The Mideast Peace Deal You Haven’t Heard About

Ted Belman
Israpundit
19 December 09

Netanyahu has agreed to terms of reference for future negotiations, that are enshrined in Clinton’s statement,

“an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.”

No surprise there. It was obvious when she made the statement right after Bibi agreed to the freeze. In fact the deal was done in the summer.

In addition Jerusalem is on the table and so is the refugee problem. So much for no preconditions.

When Rosen tells why no one can resist the peace jaugernaught, what he fails to mention is that it is only peace on Arab terms that it is concerned with. Peace is a euphemism for capitulation.

Even within the confines of these terms of reference, the differences between the parties are enormous. How can borders based on the ‘67 lines, even with mutually agreed swaps, be reconciled with “borders that…meet Israeli security requirements.” Look for a great deal of pressure on Bibi to capitulate.

by Steven J. Rosen, ForeignPolicy.com

For a year or two at an early stage in his career, I commuted to and from our adjacent offices each morning and evening with Martin Indyk, later a top peace-process official of the Clinton administration at the Camp David negotiations and now vice president for foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. I had just left the Rand Corporation to work at AIPAC, the main pro-Israel lobbying organization in Washington.

Even in those pre-Oslo days of 1982 to 1983, Martin was a True Believer in the idea of a grand land-for-peace bargain between Israel and moderate Palestinians. Reviewing each day the latest installments in the Middle East epic as we rolled down Rock Creek Parkway, we argued all the way. I heaped scorn on any solution that required Israel to trust Palestinian intentions, and I held that Israel’s security could only be based on a qualitative military edge and the balance of power. I told Martin that he and our mutual friends Dennis Ross, Aaron Miller, and Dan Kurtzer, though with the noblest of intentions, were pursuing an illusion.

(Read more…)

.