahmoud Abbas, PA President, to Khaled Mashaal, Hamas leader.
According to Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon, if the IDF leaves the West Bank, Hamas will take over, and other terrorists groups such as the Islamic Jihad, Al-Qaeda and Islamic State would operate there.
In recent months, Abbas has been making a series of threats against Israel. If Abbas becomes another Arafat, it could be the Israeli side that loses interest in security cooperation.
by Burak Bekdil
It was the Islamists who, since they came to power in the 2000s, have reaped the biggest political gains from the "Palestine-fetish."
But the Turkish rhetoric on "solidarity" with our Palestinian brothers often seems askew to how solidarity should be.
by Raheel Raza
One blogger writes that Malala hates Pakistan's military. I believe it is the other way around.
I would so like to see the day when Malala is welcomed back in Pakistan, with the whole country cheering.
by Francesco Sisci
Democratic evolution in China was being seriously considered. The failures of U.S. support for democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt and Libya gave new food for thought to those opposed to democracy. Lastly, the United States did not strongly oppose the anti-democratic coup d'état that overthrew a democratically elected government in Thailand.
On the other hand, Russia -- dominated by Vladimir Putin, a new autocrat determined to stifle democracy in Russia -- provided a new model.
The whole of Eastern Europe and most of Latin America, formerly in the clutches of dictatorships, are now efficient democracies. This seems to indicate that while democracy cannot be parachuted into a country, there is a broader, longer-term global trend toward democracy and that its growth depends on local conditions.
As economic development needed careful planning, political reforms need even greater planning. The question remains: is China preparing for these political reforms?